[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7136-H7143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4865, SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX 
                           RELIEF ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 564 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 564

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4865) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
     the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. All points of 
     order against the bill and against its consideration are 
     waived. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Pomeroy of 
     North Dakota or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley); 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is a structured rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 4865, the Social Security Benefits Tax 
Relief Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against the bill 
and against its consideration.
  The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as 
adopted. The rule provides for consideration of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, printed in the Committee on Rules report 
accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) or his designee, which shall be considered as read 
and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided by the 
proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House of 
Representatives to consider important bipartisan legislation to repeal 
a misguided tax on Social Security benefits. For most of the program's 
existence, Social Security has been exempt from Federal income tax. But 
in 1993, as part of the largest tax increase in American history, 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore proposed a tax increase on 
Social Security benefits. They claimed this tax would reduce the 
Federal budget deficit, at which time it was $255 billion.
  The controversial Clinton-Gore proposal was vigorously debated in 
this House of Representatives. Opponents of the plan argued that 
control of Federal spending, not tax increases, was a better way to 
reduce the budget deficit. At the end of the debate, the Clinton-Gore 
proposal was passed by a single vote in the Democrat-controlled House. 
Not one Republican voted for this proposal. In the Senate, Vice 
President Gore cast the deciding vote, enabling President Clinton to 
sign this tax increase on senior citizens into law.
  Despite passage of the Clinton-Gore tax increase, budget deficits 
continued, and the money collected from the Social Security tax 
increase funded even more government spending, with deficits 
increasing. In 1994, the Republican Party became the majority party for 
the House and the Senate for the first time in 50 years. The Republican 
Congress enacted much-needed tax relief, controlled government 
spending, and passed the first balanced budget in a generation.
  Tax cuts and fiscal responsibility, along with the hard work of the 
American people, have caused the Federal budget to become balanced 
faster than was forecast. This year, the Federal budget has a surplus 
of $233 billion. Even proponents of the 1993 Social Security tax 
increase should agree it is now time to repeal this tax on senior 
citizens. Proponents said it was necessary to cut the deficit, and now 
the deficit is gone.
  This Social Security tax is more than unnecessary, it is bad and 
unwise tax policy. It penalizes seniors who work and discourages 
Americans from saving. The tax is also unfair. It changes tax policy in 
the middle of the game, penalizing recipients who based past work and 
saving decisions on old law.

                              {time}  1200

  In essence, this tax on Social Security benefits tells Americans not 
to save because if they do they will have their benefits of Social 
Security taxed.

[[Page H7137]]

  I am troubled that our national savings rate is at an all-time low. 
In fact, private savings are actually a net negative at this time.
  It is clear to me that as long as we have a tax on Social Security 
and one that does not encourage savings and investment, we are going to 
have a problem with the national savings rate.
  Opponents will argue that this tax is for the rich. This is simply 
not the case. This tax affects seniors who make more than $25,000 if 
they are single or $32,000 if they are married. Mr. Speaker, that is 
not exactly the rich of America. It is called the middle class of 
America.
  Furthermore, these income levels are not indexed for inflation, 
meaning more and more lower-income people will be impacted by this tax 
every year.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 million 
beneficiaries are hit by this tax this year, and more than 17.5 million 
beneficiaries will be hit in 2010. The average tax this year is $1,180. 
It will grow to $1,359 in the year 2010.
  Opponents will also argue that repealing the Clinton-Gore tax 
increase on Social Security benefits will weaken Medicare. This is also 
not the case.
  The legislation requires that funds from general revenue will be 
transferred to offset to the penny the amount being generated by the 
Social Security tax, thus maintaining Medicare's current financing.
  Mr. Speaker, with passage of this underlying legislation, Congress 
says that Social Security recipients should not be penalized for 
retirement and savings through an IRA or a 401(k) plan or for taking a 
part-time job after retiring.
  The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) from the Committee on Ways 
and Means aptly stated to us in the Committee on Rules yesterday when 
he sought this rule, the only people that pay this tax are those who 
saved during their lifetimes or those who will be working.
  Clearly, this is unfair and must be changed.
  That is what this debate is about, and that is what this rule is 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that the 
House may consider this legislation to reduce the unwise tax on our 
senior citizens, the Social Security benefits tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my Republican 
colleagues for making the Pomeroy-Green-Capuano Democratic alternative 
in order. Because they make their amendment in order, this rule will 
enable us to choose between helping the very rich and everyone else.
  My Republican colleagues have a bill that pretends to help seniors 
but actually does nothing whatsoever for 80 percent of them. 
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it endangers Medicare.
  The average Social Security benefit is $804 per month for individuals 
and $1,348 for married couples. These people, as well as middle-income 
Social Security beneficiaries, will get nothing from this Republican 
bill.
  Instead this bill, like so many before, will cut taxes for the 
richest Americans. In this case it is the richest 20 percent of the 
Social Security beneficiaries.
  The Republican bill repeals part of the 1993 deficit reduction law 
that raises the threshold for taxation of benefits to 85 percent. The 
funds raised should go into the Medicare Trust Fund. But this 
Republican bill will not do that.
  My Republican colleagues criticize the Clinton administration for 
this 1993 deficit reduction measure. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
remind my colleagues that in 1983 it was none other than Ronald Reagan 
and George Bush who put this law into being, the previous threshold of 
taxing 50 percent of the benefits.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in addition to being unfair, repealing this 
provision is unwise. The revenues gained under current law are a 
dedicated source of revenue for a Medicare program. Over the next 10 
years, this provision will raise $117 billion for Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very risky at this time to jeopardize the future 
security of Medicare, particularly when the risk is taken just to make 
the rich a little bit richer.
  My colleagues may say that we will make up those lost revenues with 
money from the general fund. But, Mr. Speaker, I have been here long 
enough to know that today's surplus can very easily end up as 
tomorrow's deficit and that it is not worth taking the risk of leaving 
seniors without Medicare coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, American seniors want real legislation. American seniors 
want their Medicare safe, and they do not want the surplus squandered 
to fund Republican schemes to make the rich richer.
  I urge my colleagues to take a good look at this and support the 
Pomeroy-Green-Capuano substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my friend, the 
gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), for his superb statement 
in which he gave an account of the testimony that the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Archer) delivered before the Committee on Rules on the 
very important aspects of this measure.
  I would also like to compliment my dear friend, the gentleman from 
South Boston (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules, for the first sentence of his statement in which he 
congratulated us on making sure that the Democratic substitute was in 
order.
  The rest of his statement was baloney; but the first sentence was 
actually very good, and it should be congratulated.
  I would like to say that we are in the midst of doing some very, very 
important work here. We hear the President say, do not send another 
risky tax scheme bill or tax cutting binge, as John Podesta called it, 
they have all these great names for it, do not send all these bills 
that basically allow the American people to keep more of their hard-
earned dollars down to the White House because they will veto it.
  And we look at the litany of measures that the President has said 
that he was going to veto in the past, including that very important 
Education Flexibility Act and the Teacher Empowerment Act, which take 
power from Washington, D.C., and turn it back for decision-making at 
local school boards and in the State legislatures and local 
governments. The President was going to veto that; and, sure enough, he 
signed it.
  National missile defense is something that we regularly talk about, I 
am happy to say, in somewhat of a bipartisan way. The President was 
determined to veto that measure. He said he was absolutely going to 
veto it. And what did he do? He ended up signing it.
  Welfare reform. We all know that he twice vetoed it. And then a 
virtual identical bill he signed. We are just now seeing the tremendous 
accounts of those benefits based on the work of our colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), to the welfare reform that 
has been put into place. We have seen tremendous improvements all the 
way across the board.
  So these are measures which the President said he was going to veto 
and he signed them.
  Similarly, when he said, do not send another tax cutting bill down 
here because I am going to veto it, I think we have a responsibility to 
do our work. And this is one of those very, very important measures.
  Back in 1993, we saw the arguments made that the way that we could 
balance the budget would be to impose the largest tax increase in 
American history. I know my Democratic colleagues like to call this the 
balanced budget measure.
  The fact of the matter is it was the largest tax increase in American 
history, and it is a measure which did have not one single Republican 
vote in favor of it, neither the House nor the

[[Page H7138]]

Senate. They love to argue that. I am proud of the fact that I did not 
vote for that bill. And we call it the Gore tax because it was decided 
by a single vote in the other body and that was the vote that was cast 
by the Vice President, Al Gore, in favor of the increase.
  One of those very important aspects of that massive tax increase bill 
was the one that said to senior citizens that, if we do not repeal this 
measure over the next year, 8 million will be paying an additional 
$1,180 in taxes on their Social Security benefits. We saw this 
increased from 50 percent to 85 percent.
  I will tell my colleagues, as my friend, the gentleman from Dallas, 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), has said in recounting the statement of the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means before our Committee on 
Rules, do we not want to encourage people to plan for their retirement? 
Did we not, with only 24 Members, all Democrats voting against the 
measure but everyone else supporting it, pass a measure which said that 
we should increase from $2,000 to $5,000 the contributions to 
individual retirement accounts, expanded 401(k)s?
  These are the things we are trying to do to encourage people to plan 
for retirement. But what is it we do with the measure we have got here? 
We say to people they are rewarded if they do not plan for retirement; 
and they in fact are penalized if they do plan for retirement and have 
a little bit of success. That is what the Democratic substitute, which 
I happily made in order, will be considering.
  This argument that my friend, the gentleman from South Boston (Mr. 
Moakley), put out about jeopardizing Medicare and hospital insurance, 
the Hospital Insurance Fund is protected, and it is guaranteed to be 
solvent. The provisions that are in our measure are also in the 
Democratic substitute. So that really is a red herring that has been 
put out there.
  This is a responsible measure. It allows hard-working Americans who 
have been forced throughout their entire lifetime through no choice of 
their own to pay into the Social Security system to have a chance to 
keep some of their own hard-earned money. And we want to encourage 
people to save for their retirement.
  So we are doing the right thing. We have got a surplus. Why do we not 
do what they said they were going to do when they passed the massive 
tax increase, balance the budget?
  Now that we have done that, let us go ahead and repeal that tax. I 
suspect we are going to do it in a bipartisan way. Democrats and 
Republican alike are supportive of this. And at the end of the day, I 
hope very much that President Clinton will sign the measure.
  So I thank my friend for his very, very fine statement and his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
gentleman in yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we were listening to the selective memory of history, 
we would not have a surplus today to be dealing with if we had not had 
some very difficult budget cutting and tax increasing under both George 
``Read My Lips'' Bush and President Clinton. But those difficult 
decisions were made to try and put us in a position of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Now, under the Republican scheme of a tax cut du jour, we are slowly 
seeing this fiscal responsibility chipped away. The most recent one 
under the proposal before us today would cost $113 billion over the 
next 10 years from the Medicare Trust Fund, a trust fund that does not 
have adequate money to deal with it over time despite the fact we are 
going to double the number of senior citizens drawing upon it over the 
course of the next 30 years.
  These are the folks that passed a budget resolution that talks about 
budget austerity. And then we watch day after day, week after week as 
they ignore that budget resolution and move off into the ether fiscal 
land.
  But I am less concerned about individual cuts. I am happy to consider 
adjustments for people who need it in terms of cutting taxes, making 
budget adjustments. But my question is, when are we going to listen to 
the people who need help the most?
  We have heard about the so-called inheritance tax, the death tax 
chipping away. They make adjustments for 47,000 American families who 
are at the top end of the spectrum, but they refuse to have meaningful 
relief for the one-third of the senior citizens without prescription 
drug benefits who are now paying the highest prices in the world.
  If we are going to talk about people who are having their estates 
chipped away, let us talk about the 300,000 senior citizens who are now 
in nursing homes who are having their estates chipped away to deal with 
the $2,000 minimum.

                              {time}  1215

  If you want to help somebody, let us get our priorities straight, not 
have a continual series of proposals to help the people who are least 
in need and you continue to ignore those people who need help the most. 
I strongly urge that we redirect our priority, and before we do more 
tax cutting du jour for the most privileged, that we might do something 
for the people who need it the most.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As usual in this great body we have people who represent the tax 
collectors. We have just heard witness of the importance of being a tax 
collector and how the Federal Government has to have this money. We 
also have advocates like the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
who represent the taxpayer, the middle class of this country who pay 
the taxes who are trying to get back what is owed them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady), who represents the taxpayer 
also.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Texas for his leadership on this important issue.
  This is not very complex, Mr. Speaker. This is about certain 
principles. All the bills that we vote on here in Washington, it is not 
about Hollywood, it is not about white papers and policy positions. To 
my way of thinking, we are talking about real people and what type of 
signal we send them in everything we do here in Washington. This is 
legislation where again we send a signal to people.
  In Washington, we like to discourage people from doing the right 
thing. For some reason we have got a tax code that punishes people who 
do the right thing. People who go to school to get a job and a skill, 
those who marry, those who work hard, maybe invest some money for their 
own retirement, who put their money together perhaps and with their 
spouse work hard to have a small business, people who save for 
retirement who have a dream that someday their kids will go to college 
and they will get everyone settled in and they will have some time for 
themselves after all these years. Those are the people that we tax the 
highest and regulate the most. We discourage them from doing the right 
thing.
  My fear is that people are going to stop doing things that they are 
punished for. Young people are smart these days. They figure out that 
if government is going to take care of me, why should I go that extra 
mile? Why should I work hard? Why should I save? Why should I dream 
about a retirement? Because Uncle Sam is going to take care of me. We 
all know that is not the case anymore. We know that it always comes 
back to you and me and our actions. That determines our type of life.
  What we are doing here today is encouraging people to save. We are 
encouraging people to dream about their retirement and to save for it. 
And if they have invested at this point in their life and they are 
either elderly or they are widowed, they do not have the spouse that 
has been with them so long, or perhaps they are disabled, what we are 
saying here is we do not think it is right and we do not think it is 
fair to tax people because they have saved, because they have put money 
away, because maybe they started a small business or maybe they kept 
their family farm going.
  By the way, we are not taxing them to put that money back into Social 
Security. Absolutely not. We are diverting it for other uses, some of 
it to Medicare, most of it diverted to other uses up here.
  So you have got to ask, will there be an impact from this? Will there 
be a

[[Page H7139]]

cost from this repeal? Absolutely. We cannot afford more $900 hammers. 
Maybe we will not be able to afford the 450th different education 
program. Maybe we will have to have one less. Maybe we cannot have as 
many different agencies that all do exactly the same thing and do not 
talk to each other. There will be a cost to it because you have to do 
this responsibly.
  From my way of thinking, setting a priority on seniors, on the 
disabled, on widows, on survivors who have worked hard to do the right 
thing is the right thing to do for America.
  Just to make a point, people tell you that this is taxing and a 
repeal for the wealthy. Only in Washington are you wealthy if you make 
$30,000 or so a year. $30,000 does not go very far these days. You look 
at, especially seniors, a lot of them are raising their grandchildren 
these days. People start families earlier. It is not unusual to have 
them in college. Look at all the costs of living anymore. Only in 
Washington would we tell you that you are wealthy and rich if you have 
saved and make about $30,000 a year. That is wrong. We know in the real 
world that people need every help they can to make ends meet every 
month.
  This repeal is the right thing to do for America. It is right on 
principle and encourages the things that help build America and help 
all of us try to reach our dream in retirement.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The current speaker talked about $30,000 is not a lot of money. We 
know that. The Democratic alternative exempts a couple of $100,000 or 
less. We are raising it from $30,000 to $100,000.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green), coauthor of the amendment.
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and 
thank my colleagues on the Committee on Rules, both the Democrats and 
Republicans, for providing an opportunity to have an alternative to the 
Social Security tax cut. I have to admit, though, only in Washington-
speak would the 1993 tax be called the Clinton-Gore tax and yet the 
1983 tax that was 50 percent is not called the Reagan-Bush tax. Mr. 
Speaker, I think our folks are smart enough to understand that.
  The argument, our Committee on Ways and Means chairman said 
yesterday, at the Committee on Rules is so correct, the argument we 
have is, We have a surplus; let's provide some tax cuts. Now that we 
have that surplus, let's do that. Well, that is great. The problem is 
this bill does not do that.
  What this bill does is it takes the money out of the Medicare trust 
fund and it says, over the next year, we will try to put it back in, 
but each Congress is going to make that decision. That is why the 
substitute is the best way to go.
  There are a number of reasons for that. The Republican bill is 
financially irresponsible. It takes money away from the Medicare trust 
fund, and it does not give any assurances that that money that it takes 
out will be put back. The Democratic substitute we have is more cost 
effective. It costs about $46 billion less than the Republican bill; 
but what it does is actually, as my ranking member on the Committee on 
Rules said, it raises the amount from $30,000 to $80,000 for 
individuals and from $44,000 to $100,000 for couples. We are taking 
away those low tax brackets for seniors and that is great. But my 
Republican colleagues never talk about the 50 percent that they are 
still going to be paying.
  The Democratic substitute is more responsible. It provides a targeted 
tax cut to those who need it most, and it does not bust the Federal 
budget like a lot of their tax cuts do. It is a financially responsible 
middle ground.
  The so-called surplus mentioned by the Republicans is based on 
current law, not the billions that we have seen pass this House over 
the last number of months. My concern is that this year's surplus is 
already spent with the current Republican spending rates. The 
Democratic substitute protects Social Security and Medicare. It does 
not pretend to give seniors one thing out of one pocket and take it 
away from them in the other.
  We prohibit the use of the Social Security trust surplus for this tax 
cut. So oftentimes in Washington we do that. We use Social Security 
money to pay for lots of things, including tax cuts. The other thing it 
does is it makes sure that that money will go to Medicare. It will go 
to the Medicare trust fund.
  I want a tax cut. All of us want a tax cut. But let us not punish the 
seniors who depend on Medicare. I have to admit to my colleague from 
Texas, I do not represent any tax collectors. He probably represents 
more IRS employees than I do. He has a higher income district. I 
represent lots of taxpayers, but there are also a lot of people who 
depend on Medicare to make sure they can survive.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For the record I would like to point out to the gentleman, my friend 
from Texas, that the report that the Committee on Ways and Means worked 
off of, a report that the Committee on Rules relied upon, and I would 
like to read from that in a letter that came directly to Chairman 
Archer from the Congressional Budget Office. It says: ``Under current 
law, the revenues affected by the bill are credited to Medicare's 
hospital insurance trust fund. The bill would maintain those 
intergovernmental transfers which would have no net effect on the 
budget.''
  The gentleman from Texas implied that there would be a problem where 
we would not fully fund the programs. The money will be taken directly 
out of general revenues. This is a projection that will go until 2024. 
As the speaker is well aware, this Republican Congress has passed a law 
in our budget which would do away with the debt of this country, we are 
going to pay down the debt by the year 2012.
  We believe that this is a responsible way to address the problems of 
this country. We simply do not believe that people who are senior 
citizens should have to wait 20 more years until they have an 
opportunity to receive this opportunity to put more money in their 
pockets. We believe in what we are doing. This is a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill before us today 
and in strong support of the substitute being offered on our side. Mr. 
Speaker, here we are in Washington in the middle of July, but one would 
think with the legislation before us that it is the middle of the 
winter because we have been hit with a veritable blizzard of large tax-
cutting measures, the closer we get to election day. My constituents in 
western Wisconsin, honestly know a snowjob when they see it. 
Unfortunately, I think this is just another of a series of election-
year politics, playing politics with future budget surpluses, because 
that is what this debate is really about, what is the best priority use 
of future budget surpluses if, in fact, they do materialize.
  There is a clear difference between the two parties on this. I came 
to Washington, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of concern in regards to the 
$5.7 trillion national debt. I am the father of two little boys who are 
just 4 and 2, and I refuse to support policies that are going to make 
it more difficult for us to eliminate this legacy of debt that we are 
due to pass on to future generations unless we have the courage to 
resist large tax cuts now and use the money for debt reduction and 
shoring up Social Security and Medicare.
  The series of tax cuts when you put them all together would virtually 
consume every last cent of projected budget surpluses if in fact they 
materialize at all. There is no guarantee that they will. But let us 
talk for a minute about the policy implications of these series of tax 
cuts, and who better to listen from than the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve Board, Chairman Greenspan. This is basic Macroeconomics 101. He 
has been telling us consistently in his testimony, large tax cuts now 
are bad economic policy because it will overstimulate the economy and 
force the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates to slow the 
economy down. That would be detrimental to all citizens

[[Page H7140]]

who need to make home, car, credit card, student loan or other 
payments. It will also make it more worthy to invest in new capital and 
create more jobs.
  Here are just a couple of statements that Chairman Greenspan said: 
``Saving the surpluses if politically feasible is in my judgment the 
most important fiscal measure we can take at this time to foster 
continued improvements in productivity.''
  Another one: ``We probably would be better off holding off on a tax 
cut immediately, largely because it is apparent that the surpluses are 
doing a great deal of good to the economy.''
  Perhaps most importantly, Chairman Greenspan said this: ``Lawmakers 
are counting on unpredictable economic trends to continue producing the 
budget surpluses they need to pay for their tax cuts. The long-term 
forecasts are often inaccurate and lead to vast errors in predicting 
budget deficits and surpluses. You should not commit contingent 
potential resources to irreversible uses.''
  That is exactly what we are doing in these series of tax cuts when 
you look at them all together. Go slow. We can provide modest tax 
relief for families who need it but we need to do it in a fiscally 
responsible way. Let us not bank our future on projected surpluses that 
may never materialize.
  Let me be clear: the House leadership has embarked on a series of tax 
cuts that will obliterate a surplus that is the hard-won product of 
nearly 8 years of fiscal discipline.
  Taken all the tax cuts offered in this session, over two trillion 
dollars, they will consume virtually the entire projected budget 
surplus in the next 10 years and then explode in the second 10 years. 
Now is not the time to abandon responsible budgeting by spending money 
before it even comes in the door.
  Further, this bill will leave fewer resources for other priorities 
within the Medicare Program, including extending the solvency of the 
Medicare trust fund, creating a Medicare prescription drug coverage 
benefit, investing in education, and providing relief to rural 
hospitals and other health care providers.
  I support the substitute to H.R. 4865. This substitute is fiscally 
responsible and will provide tax relief for middle income seniors who 
need the most assistance. Rather than eliminating the tax for all 
seniors, this proposal sustains the tax on Social Security benefits for 
individuals who earn more than $80,000 and for couples earning more 
than $100,000, roughly 95 percent of all seniors are covered under the 
alternative. Furthermore, this substitute will only go into effect 
those years in which there is enough of an on-budget surplus to replace 
lost revenues.
  I have always felt that if projected budget surpluses do in fact 
materialize, we have a number of existing obligations that we must 
meet, such as paying off our $5.7 trillion national debt, shoring up 
Social Security and modernizing Medicare with a prescription drug 
benefit and investing in education. These should be our top national 
priorities before we pass large tax cuts that will benefit the most 
wealthy and consume the entire projected budget surplus that may or may 
not materialize.
  If those commitments are given their due priority, then fiscally 
responsible tax relief can be provided to those struggling families 
trying to make ends meet. We must not enact risky tax cuts today that 
will result in harming our seniors and our children tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this final bill. 
America's seniors are depending on us to balance the needs for tax 
relief with the need for Medicare solvency. We can do both in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise first of all to thank the Committee 
on Rules for making the Democratic substitute in order. I appreciate 
their ability and their willingness to at least let us have a moment of 
time. I guess I want to just talk about a couple of things. First of 
all, I would like to point out what I think are the two most important 
differences between the substitute and the main bill. Certainly it is a 
matter of priorities. We do believe that if tax cuts are going to go 
in, they should go to those who need it the most.
  I do not think anyone can argue that people making over $100,000, of 
which every Member of this House is one, including myself, that anyone 
can argue that that is anything other than well off and that they do 
not need the extra help.

                              {time}  1230

  That is number one; that is a philosophical issue. But I understand 
people can disagree on that.
  The second one that they cannot disagree on that has been called a 
red herring but it certainly is not, the difference between the 
Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal is that under current 
law and what we want to keep are the monies going to Medicare from this 
tax are from a dedicated revenue stream.
  Under the proposal as before us, without the substitute, it is simply 
a political promise, that we promise we will keep doing this.
  Well, I hate to say it, but I do not think most Americans trust us 
all that much, and I for one, would like to make sure that my mother, 
my wife and my children do not have to rely on the promises of future 
politicians. I want to make sure that they can rely on a dedicated 
revenue stream to make sure that Medicare is sound and healthy for the 
future. That is the main difference.
  The other thing I want to point out, as boldly as I can, and I know 
it has been mentioned by many people before, but this proposal, neither 
the Democrat nor the Republican proposal touches line 20(b) on the IRS 
tax form. Line 20(b) will be there today and will be there tomorrow 
regardless of what passes, regardless of what the President does, 
because this proposal does not touch the 1983 law that started taxing 
Social Security that was passed with 97 Members of a Republican team in 
favor. Many of those 97 Members are still here today. They voted for 
that 1983 proposal.
  Under today's rules, we should have taken the whole thing, scrapped 
it, had an honest discussion of what we can afford in tax cuts, 
targeted those tax cuts who could use it and simplify the entire form. 
We did not do that. We took a simple political approach to simply say 
cut taxes, which we are not doing, every senior citizen who is 
currently taxed under the law that is being proposed to be repealed 
today will be paying taxes next year, regardless of what the vote is 
here today.
  Line 20(b) will still be there. They will have a few less dollars 
being taxed, but they will still have to go through the worksheet on 
page 25 of their instruction booklet, which is complicated as heck, and 
I challenge anyone here to try to walk through that worksheet, not even 
part of the form, it is a worksheet, try to do it without professional 
tax help.
  That is why I rise today for the Democratic proposal, and that is why 
I repeat myself again. I thank the Committee on Rules for giving this a 
chance.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley), the ranking member, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Yesterday, myself and 
three other Members of Congress, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
Emerson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), all proposed an amendment to this 
bill. If we are going to spend money, if we are going to reduce taxes, 
we ought to put in a repair for the notch babies. Those are the 
individuals in our society that are going to be forgotten. If this bill 
is passed today in its present context, the money that would be there 
to fix the notch-baby problem will be gone forever.
  I hear my friends on each side talking about whether we are going to 
give a tax cut to people making millions of dollars in retirement or we 
are going to reduce it and put a cap on it. I say we have got 3\1/2\ 
million Americans that are 74 years of age to 84 years of age, more 
than 90 percent of them never meet the beginning cap of taxation. These 
individuals have been denied more than a thousand dollars a year for 
many years. If we pass this legislation today, the surplus that 
everybody talks about, and which has been spent for 2 months in double 
time so it is questionable whether any surplus is there at all, will be 
gone. The potential fix of the notch-baby problem will be, as a former 
commissioner of Social Security, as someone in the Reagan 
administration told me and Members of Congress when we met with them, 
fixed by attrition. We are going to wait until they die, and we will 
not have to fix it.

[[Page H7141]]

  The message of this Republican Congress to those notch babies should 
be clear, they will not and do not intend to fix the notch-baby 
problem. Therefore, those 3\1/2\ million Americans that are 74 years of 
age to 84 years of age, all of which need this money, have been denied 
this money for 20 years, will now lose it. And the problem will be 
solved by attrition until they die.
  Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. It is political, and I urge all my 
colleagues to vote against the rule and against the proposition to be 
cutting taxes before we fix fundamental problems with Social Security 
and Medicare.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as usual, we have a disagreement in Washington, the 
people who caused the debt and the deficit of this country are now 
trying to cover their holes that they have left in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to convince the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) what the truth is about the notch. We all 
hear about it all every time we do town hall meetings, and we hear 
about it just after some organization in this town that is raising 
money that sends letters to everyone born between the years of 1917 and 
1921 is saying you are being deprived of your due benefit, if you will 
send me $10, I will fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 7\1/2\ years and not one of those 
organizations has appealed to me to fix it. So I decided to find out 
what it really was. In 1972, Wilbur Mills is running for President, and 
he promised to increase the benefits on Social Security by 20 percent. 
His presidency went down in the Tidal Basin, and Nixon picked it up and 
he promised it, and they had a huge adjustment in 1972.
  They started with people born in 1910 because they were 62 years old 
and eligible that year for the benefit. In 1977, they discovered they 
made a huge mistake. They made a calculation error that was going to 
bankrupt Social Security, and they had to crank it back to an honest 
formula.
  They decided to leave people born between the ages of 1910 and 1916 
alone, and those born from 1917 to 1921, 5 years, 1917, 1918, 1919, 
1920, 1921, were rolled back a little bit each year for 5 years until 
they got fairly close to what should have been the right formula, and 
then they were on the cost-of-living adjustments, the COLAS, for 
thereafter.
  The fact is, that group of people called the notch babies, my mother 
is one, get a higher benefit, compared to what they paid in under the 
formula, than those born after them, it is not that they get less. It 
is that they get more, but they do not get as much as the error made 
for those born between the ages of 1910 and 1916.
  It was a bank error in their favor, and they kept the cash. So any 
time you hear somebody stand up and talk about the notch babies, 
understand one thing, that a fund-raising operation in Washington, D.C. 
looking for high salaries for its managers has just sent out a scary 
letter to those born in those areas and looking for money to pay their 
salaries, never do they come to us, never has one single person come to 
our office and said help us fix the notch.
  It does not exist, and the demagoguery we just heard on this issue is 
an example of scariness.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting listening to the 
debate, the speech and debate clause of the Constitution has been 
stretched to its limit this morning. But let me just say something, it 
is definitive that people born between 1917 and 1926 receive less money 
than those who were born between 1911 and 1916, and it can be over $200 
less.
  We are talking about people who are between 74 years of age and 84 
years of age. We are talking about people who fought World War II. They 
are the people that are struggling today to decide whether they are 
going to be able to buy their medication. They are cutting their pills 
in half. We have been fighting to give them a serious Medicare drug 
benefit, all we are saying is let us have a hearing on this matter.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) had an opinion on the matter, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my predecessor, and some other 
Republicans had a different opinion. Let us have a discussion on it. 
The reality is whether or not there is a notch, whether we need to 
repair the notch, let us let those people between 74 and 84 know who 
stands with them and who stands against them, so when they go to the 
polls, they know who they are going to vote to.
  They know whether or not someone wants to fix something that has been 
done or not. Let us talk about the people who are in the notch. Let 
them know who is for them and who is not. This rule does not allow that 
to occur.
  Let us talk about historical revisionism. I remember driving in my 
car when I heard Ronald Reagan make a comment that he was going to 
decrease taxes; he was going to increase defense spending; and he was 
going to balance the budget. We all know what happened. In fact, he did 
decrease taxes. He did increase defense spending. And we went $1 
trillion in debt to $5 trillion in debt.
  Through the entire history of our Nation, from the American 
revolution, through two World Wars, through a great Depression, through 
Vietnam, through the Civil War, we had $1 trillion in public debt. And 
after 12 years of Bush and Reagan, we had that quadrupled.
  They are talking about going back to those times today. This is it, a 
bad bill. It is a bad rule, and the Members should vote against it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), my friend, for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I must admit I came to the floor partly because I was 
confused by the debate. This is eliminating a tax on people who receive 
Social Security. That is what this is about. This tax was not on the 
books before 1993. It is not a tax that people used to pay. It is 
eliminating a tax for people who draw Social Security.
  I came to the floor, as soon as I got here, I heard that the surplus 
was gone. The deficit in 1995 was $200 billion. The surplus, using 
those same bookkeeping rules, that we have even moved beyond those 
rules and do not use those rules any more, is about $250 billion, that 
is a $500 billion, half a trillion dollar turnaround. We need to 
rectify these unfair things that have been added to the Tax Code.
  We do not need to take this as an excuse to come up with new 
government programs. We need to figure out how to do our business, the 
business of government, with the least tax dollars possible. And we 
certainly do not need to take those tax dollars from people who are 
drawing Social Security, from people, who, until 1993, did not pay this 
tax, a tax that is now paid by 10 million Americans, over the next 
decade that number will grow to 17\1/2\ million Americans who receive 
Social Security will pay this tax that we could eliminate today.
  We could begin the process today in the House by eliminating this 
tax. This is a ticking time bomb. We hear our friends talk about the 
fact that this tax is only paid by the wealthy. Wealthy, or if you are 
retired, I guess if you make more than $34,000, you are wealthy and 
that should be penalized, if you have worked your lifetime, if you have 
saved money, if you have worked for a pension, and if you make more 
than $34,000, we are wealthy and should be taxed, if you accept that 
logic.
  People who worked for that pension, who saved that money, who draw 
Social Security should not be hit with this tax. This is not an amount 
of money that is adjusted to inflation, and so each year more and more 
people are hit by a number that has less and less buying power. We can 
solve this problem today. We can help seniors on fixed incomes who 
managed to have a decent income, who would not have paid this tax 
before 1993, in a way that they do not pay this tax in the future.
  I support the rule. I support the bill. I am for a long-term 
discussion of the

[[Page H7142]]

problems that relate to Social Security. We can solve those, but let us 
not solve them by saying that that should be paid for by people on 
Social Security paying a tax that is extreme and unfair.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of reference today to 
the Clinton budget act in 1993. It was preceded by the Bush budget 
summit in 1990. On that occasion, when that budget summit agreement, 
which laid the first level of foundation for the successes we have now 
seen in the budget, in 1990, when it first came to the floor, only 47 
Republicans voted for it, even though their President was a signatory 
to it and helped negotiate it.

                              {time}  1245

  Three years later, because of recession, the deficit had not gone 
down. It was $290 billion, a record high, and headed up on September 
30, 1992. That was the level of the deficit when Bill Clinton came to 
office on January 20, 1993. On his desk lay an economic report to the 
President, George Bush, that said over the next 5 years the deficit 
would hover in that range and exceed $300 billion by 1998.
  Well, we got to 1998 and got to 2000, and we did not have those 
horrendous deficits; and there is a reason, because in 1993 we came 
over here and stepped up to the problem. There was some features to the 
package that we passed in 1993 I did not like, they were unpopular to 
vote for; but, nevertheless, they account for the fact that we now do 
not have huge deficits, but we have enormous surpluses. Indeed, CBO 
last reported that we could expect a surplus this year of $219 billion, 
a swing from $290 billion in deficit, in the red in 1992, to $219 
billion this September 30. That is nothing short of phenomenal.
  One of the reasons we are out here today to oppose this particular 
provision, though I will vote to raise the level of the threshold at 
which this tax is applicable, we are out here to oppose it because we 
do not want to see our hard-won successes, this huge phenomenal 
turnaround, obliterated, blown away because nobody is keeping tabs on 
the budget, because we really do not have, for all practical purposes, 
a budget.
  We have got a table right here that the Committee on the Budget has 
made up of where we stand at this point in time; and let me walk you 
through it, because this ought to be the backdrop for today's debate. 
This is what really concerns us. This is why we are out here in the 
well of the House taking an unpopular stand for something that is 
right.
  CBO last said in July that the surplus over the next 10 years would 
be $2.173 trillion. Both sides have agreed that the surplus that 
accumulates in the Medicaid-HI trust fund over that period of time 
ought to be backed out and treated separately, just as Social Security 
is. When you deduct that $361 billion, you are down to a surplus of 
about $1.8 trillion.
  The tax cuts passed thus far, including the one on the floor today, 
come to a total of $739 billion over 10 years, revenues that will be 
deducted from the surplus, if indeed they are passed. That is just this 
year, tax cuts passed by this House this year, $739 billion, including 
the tax cut today.
  Future tax cuts that we can say with certainty will be enacted at one 
time or another, if not this year. One is the AMT, the alternative 
minimum tax. We all know that it is drawn in such a way, passed in 
1986, that the income threshold is not indexed. Consequently, in the 
future years, in the very near future, more and more middle-income 
families for whom this tax was never intended are going to be hit by 
the AMT, and we will respond. We will change the AMT. So we have taken 
the AMT correction that you had, the Republicans had in their tax bill 
last year.
  We have also factored in tax provisions in the code, concessions, 
deductions, credits, preferences, that we know are very popular. They 
have a short time frame, they are not permanent, and we are assuming 
that they will be renewed in the future, as they always have been in 
the past. That is $183 billion of known tax increases in the very near 
future. That is the tax cut activity, $900 billion that you can easily 
account for that comes off that surplus of $1.8 trillion.
  Look what we have done in spending. If you just take appropriations, 
considering the fact we have not put a new ceiling on appropriations in 
any of our budgets, and assume that discretionary spending will 
increase at a half percent above the rate of inflation, which is a lot 
less than it has increased in the last 3 years or since 1995, just a 
half percent, that is $284 billion.
  If you assume the mandatory spending increases that have been passed 
to date, excluding prescription drugs, will become law, that is $54 
billion, already passed by this House. If we take the Republican 
prescription drug bill, their bill, which I do not think you would 
recant now, CBO's cost estimate of it over 10 years is $159 billion. If 
we assume that there will be additional farm assistance in the future, 
as there has been in the past, over the next 10 years I think most 
people on the Committee on Agriculture would say $65 billion for likely 
increases and farm protection, given the situation in the farm 
community, is modest.
  Finally, if you put in the Medicare provider restorations, 
corrections to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for providers, 
hospitals, doctors, who are saying they have been cut to the bone by 
this bill, both sides are now supporting restoration, that is $40 
billion. If you adjust that service $376 billion, guess what? You come 
to a total of $2.261 trillion. That means you are $88 billion in 
deficit.
  That is what I have come to the well of the House to do today, to 
take away the punch bowl. Everybody got excited by this big surplus. 
The party is over. We are already in deficit if we pass this bill. That 
is the warning I am issuing right now.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) to close debate on our side.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored that the ranking member is allowing me to 
close on behalf of the minority, and I am honored to follow the 
comments of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt), who has laid out in detail why we believe the plans, the 
spending and tax plans of the majority, have already placed this into a 
deficit situation before 10 years are up, take the country's largest 
surplus ever and put us back into a deficit situation.
  That has direct bearing on the issue before us, because under the 
majority's proposed bill to be considered today, general fund transfers 
are required to keep the Medicare Trust Fund whole.
  What if there are no general fund revenues left? This chart 
summarizes the detailed information the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) just covered. As it makes clear, there is a significant 
question whether general fund revenues will be available; and if they 
are not available, the Medicare Trust Fund takes a hit.
  The substitute offered by the minority in the upcoming debate ensures 
that the Medicare Trust Fund will be made whole, will be held harmless, 
by requiring an advance certification before that tax cut takes effect 
in any given year that there are ample revenues to go into the Medicare 
Trust Fund to compensate for the revenues lost with the tax reduction.
  It is absolutely critical, I think we can all agree, with Medicare 
already slated for solvency trouble, not to make that problem worse. 
The plan by the majority jeopardizes the Medicare Trust Fund. The 
Democrat substitute preserves the trust fund by requiring the advance 
certification, so vitally important to make sure we maintain solvency.
  The Democrat substitute, and I am grateful for the Committee on Rules 
making it in order, also provides tax relief for 95 percent of the 
people. As cosponsor of the substitute, in conjunction with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano), we have advanced what we believe is a much better way to 
go as we look at this Social Security tax issue.
  Under our bill, we would safeguard the Medicare Trust Fund, as I have 
just

[[Page H7143]]

mentioned, but provide very meaningful tax relief. Under our bill, 
income for taxation of the Social Security check would be reduced from 
85 to 50 percent to households earning up to $100,000 and individuals 
earning up to $80,000. That means someone on Social Security has their 
Social Security check and an additional $80,000 for an individual, 
$100,000 for a couple.
  One-third of all people on Social Security today live on their Social 
Security check. Two-thirds have the Social Security check for most of 
their income. We are talking about the most affluent 5 percent, the 
only group that would be excluded from the tax cut offered by the 
minority.
  Now, some might say, why do you not give it to everybody? After all, 
the most affluent need the break too. We do not think they need the 
break as badly as we need to apply these revenues in other areas, and 
we save by our approach, by capping it at the $100,000 per household, 
we save $40 billion over a 10-year period of time. Just think what you 
can do to enhance prescription drugs for seniors with $40 billion.
  So it is a matter of who needs these resources first, the very most 
affluent households, as advanced by the majority, or those other 
households that cannot afford their prescription drug medicine that 
might benefit from reallocation of those dollars in that area.
  So basically that is the choice between the two approaches. The 
majority approach offers tax relief; the minority approach offers tax 
relief. The majority approach fails to protect the Medicare Trust Fund; 
the minority approach protects the Medicare Trust Fund. The majority 
passes on a significant tax break to the most affluent households in 
this country; the minority substitute advances meaningful tax relief 
for 95 percent of the Social Security recipients in this country, 
leaving only those households earning $100,000 or more in outside 
income to continue to have 85 percent of their Social Security income 
considered for taxation.
  All in all, as you look at the issue, I think you will have to 
conclude that there are two ways to approach tax relief in this area, 
and the Democrat approach, with its protection for the trust fund, with 
its granting of tax relief to all but the most affluent 5 percent in 
this country, with the preservation of the $40 billion saved thereby 
for application on critical priorities like Medicare prescription drug 
coverage, the Democrat substitute is the better way to go.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close on behalf of the Republican Party today 
and thank my colleagues for their vigorous debate on behalf of an issue 
that is important to seniors in our country.
  I am always amazed to see that the party that put the tax on people, 
on senior citizens of this country, is now trying to defend that tax 
and say, well, they have to make sure that they have this money so that 
we do not go into deficit spending.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there will be two bills that 
will be voted on today: one which is the substitute which was described 
by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), which is an 
opportunity to have every single Member of this House of 
Representatives vote today.
  Then there will be a second bill, the real bill, the one that does 
the right thing, the one that is the very same or similar that was just 
passed in the Senate, where Senator Feinstein, Senator Conrad, Senator 
Dorgan, and Senator Johnson all voted this last week on the Republican 
plan, a plan that does the real thing, the plan that says that the 
average tax of $1,180 that is paid this year, that is going to grow to 
$1,359 for the average senior citizen in the year 2010, is simply 
wrong.
  We believe it is wrong for people to be taxed at an 85 percent rate 
for income above $34,000 for senior citizens and $44,000 for couples. 
We believe that the real bill that will be on the floor today that will 
pass will be the Republican plan, which is the one that says we do not 
believe that the burden should be placed on the senior citizens of our 
country.
  We do not believe, as Republicans, that Social Security should be 
taxed at all. Of course we are different. The difference between the 
Republican Party and the Democrat Party can once again be seen today. 
One side is for the taxing of senior citizens, the other is we want to 
do away with taxes on Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Republican Party. I am proud of the 
differences we offer for senior citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule. I urge 
my colleagues to weigh and consider the two bills before us, and I urge 
support of the Republican bill.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 4865, 
the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act. This bill repeals the 
unfair and punitive tax increase on America's Social Security 
recipients. This tax increase was included in the Clinton/Gore 1993 
Budget Bill, a bill I am happy to say did not receive a single 
Republican vote in either the House or Senate.
  The federal government this year is expected to run a $233 billion 
surplus. There is absolutely no reason to continue punishing our senior 
citizens by confiscating their hard earned Social Security benefits.
  The 1993 tax increase raised the portion of Social Security benefits 
subject to income tax from 50 percent to 85 percent for millions of 
American retirees.
  Taxing any portion of Social Security benefits is unfair and immoral. 
Taxpayers not only pay Social Security taxes from their wages but also 
are obligated to count as income for tax purposes the wages they never 
see that have been paid into Social Security. In other words, their 
wages earned over lifetime and paid into Social Security are taxed 
twice. This is unconscionable.
  The other side is going to tell you that this proposal will destroy 
the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. It is true that these taxes are directed to the 
Medicare Part A Trust Fund. However, this bill will transfer funds from 
the general fund to the trust fund to make up for any shortfall from 
repealing this onerous tax.
  Mr. Speaker, let's repeal this unfair tax. It never should have been 
instituted and its demise is long overdue.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair advises 
that Members should avoid personal references to Members of the Senate, 
other than as sponsors of measures.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________