[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2204-H2223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H2204]]
       ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 142 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 142

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1836) to provide for 
     reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
     offered by Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate 
     transmitting H.R. 1836 with Senate amendments thereto, it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House a motion offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his 
     designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendments and 
     request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 142 is a modified closed 
rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1836, a bill to provide 
for reconciliation instructions for legislation already approved by 
this body.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. The rule also 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 New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be 
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally 
divided and controlled between a proponent and an opponent.
  Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and provides for one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  The rule provides that upon receipt of a message from the Senate 
transmitting H.R. 1836 with Senate amendments thereto, it shall be in 
order to consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means or his designee and that the House disagree 
to the Senate amendments and request or agree to a conference with the 
Senate thereon.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in strong support of this rule, and its 
underlying bill, H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001. This bill provides immediate relief to 
taxpayers by reducing the present-law structure of five income tax 
rates to four by 2006. This is a fair rule that allows for a minority 
substitute.
  Economist and author James Dale Davidson had the following to say 
about taxes in America: ``The politicians do not just want your money. 
They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you 
are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you 
get more of both.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think that is what Americans think of 
us. Today we have the opportunity, and frankly the obligation, to give 
money back to its rightful owners. Let us not waste another minute.
  I realize that this tax cut plan has its share of critics. They say 
things like, ``It is not fair. We cannot afford it. It favors the 
rich.'' Or, ``The Federal Government will collapse.'' Spare me.
  Mr. Speaker, let us consider those arguments for just a moment. To 
those who say the President's tax cut plan is not fair, I ask, Is not 
fair to whom? Anyone who pays taxes will get a tax break, period. And 
the lowest income families receive the largest percentage reduction. 
What is not fair about that?
  There are others who say the President's tax cut plan favors the 
wealthy. In my congressional district, a family of four with a single 
wage earner earning the area's median family income will currently pay 
a little more than $1,400 in Federal income taxes. Under President 
Bush's plan, that family would pay no Federal income tax, not a penny.
  Mr. Speaker, still others say the Nation cannot afford a tax cut. 
With each projection, the budget surplus continues to grow. The 
President has offered a budget which funds education at record levels, 
protects and strengthens Social Security, pays off the largest amount 
of debt in world history, and allows vital government programs to grow 
at or above the rate of inflation. And still there is a surplus.
  If the Federal Government has more money than it needs to fund 
programs, it is for one reason and one reason only. People are sending 
too much of their hard-earned dollars to Washington. It is the people's 
money, not the government's, and they deserve a refund.
  The typical American family actually pays more in taxes than it 
spends on food, clothing, shelter and transportation combined. That is 
an outrageous burden, and one that we have a fundamental responsibility 
to change.
  This is a first step towards establishing parity and fairness in 
America's Tax Code. For years it has been well documented that 
taxpayers in my State send far more of their money to Washington than 
they get back in Federal programs and services. Under this tax plan, my 
home State of New York will receive the second most of any State in tax 
relief, $88.6 billion over 10 years. The fact that those hard-working 
families will receive on average more than $18,000 in relief is 
welcomed news, and an issue of fundamental fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for their 
devotion and hard work on this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking. I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the President's energy 
policy. That is right, you heard me correctly. We are debating 
President Bush's energy plan for America, a tax cut for the wealthy. 
Just last week President Bush told the American people that the best 
answer to rising gasoline prices is the immediate passage of his $1.35 
trillion tax cut. In other words, he has said, let us go back to the 
old-time religion of trickle-down economics. We do not have to do 
anything to reduce gasoline prices at the pump, we will just cut taxes 
and wait for something to trickle down to the middle class to help them 
pay for $2- and $3-a-gallon gasoline.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with this logic, and calling it logic is 
being charitable, is if you are a hard-working middle class American, 
you may not feel the trickle. The President's tax cut, as advanced by 
the Republican majority, once again today is heavily oriented towards 
upper-income taxpayers, the very folks who can afford to pay for high 
gasoline prices.
  The approach to our current energy problems would be laughable if it 
were not coming from the highest elected official in the land. So here 
we are once again voting to give a big break to the wealthiest 
Americans, and we are not even touching what the President says he 
wants to do, end the marriage penalty, or reform our estate tax laws so

[[Page H2205]]

family farmers and small business owners can pass down their property 
to their families free of estate tax.
  All of that is for another day, maybe. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the 
wealthy get their tax cut and the rest of us are left holding the bag 
on taxes and soaring energy prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is 
very important that we move this tax package just as expeditiously as 
possible. I was saddened to hear the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
my friend from Dallas who has now left the Chamber, and I am sure the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) would not do the same, but the gentleman 
from Texas engaged in that standard, failed class-warfare argument, tax 
cuts for the rich, the us-versus-them view that they are still spewing 
out, but it just is wrong.
  The fact of the matter is if you look at the involvement that 
virtually half of the American people have in the market today, they 
are members of the investor class. Using the us-versus-them argument is 
not one that resonates, especially in light of the fact that this 
package is one that provides relief for every single American who pays 
taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this rule is allowing for the 
reconciliation provision. Why? So that the United States Senate can 
move ahead and we can get tax relief to the American people as quickly 
as possible.
  My State of California and other parts of the Nation are faced with 
an energy crisis. I know a lot of people pooh-poohed the fact that the 
President said over the weekend that we can allow people to keep more 
of their hard-earned dollars, and that can help mitigate the 
deleterious effects that this energy crisis is having. That is what we 
need to do with this measure. As quickly as possible, let hard-working 
Americans keep more of their dollars as we look at an energy package 
that is just being unveiled by this administration and a number of us 
in the Congress are working on.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that is something that we clearly can do, this 
measure, to help provide some kind of relief for people who are dealing 
with increased energy costs.
  So this is a measure which allows us to move ahead with the 
President's very positive vision, which calls for a reduction of the 
tax burden on working families, paying down $2.4 trillion of national 
debt, saving Social Security and Medicare, and ensuring that those 
dollars are not used for a wide range of problems, as has been the case 
in the past.
  So it seems to me that we have got a wonderful opportunity here to do 
the right thing for the American people, and I hope that in a 
bipartisan way we will have support for this rule and support for the 
reconciliation package so that we will be able to get that relief to 
the people who so desperately need it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday President Bush said, ``I am 
deeply concerned about consumers. I am deeply concerned about high gas 
prices. To anybody who wants to figure out how to help consumers, pass 
the tax relief package as quickly as possible.''
  Now it all becomes clear. First, President Bush comes out with a tax 
plan which gives 45 percent of the benefit to the wealthiest 1 percent 
of all American citizens, those with incomes of $373,000 or more.
  Next, the vast bulk of every other American, the average American, 
they only get a grand total of 16 percent of the total tax cut, but he 
says it should go directly back into the pockets of big oil and gas and 
electricity companies across the country to pay for people's energy 
bills. So no tax cut in people's pockets.
  You all remember Ronald Reagan's trickle-down economics which 
theorized if you cut taxes for the rich, the benefits would ultimately 
trickle down to the rest of us. President Bush has brought us a new 
vision, trickle-up energy economics.
  Under his politics, even the portion of the tax cut that goes to the 
less wealthy immediately trickles up to wealthy gas, oil, and 
electrical power companies. For the 138 million Americans, more than 
half the Nation who are in the bottom 60 percent income range and have 
incomes of less than $44,000, the Bush tax cut provides just $256. 
Because the Bush administration refuses to do anything to bring down 
high gasoline and high electricity rates in the United States, all 
consumers are going to end up just passing all of their tax cut, and 
more, right on to wealthy energy companies.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a fairer tax cut bill, one that helps working 
families and not just the wealthiest 1 percent.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. For the last 8 
years, and probably a few years of the Bush I administration, we have 
not had an energy policy. I am looking forward to the President 
releasing that policy tomorrow and seeing if the Congress might be in a 
partnership of putting together an effective energy policy for the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get back to tax relief. In my congressional 
district, a family of four with a single wage earner earning the area's 
median income would currently pay a little more than $1,400. Their 
average income is $34,500 for a family of four. Under the President's 
plan, the $1,400 they currently pay under Federal income taxes, they 
would pay no Federal income tax money at all. This is tax relief across 
the board. If you pay in taxes, you get tax relief; and that tax relief 
can be significant at all levels, including the lowest level of income 
seeing the largest percentage of tax savings in this country. It is tax 
fairness, tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise, kind of incredulous about the 
idea that this is now a policy. The policy is, if I understand it 
correctly, especially according to the gentleman from California who 
spoke a moment ago, the policy is that we are going to have a tax cut 
in order to pay our electric bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest, and I am sure the gentleman who just spoke 
will be in favor of this, we want to cut out bureaucracy and the middle 
man. Why not give the money directly to the energy companies? Why not 
have a direct deposit at Exxon or a direct deposit at the oil 
production companies or the electric generators? The gentleman from 
California who just spoke, my good friend, let us do that. Cut out the 
middle man. Forget the fact that we owe $1.1 trillion to the Social 
Security fund. Forget the fact that we owe Medicare $229 billion, and 
that we owe the military retirees $162 billion. Forget about drawing 
down the debt. I thought that is what we were going to do.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues over here were the ones that helped 
convince us that getting rid of the deficit and paying down the debt is 
something that we needed to do. Let us put some rationality behind 
this. Let us pass the tax cut. Let us have a direct deposit at the oil 
companies, at the energy companies. Let us cut out the middle man and 
the bureaucracy. Let us cut out the American people.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, middle- and working-class families need and 
deserve a tax cut this year. Democrats believe that we should cut taxes 
for all families within the framework of a fiscally responsible budget 
that strengthens Social Security, allows for a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit, works down the national debt, and allows us to address 
pressing needs in education and health care and in national defense. We 
support a responsible plan that meets the needs of all of America's 
families.

[[Page H2206]]

  Regrettably, the Republican leadership has chosen a different path. 
They have rejected bipartisanship, they have turned aside efforts to 
reduce the size of the tax cut that goes to the wealthiest wage earners 
in this country so that we can invest in education and a prescription 
drug benefit.
  Mark my words, the President and the Republican leadership have no 
intention of abiding by a $1.3 trillion tax cut that is contained in 
their budget. They are going to move things around. There will be some 
creative accounting. And they are going to try to fit more than a $3 
trillion tax cut into this $1.3 trillion bag. They have no intention of 
stopping.
  That is not responsible and it is not what is best for all of 
America's families. We make it impossible to meet the needs of Social 
Security and Medicare or to invest in education. We roll the dice on a 
set of budget projections that are not just wrong some of the time, 
these projections are wrong all of the time. This is a recipe for 
budget deficits, for more debt, and less economic growth. It is the 
wrong plan for America.
  It is not the answer for working families, for middle-class families. 
They are the folks who need the tax cut the most. The tax cut we 
consider today is totally skewed to the wealthiest at the expense of 
everyone else. Forty-five percent of the Bush tax cut goes to the 
wealthiest 1 percent. What do working Americans get? Nothing. 12.2 
million working- and middle-class families with 24 million children get 
absolutely no tax cut under the Bush plan. It is unfair.
  And the notion that the tax cut will solve our energy problem is a 
bizarre and a disconnected idea and wrongheaded.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  If you stay here for a little while, you will see almost anything. I 
remember about 10 years ago the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) came 
down to the House floor, placed a brown paper bag over his head and 
said he was doing that because he was embarrassed to be associated with 
a Congress that had its own bank, that was giving Members free 
overdraft protection, that they in effect could write checks for money 
that was not there. The gentleman from Iowa, if the truth be known, did 
a good thing in bringing the public's attention to that. The bank is 
gone. We all bank at the same credit union that every other Federal 
employee on Capitol Hill does now.
  But what troubles me about the present budget chairman and what is 
going on on the House floor today is if we should have been embarrassed 
for Congressmen writing checks on money that was not there, should we 
not be ashamed that we are passing tax cuts on a day when we owe the 
Social Security system $1.1 trillion? We have taken their money, we 
have spent it on other things and now when we have a small surplus, 
instead of putting that money aside for Social Security, we are giving 
some Americans a tax break.
  It goes beyond that. For years we have been taking money out of the 
defense budget. Since the 1980s, we have pulled $162 billion out of the 
Department of Defense budget with the promise that we were setting it 
aside to pay future military retirees' benefits. Every penny of that 
has been spent. Again, if we were ashamed that some Congressmen were 
writing checks for $500, $200 over their amount, should we not be 
embarrassed to look a veteran in the eye and say we have spent your 
retirement and we are not putting any money in to pay it back?
  Since the 1980s, we have taken money out of all of our civil 
servants' paychecks, again with the promise that it would be there for 
their retirement. To date we owe them $501 billion. Now, a billion is a 
thousand million. A million is a thousand thousand.
  Now, for folks who want to, you can visualize probably a thousand 
dollars. So $501 billion is a thousand, thousand, thousand. Money has 
been taken out of their paychecks with the promise that we would spend 
it only on their retirement, but it has been spent on other things. 
This budget does nothing to pay it back.
  Lastly, the Medicare trust fund. Everybody up here, everyone in the 
gallery, everyone in this room who has a job, money is taken out of 
your paycheck with the promise it is going to go to your Medicare 
retirement. To date, we owe that system $229 billion. There is nothing 
in that so-called lockbox but an IOU. But instead of taking the small 
surplus we have and applying it to pay off our military retirees, our 
Social Security recipients, our civil servants, and the folks on 
Medicare, we are going to pass tax breaks to give some Americans, and 
incidentally the wealthiest Americans, a tax break while we continue to 
overcharge people on their Social Security, on their Medicare, on their 
military retirement, and the civil service retirement.
  I hope at some point today someone will tell me why that is fair 
because I think you are going to have a heck of a hard time explaining 
that to the American people.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair reminds all Members 
that directions and comments should be made directly to the Chair, and 
references to guests in the gallery are not in order.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think the gentleman from Mississippi has pretty much summed up what 
we believe over here, that this is bad legislation. We ask the Congress 
to vote against the bill and against the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is a fair rule. It offers an amendment as well by the ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I look forward to having it 
come to a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 207, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)

[[Page H2207]]


     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--207

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cubin
     Hansen
     Lewis (KY)
     Moakley
     Wexler

                              {time}  1331

  Messrs. GEPHARDT, CUMMINGS, BERRY and LUCAS of Kentucky changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1332

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 142, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
142, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 1836 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1836

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by section 
     2 shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes 
     of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN INCOME TAX RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Rate Reductions After 2000.--
       ``(1) New lowest rate bracket.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2000--
       ``(i) the rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (d) on taxable income not over the initial bracket amount 
     shall be 12 percent (as modified by paragraph (2)), and
       ``(ii) the 15 percent rate of tax shall apply only to 
     taxable income over the initial bracket amount.
       ``(B) Initial bracket amount.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the initial bracket amount is--
       ``(i) $12,000 in the case of subsection (a),
       ``(ii) $10,000 in the case of subsection (b), and
       ``(iii) \1/2\ the amount applicable under clause (i) in the 
     case of subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In prescribing the tables 
     under subsection (f) which apply with respect to taxable 
     years beginning in calendar years after 2001--
       ``(i) the Secretary shall make no adjustment to the initial 
     bracket amount for any taxable year beginning before January 
     1, 2007,
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment used in making 
     adjustments to the initial bracket amount for any taxable 
     year beginning after December 31, 2006, shall be determined 
     under subsection (f)(3) by substituting `2005' for `1992' in 
     subparagraph (B) thereof, and
       ``(iii) such adjustment shall not apply to the amount 
     referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii).
     If any amount after adjustment under the preceding sentence 
     is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     next lowest multiple of $50.
       ``(2) Reductions in rates after 2001.--In the case of 
     taxable years beginning in a calendar year after 2001, the 
     corresponding percentage specified for such calendar year in 
     the following table shall be substituted for the otherwise 
     applicable tax rate in the tables under subsections (a), (b), 
     (c), (d), and, to the extent applicable, (e).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        The corresponding percentages shall be
                                                                     substituted for  the following percentages:
  ``In the case of taxable years  beginning during calendar year:   --------------------------------------------
                                                                       12%      28%      31%      36%     39.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002...............................................................    12%      27%      30%      35%      38%
2003...............................................................    11%      27%      29%      35%      37%
2004...............................................................    11%      26%      28%      34%      36%
2005...............................................................    11%      26%      27%      34%      35%
2006 and thereafter................................................    10%      25%      25%      33%      33%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(3) Adjustment of tables.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
     tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Section 32 is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(g)(7) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``15 percent'' in clause (ii)(II) and 
     inserting ``the first bracket percentage'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
     ``For purposes of clause (ii), the first bracket percentage 
     is the percentage applicable to the lowest income bracket in 
     the table under subsection (c).''
       (2) Section 1(h) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``28 percent'' both places it appears in 
     paragraphs (1)(A)(ii)(I) and (1)(B)(i) and inserting ``25 
     percent'', and
       (B) by striking paragraph (13).
       (3) Section 15 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Rate Reductions Enacted by Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.--This section shall not 
     apply to any change in rates under subsection (i) of section 
     1 (relating to rate reductions after 2000).''.
       (4) Section 531 is amended by striking ``equal to'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``equal to the product of the 
     highest rate of tax under section 1(c) and the accumulated 
     taxable income.''.
       (5) Section 541 is amended by striking ``equal to'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``equal to the product of the 
     highest rate of tax under section 1(c) and the undistributed 
     personal holding company income.''.
       (6) Section 3402(p)(1)(B) is amended by striking ``7, 15, 
     28, or 31 percent'' and inserting ``7 percent, any percentage 
     applicable to any of the 3 lowest income brackets in the 
     table under section 1(c),''.
       (7) Section 3402(p)(2) is amended by striking ``equal to 15 
     percent of such payment'' and inserting ``equal to the 
     product of the lowest rate of tax under section 1(c) and such 
     payment''.

[[Page H2208]]

       (8) Section 3402(q)(1) is amended by striking ``equal to 28 
     percent of such payment'' and inserting ``equal to the 
     product of the third to the lowest rate of tax under section 
     1(c) and such payment''.
       (9) Section 3402(r)(3) is amended by striking ``31 
     percent'' and inserting ``the third to the lowest rate of tax 
     under section 1(c)''.
       (10) Section 3406(a)(1) is amended by striking ``equal to 
     31 percent of such payment'' and inserting ``equal to the 
     product of the third to the lowest rate of tax under section 
     1(c) and such payment''.
       (11) Section 13273 of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 
     1993 is amended by striking ``28 percent'' and inserting 
     ``the third to the lowest rate of tax under section 1(c) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2000.
       (2) Amendments to withholding provisions.--The amendments 
     made by paragraphs (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) of 
     subsection (c) shall apply to amounts paid after the 60th day 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

       The amounts transferred to any trust fund under the Social 
     Security Act shall be determined as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment printed in House Report 107-68, if 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, 
which shall be considered read and shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes of debate on this bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps first of all we should talk about what this 
debate that is going to ensue is not about. It is not about the 
structure of the taxes that this Nation will have based upon a 
conference between the House and the Senate, notwithstanding the fact 
that the House has passed a number of tax revisions and the Senate is 
in the process of passing a tax revision package.
  What we are doing today is a process which is dictated by the budget 
bill and largely tied to the rules under which the Senate must operate. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the content of this bill in front of us, 
H.R. 1836, has already been passed by the House under the bill titled 
H.R. 3, we are not debating the content of this bill, because when this 
bill passes, it becomes the reconciliation vehicle under the Budget 
Act. It will go over to the Senate, the Senate will take H.R. 1836, 
remove the contents, and place therein whatever it is that they have 
come up with, send it back to us; and then we will reject what the 
Senate has done, and we will go to conference.
  The reason we are doing this now, notwithstanding the fact that we 
have already voted on the substance of this bill under a different 
title, is because under the reconciliation needed by the Senate to go 
to a simple majority, or 51 votes, only those tax items passed after 
the budget and reconciliation has passed are recognized as appropriate 
vehicles. We are here today then to meet that narrow technicality. We 
are providing an appropriate vehicle to send over to the Senate so that 
this process can continue, leading to a conference between the House 
and the Senate to put together the final product.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the one word that could describe the 
procedure that we are going through this afternoon is ``outrageous.'' 
It is outrageous what is happening to this House of Representatives, 
and even more painful is what is happening to my beloved Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  It is true that most of the Members, Republican and Democrats, walk 
around with more self-esteem than we really need, but the truth of the 
matter is, we were under the belief that revenue issues came from the 
House of Representatives, came from the Committee on Ways and Means, 
came to the floor; and historically, this is the way it has been.
  Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. I did not understand half of what 
the chairman said. I know one thing he is saying, and that is that what 
we are voting on has nothing to do with all of the tax cuts that came 
to the House of Representatives and were voted for. It is a fraud that 
has been committed by press releases that this House has cut people's 
taxes, because they have only taken one piece of the bill, and the only 
reason they have taken that is so that we can accept the Senate bill. 
So the prerogatives of the House in terms of revenue issues now has 
been laterally passed to the other body, and that will be decided in 
conference; and not only will Democrats be excluded, but most all 
Republicans will be excluded.
  So all of the compassion about the marriage penalty, all of the 
compassion about getting rid of the estate tax, all of the compassion 
about the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) working together for better pension benefits, all of 
the things that we have debated on the floor, I think what the chairman 
of the committee said is that that is exactly what this debate is not 
about. This debate is about how fast can we relinquish our 
responsibilities as House Members, how quickly can we yield to the 
leadership, and how quickly can they bring something over here that 
nobody, freshmen, senior Members, Republicans or Democrats, had 
anything to do with.
  And guess what? If they do it on this, what is going to happen in the 
next bill? That is the best kept secret in the House. The next bill, 
that is the alternative minimum tax. That is the one that we take care 
of capital gains, that would take care of extenders, we take care of 
debt service, we take care of small business people. But do not trust 
us if we bring it to the House. That is just for practice. That is just 
for C-SPAN. The real tax bill will come from the Senate, and we 
probably will send something over there so that we can go into 
conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, since nobody here 
should be wasting their time talking about tax policy, but rather how 
to yield to the other body.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's outrage. I share his pain. I only 
wish that when he was in the majority, he would have shown the same 
degree of outrage and pain which produced this particular situation 
that we are in. It is not called the Byrd Rule for nothing. And Senator 
Byrd was in the majority when this was created, as was the gentleman 
from New York. So I find it somewhat perplexing, although amusing, that 
he wishes to characterize this as something that this majority has 
perpetrated on the House and the American people. Quite frankly, it was 
under his watch.
  What this chairman will do is make changes in this outrageous and 
painful current structure. I aim to pluck some feathers from the Byrd 
Rule, and I hope the gentleman joins me in making sure that that 
happens.
  We do have the constitutional prerogative to initiate revenue. I 
think it is an outrage that we are told when and how we are to deal 
with this issue by the other body. However, under the current rules 
passed on the gentleman's watch with the Democrats in the majority, we 
are in the current circumstances. However, I am quite sure that the 
gentleman and his side of the aisle will take this time to discuss 
taxes. It is certainly one way to consume the time that we have 
available to us.
  I would much prefer that we work together as Members of this 
institution to be able to reclaim some of the prerogative we should 
have had that was given to the other institution when the gentleman was 
in the majority. I will work with him to make sure that we claim what I 
think are the House's rightful prerogatives in determining time, place, 
manner, and circumstances in which we deal with the Senate on questions 
of revenue. Unfortunately, we are laboring under the current law 
supported by the gentleman, passed by the gentleman, and imposed upon 
this House when he was in the majority.

[[Page H2209]]

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, what makes the 
Byrd law so powerful that it is one of the few Democratic legacies that 
we have that the gentleman has not dismantled? Everything else we 
believed in, in health care and Social Security and education, the 
gentleman found it so easy to say that we are now in power and this is 
where we can show you what we are going to do. When did the gentleman 
first find out that the gentleman had the power to change the Byrd 
amendment?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know that I 
have the power. It is a cooperative effort. But after this exercise and 
the clear feeling on the part of the gentleman that it is now 
outrageous and painful, that I found a new ally in trying to make it 
work. I did not realize the gentleman was so outraged and that there 
was so much pain laboring under the Byrd Rule. For fear of putting 
everyone to sleep, I will spend just a minute talking about why we are 
in the situation that we are in.
  Under reconciliation with the Senate, given their rules, there are 
two key points that need to be remembered when the House and the Senate 
try to resolve issues surrounding the budget and taxes. There is only 
one opportunity in any given session of Congress to have a decision 
made on the budget and taxes associated under that budget with just 51 
votes, because the Senate's fundamental rules do not limit debate. 
Therefore, anyone can filibuster at any time they want, which requires 
60 votes from the Senate to stop that filibuster. This is an 
opportunity to do the people's work under a simple majority. That is 
one of the reasons we have labored under the Byrd Rule. The 51 vote 
means we can do meaningful and useful change instead of some of the 
outrageous change dictated by a minority, whether it is Democrats or 
Republicans at the time, or a coalition that can control the floor of 
the Senate.
  In addition to that, the Senate does not have the equivalent of our 
Committee on Rules. One of the things the Founding Fathers created was 
a structure in the House that could be relatively responsive to needs. 
There is a time limit in terms of debate; I have already said the 
Senate does not possess that. We have a traffic cop or a structure for 
controlling debate on the floor called the Committee on Rules. The 
Senate does not have that. So we are willing to be subjected, to a 
certain extent, to the outrages that the gentleman has expressed for 
the opportunity of moving needed legislation with a 51-vote number in 
the Senate. We only get it once. If we fail on this, we go back to the 
60-vote requirement. As the gentleman knows, the tyranny of the 
minority on a 60-vote requirement will not enable us to do things that 
I believe the gentleman and I would like to do.
  So we are putting up with this, notwithstanding the outrage; but we 
will be looking at ways to modify this in the future so that the 
prerogatives in the House are not quite so controlled by the other 
body.

                              {time}  1345

  It is the opportunity to make law by 51 votes in the Senate that is 
driving us to this what I would otherwise consider outrageous and 
painful situation.
  However, knowing how the other body works, the opportunity to resolve 
problems with 51 votes is an opportunity neither one of us should pass 
up, because we have seen what they are doing with 51 votes. We can 
imagine what they would have to do with 60 votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair would remind members 
that while it may be important to focus on House prerogatives, they 
should be very, very careful not to characterize Senate rules.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  I appreciate my chairman's explanation of the budget reconciliation 
process. That is what this is, this is the budget reconciliation bill. 
But I always thought that budget reconciliation legislation was 
supposed to reconcile what we do on spending and tax bills with the 
budget resolution.
  We have certainly limited how much tax cuts we are supposed to have 
this year and how much spending, but as the chairman pointed out, and I 
think rightly so, budget reconciliation normally occurs at the end of 
the session, so we reconcile to the budget resolution. Instead, we are 
doing it earlier so we can pass a single tax bill in the other body, 
not by a bipartisan vote, but along very partisan lines. That is what 
this bill is allowing us to do. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
it.
  It is very interesting that the other two issues that are scheduled 
this week already violate the budget resolution, because we have a bill 
this week that will cut taxes a little more for adoptions, and we have 
a spending bill that will be coming out dealing with the education 
programs that is above the budget resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, my reason for urging my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation is that it is not a $1.25 trillion tax bill. In reality, we 
have gone through this, and the chairman knows it, we are going to be 
doing other tax issues this year. We are going to have to deal with the 
alternative minimum tax. We have to deal with the tax extenders. There 
is other tax legislation that already has been favorably reviewed by 
the committee. Also, we have the underlying interest cost. When we add 
that all up, it comes to over $2.5 trillion.
  On the spending side, the education bill we will be taking up later 
this week, it does not spend what was provided in the budget 
resolution, it is $4.5 billion above what was provided in the budget 
resolution.
  I do not object to spending more money on education. The Democratic 
budget provided for more money for education. But I do object to us 
passing legislation that is going to add to red ink. That is where we 
are heading, to larger tax cuts, larger spending, and what we will give 
is our ability to pay down our national debt.
  I do not even think we are very subtle about it. The National Review, 
which often espouses the Republican philosophy, says, ``Don't fear a 
deficit: the advantages of red ink.''
  I would hope that with our projected surplus, that our first priority 
on a bipartisan basis would be to reduce our national debt. I regret 
that is not the case.
  So I heard my chairman's explanation. This budget reconciliation 
should not be a way in which we pass a single partisan bill in the 
other body. Instead, we should use it as a way to come together to a 
budget that is truly bipartisan that will allow us to protect the 
priorities that are important to our Nation: to have a reasonable tax 
cut, and to be able to move forward in a bipartisan way.
  This bill does not do it. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
legislation.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, how mystifying this debate must be to Mr. and Mrs. 
America, because here we stand in the people's House finding ourselves 
enshrouded, encumbered with some frustrations dealing with something 
our Founders put together, and that is the difference between these two 
institutions, this bicameral legislative branch.
  We understand that. I appreciate the concern of my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the committee. But let 
me suggest to all my colleagues that what we do today with this piece 
of legislation is to reaffirm our commitment to a basic premise that is 
quite simple: the American people are overtaxed and they deserve a 
refund.
  We are working through a process that any student of government 
understands, and indeed, all schoolchildren are taught about, in terms 
of bringing this forward.
  We can deal with arcana, we can deal with prerogatives of different 
committees, but the bottom line is this: for

[[Page H2210]]

the Members of this House today, a vote in favor of this legislation 
will result in tax relief for the American family. That is the basic 
premise. This is the tool we use to achieve that dream.
  Mr. Speaker, all too often we hear from constituents that they would 
like us to focus on results. We can disagree without being 
disagreeable. If Members oppose meaningful tax relief, then oppose this 
legislation. But if Members want to stand up for their constituents who 
are overtaxed, who for years and years and years have been told that 
they should somehow sacrifice so that Washington bureaucrats can have 
more, in stark contrast to the rhetoric of the last half-century, where 
American families were asked to sacrifice so that Washington ostensibly 
could do more with their hard-earned money, what we say today, what we 
reaffirm with this procedural vote today, in essence, is the notion 
that we should turn that around; that Washington should tow the line so 
that American families can have more.
  We can disagree on a variety of issues. We can share the frustrations 
as to institutional prerogatives. But again today, when we come to the 
floor, I would implore the Members of this body to keep their eye on 
the ball, keep their eyes on the prize: basic tax relief. This vote, in 
essence a procedural vote, moves that along.
  If Members want the American people to hold onto more of their own 
hard-earned money to save, spend, and invest for their families, vote 
yes on this legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a procedural vote, this is a substantive 
vote. The gentleman has just said that he has dumped the marriage 
penalty provision, the estate tax provision, the Portman-Cardin 
provision, the child credit provision. He dumped all of that, and he is 
asking us just to support this tax cut that is geared to the top 1 
percent of the highest-income people here, so this is not procedure, 
this is substantive.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We are through with the 
shell game of the budget and now we have come to the tax cut.
  First we are told we need a tax cut because the country's economy is 
strong and we need to encourage it and keep it going. Then we are told 
that we need a tax cut because the economy is going bad, so now we need 
a tax cut for that. Most recently, we have been told we need a tax cut 
for the issue of the energy prices all over the country.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bush tax cut is an outright deception. It is not for 
hard-working Americans and will do nothing to prevent a recession. Not 
a single component of the President's proposal is honest. It is really 
no wonder we have to take this thing through here one piece at a time.
  The Republicans and the administration want to move it on a fast-
moving train that nobody ever gets a chance to look at. Instead of 
focusing on what we actually have right now, this tax debate has been 
framed in terms of an unreliable 10-year frame of reference. If the 
Congressional Budget Office were to figure out the surplus now, under 
the present circumstances in our economy, with California in trouble 
and the stock market and all the rest, then we would have much 
different things.
  Basically, the game today is a crapshoot. We would have better odds 
rolling these dice than banking on the money being around for 
education, for defense, for privatizing Social Security, all the things 
the President says, that we would counting on a 10-year projection. 
Just roll the dice, Mr. Speaker, and see what comes up.
  The administration seriously underestimates the size of the surplus 
we ought to be running in order to meet our needs for Social Security 
and Medicare. It is no wonder that the bill is so backloaded, just like 
everything else. They are trying to squeeze five pounds of potatoes in 
a three-pound sack, and the President will not be around to take care 
of it when the mess occurs.
  President Bush's record of cutting taxes in Texas was the centerpiece 
of his Presidential campaign. Now, many State Texas legislators 
attribute those tax cuts to the reason they have a budget deficit in 
Texas. In fact, then Governor Bush the other day said he could see 
there was a disaster. He said, I hope I am not here to deal with it.
  This is deja vu all over again. Take a look at the record in Texas 
and figure out what it is going to be like in this country in two or 
three years if he gets what he wants. This is deja vu all over again. 
We can learn from history.
  I would offer anybody the opportunity today to vote no on a fraud, 
because if Members want to gamble away the country's future on 15-year 
projections, today is the day. Members should bring their dice and say, 
here we go, come back to me, baby. That is what this is all about. It 
is not going to happen.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do have fun trying to follow which 
argument has now been determined by the brain trust of the Democratic 
Party is the appropriate one to make.
  Apparently now we need to slow this process down because this is a 
fast-moving train. I thought earlier the argument was the train was not 
moving fast enough, and that we have to make sure that we get money out 
to the American people.
  I do want to put in context the fundamental nature of the political 
and partisan argument that is being made. I would simply lay before the 
Members the story which has run in a number of newspapers. This happens 
to be from the Los Angeles Times:

       The Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate another half 
     percentage point, to 4 percent on Tuesday, and contrary to 
     what had been expected, left the door open for still more 
     cuts aimed at getting the stumbling U.S. economy moving 
     again. It was the fifth time in 5 months that the central 
     bank shaved the so-called Federal funds rate, a benchmark for 
     interest rates in general, and continued one of the swiftest 
     rate reductions in Fed history.

  I would hope this Congress is on a fast-moving train to provide 
additional assistance. It is not the end-all and the be-all, but if we 
can move, as the budget resolution said, up to $100 billion over the 
rest of this fiscal year and next fiscal year into the hands of the 
American income tax payers, it would simply assist the Federal Reserve 
chairman in making sure that this stumbling economy recovers.
  I just find it humorous. Earlier we were not moving fast enough, and 
now that we are involved in a procedure which enables us to get to 
conference to produce a result before Memorial Day, and whoa, this is a 
fast-moving train.
  I hope the American people believe us when we say this majority in 
the House and Senate is going to produce a fast-moving train. It will 
produce a responsible, permanent marginal rate reduction, along with 
other adjustments, so that we can make sure that we do not stumble in 
this economy. Our goal is to keep the country strong, not to gain some 
kind of a narrow partisan advantage by exploiting this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am certain that those 1 percent of the billionaires cannot wait to 
get half of this tax cut so they can spur the economy. But that 
explanation is just as interesting as this procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  (Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this 
is a fast-moving train or a slow-moving train, but I get the sense this 
is like that train yesterday with no driver. It is very toxic and it is 
going real fast down the tracks, and there is nobody in the engine.
  What this tax cut is going to do is in fact it is going to be toxic 
to the rest of the priorities in this Nation. Tomorrow we are going to 
start the debate on the elementary-secondary school act, and we are 
going to bring a bill out here that not only will provide major reforms 
within our school systems, but it will provide the resources to bring 
about those reforms that the President

[[Page H2211]]

has said he has wanted, that the Congress has said they wanted, 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
  But this vote today will cause us to pass a tax bill that will strip 
all of the money away that is in that bill for the next 5 years for 
elementary and secondary education.

                              {time}  1400

  Because when you take the budget as it was passed, as it was impacted 
by this tax bill, the President's budget went from some money to 
education to no money in the future for education.
  The reforms will not come about, the school improvement will not come 
about, because that is the real price of this tax cut; it infringes on 
every American school child's education.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, with the train metaphor that we are having here, it does 
seem to me that this bill and what is contained in it will be the 
engine that moves the train. We do need to respond to what needs to 
happen to get our economy headed back in the right direction. This bill 
helps do that.
  This discussion of rates, Mr. Speaker, is very important. It is very 
important to talk about this whole rate issue. I mean, no American, as 
our bill proposes, would establish this principle. No American 
taxpayers should pay more than a third of their income in Federal 
income tax. That is what this bill says.
  That does not say they would not pay more than a third of their 
income in taxes. That says the Federal income tax.
  You could argue this in a much more fine way than we are here today 
by saying that even that rate is too high because that does not 
consider the Social Security tax. It does not consider the Medicare 
tax. It does not consider State income tax. It does not consider sales 
tax.
  It does not consider gasoline tax. It does not consider tax on 
utility bills. It does not consider the 103-year-old Spanish-American 
War tax on your local telephone bill. This just says that on your 
income, with your Federal income tax there should be a limit. And it 
also says at the bottom levels that we are better off with a 10 percent 
bottom line bracket than a 15 percent bottom bracket.
  Those are the guidelines that we need to be debating, need to be 
working on. They need to be part of the conference with the Senate and 
passing this bill today, understanding that every taxpayer, every 
taxpaying family, has a stake in the economy and a stake in this tax 
surplus that has been sent to Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect the work that is being done on the education 
bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) talked 
about.
  I am convinced there is going to be money to do what the Federal 
Government needs to do. The problem will be if we leave this money in 
town that we have been saying that we did not need in the Federal 
Government, we will think of a way to spend it.
  Mr. Speaker, we have still allowed in our budget plenty of room for 
growth. In fact, we are wondering, in fact, if there is a way that we 
can keep the growth of the Federal Government to twice the rate of 
inflation. And many, including me, are saying the President will have 
won a big victory if we can hold the growth of the Federal Government 
to twice the rate of inflation, which just shows how far we have gone 
in the direction of Federal Government spending.
  One way not to spend the hard-earned money of American taxpayers is 
give it back to them. They will do a better job for their families and 
for this economy with their money than the Federal Government would.
  Moving this bill forward moves that process forward. It would be 
great within the next few days if we can send to the President's desk 
real, meaningful tax relief for every American taxpayer.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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, finally, the Republican tax plan and the 
Republican energy plan are one. In the amazing words of President Bush 
on Friday, ``The quickest way to help people with their energy bills is 
tax relief.''
  This year the benefit to the typical taxpaying American family from 
this Republican plan that we are considering today will amount to the 
cost of about 3 gallons of gas per week. That is probably not enough 
gas to get most Americans to and from work, but it will keep your lawn 
looking pretty good. I guess you could ride your lawn mower to work.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps, though, Democrats have been a little harsh in 
criticizing this bill as being designed solely for the wealthy, because 
just being affluent, just being rich is not enough to really rake in a 
bonanza from this bill.
  As The New York Times reported yesterday morning, ``The biggest cuts 
would go more to the extraordinarily wealthy'' as opposed to just the 
``merely affluent or wealthy'' and, ``the very richest would save more 
than $1 million a year under this House plan.''
  Your family gets 3 gallons of gasoline a week, the super-rich, each 
of them, gets $1 million a year from this scheme.
  This summer many American consumers cannot afford to go to the gas 
station and say ``fill 'er up'' unless it is a very small quantity for 
their lawn mower. But the privileged few, they have already said ``fill 
'er up'' to these Republicans, who have been all too willing to reward 
the few at the expense of the many.
  That expense will come not just this year, but when it is time over 
this decade to fund student financial assistance, so that every young 
person can get all of the education for which he or she is willing to 
work wants; when it is time to address the many unmet health care needs 
of Americans such as access to the soaring cost of prescription drugs; 
when it is time to put more cops on the street to protect our 
neighborhoods; when it is time to meet a wide range of future needs of 
this country including reasonable tax relief and correction of 
inequities in the Tax Code. The same Republicans who offer your family 
3 gallons of gas a week while they give other folks a million dollars a 
year, they are going to be saying, well, we are sorry we cannot do 
that. We just do not have the money to do it.
  The reason they do not have the money is no accident. It is a result 
of a purposeful policy to shortchange the American people in the way 
quite similar to how they are being shortchanged today.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but observe the indication of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that they are going to get 3 
gallons, and he repeatedly held up a 1 gallon tank. That is about as 
accurate as the rest of his statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side has nothing to offer but fear itself. As 
I watch these public policy debates coming to the floor of Congress, 
you can see two schools of thought at play here. One seeks to prey on 
the emotions of fear and envy in the American people and to exploit 
those emotions to keep more of their hard-earned money in Washington.
  The other school of thought, what we are trying to achieve is to 
appeal to people's emotions of hope, of accomplishment, of success.
  We punish success in the Tax Code today. The small businessman, the 
small businesswoman, the entrepreneur in society today, which is the 
engine that drives the American economy, is what gives us our jobs in 
this country; yet, we tax them at punishing tax rates, higher than we 
tax IBM, Exxon, the multinational corporations in this world.
  What we are trying to achieve by lowering the tax rates on 
entrepreneurs, on small businesses, on the American families, down to 
33 percent is to simply say that we recognize that what creates this 
economy, that what grows this economy, that what creates jobs are small 
businesses and entrepreneurs.

[[Page H2212]]

  We need to feed that engine, because if we fall victim to the 
politics of fear and envy, as the other side is suggesting, we will 
continue to take more and more dollars out of workers' paychecks. We 
will continue to raise the bar and the hurdle on what it takes to build 
a small business, to employ people, to risk-take and become an 
entrepreneur.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous toll gate in the middle class, on 
the way to becoming the middle class. We are penalizing success in this 
country. The other side wants us to continue to penalize success in 
this country. They want to appeal to the worst emotions in you.
  They want to suggest that this is nothing more than a tax cut to Bill 
Gates' or Sam Walton's heirs. That is not what we are doing here. What 
we are trying to accomplish is this: You are overpaying your taxes. You 
ought to get some of your money back. We are protecting Medicare. We 
are modernizing Medicare. We are protecting Social Security.
  We are paying down the national debt as fast as we can. And even 
after doing all of those things, you are still overpaying your taxes. 
What we are simply saying is rather than take your money and find new 
ways to spend it for you here in Washington, we want to give it back to 
the American people, put the money back into their paychecks as they 
overpay their taxes, and revive this engine of economic growth, small 
businesses and entrepreneurs, and prey on people's hopes and dreams and 
aspirations. That is what this all about.
  That is why it is important to lower that top rate to 33 percent. I 
know these numbers may be confusing to some. But what it means is 
whether or not we are going to answer the call to revive this 
struggling economy, whether or not we are going to put jobs in front of 
fear and envy, these are the things that are on the line right here. 
That is why it is important for us to pass this tax bill, because it is 
our job to grow this economy and save jobs in this country.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), my distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
would ridicule the 1 gallon container that was held by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my friend. As a former college professor, he 
should know that 1 gallon filled three times equals 3 gallons.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, for 
yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am kind of surprised that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle keep talking about Democrats bringing up the issue of 
greed and envy. I thought we were supposed to debate these things and 
state the facts.
  The fact of the matter is, if you took all of the bills that were 
passed over the last 3 months on the other side of the aisle there, you 
would find that the top 1 percent of the taxpayers in the America, that 
is, people that file tax returns on the average of $1.1 million a year, 
their earned income, they get 46 percent of this tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot change that fact, and I think it is only right 
that the American public know this fact, the fact that those people 
that make over a million dollars a year get 46 percent of the benefit.
  It seems to me something that everybody should know before they vote 
on this particular bill. This is not talking about, making discussions 
about greed and envy; it is just stating a fact.
  But rhetoric is always there, and that is what I guess this floor is 
all about. This is what we are talking about in terms of lowering the 
rhetoric on the floor of the House.
  The fact of the matter is that not only are we talking about where 
the distribution of this tax cut goes, but there is also something 
interesting about the so-called surplus. If you recall, we are talking 
about the basis of this tax cut, $5.6 trillion in surpluses over the 
next 10 years, of which one-third, or about 30 percent of it, will be 
in the first 5 years; and then a 70 percent total of this $5.6 trillion 
will be in the second 5 years.
  The same people that predicted this number, the Congressional Budget 
Office, said that there is only a 50 percent chance of accuracy that 
the first 5-year projection will be correct.
  Then in the last sentence in the same document, the same 
Congressional Budget Office that made this prediction says they cannot 
really even make a forecast on 10-year projections. The only reason 
they do it is because we in Congress mandated it.
  We could be talking about $10.9 trillion or $1.6 trillion, or maybe 
even a deficit, because these numbers are based upon projections. They 
are projecting, for example, there will be a 4.6 growth rate over the 
next 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I would imagine any one of you sitting in the hall here 
would have to say that you cannot make projections about what your 
income or your child's income will be 10 years from now. But, 
nevertheless, we are doing this.
  I have to say another thing. This is redistribution. About 60 percent 
of the $5.6 trillion is in the form of Social Security payroll taxes. 
Who gets the burden of that? The average American, because it is capped 
at $76,000 a year.
  So we are going to take the payroll taxes and we are going to 
redistribute it to those people that file income tax returns of $1.1 
million a year.
  We are playing a gamble with the deficit and with the future of our 
children, and we are redistributing this tax cut in a way that takes 
from the average taxpayer or the average worker and gives to the super-
rich. This bill should be voted down. The budget is a sham.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, what a bunch of hogwash. I was just peering 
over the last few minutes. What is this, Broadway? I am saying this to 
the Democrats, what is this, Broadway? They have got a Member up here 
with a gasoline can stomping around trying to use his theatrical props. 
Before the speaker, before the gas can, we had another Member on the 
other side of the aisle up here playing with some dice.
  This is serious business. We are not on Broadway over here, we are on 
Washington, D.C. using other people's money. Did my colleagues ever 
hear of play on Broadway ``Using Other People's Money''? That is 
exactly what the Democrats want to do, but they want to use more and 
more of other people's money.
  Their policy is simple: spend, spend, spend. When the American 
taxpayer, who, by the way, is the American worker and, by the way, men 
and women that are working out there in that workplace, when they begin 
to question the liberal Democrats about their policy of spend, spend, 
spend, they come up with one answer: fear tactics.
  I will tell my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), 
and I question the accuracy of his remarks, in fact, they are 
inaccurate. Let me quote his remarks: If we pass this, all future needs 
of this country cannot be met, if you give a tax refund to the 
taxpayers.
  He goes on further: Further, if you give a tax cut to the American 
taxpayers, no money for education, no student finance assistance, no 
prescription drugs, no health care, no more money for the Cops on the 
Street, and once again he summarizes, it stops all future needs of this 
country.
  It is that kind of exaggeration that puts disrespect in Washington, 
D.C. That is why people are concerned about the integrity of the 
institution back here. My colleagues are talking about other people's 
money, and they ought to move it off Broadway and they ought to move it 
to Main Street.
  Those liberal Democrats that want to continue to spend and spend and 
spend should at least have enough guts to stand up to the people who 
are working for this money, who are creating jobs in this country, and 
tell them they want to spend, spend, spend instead of threatening them 
with their future education for their children or all future needs of 
this country will not be met if a tax cut goes to the American 
taxpayer.

[[Page H2213]]

  Take a look. Everybody on this House floor, all of my colleagues, we 
do not go out there. Our salary is created by tax dollars. We do not go 
out and sell more hamburgers or put up a Kool-Aid stand or mow a lawn. 
We reach into people's pockets and take the money they got for selling 
a hamburger or setting up a Kool-Aid stand or mowing a land.
  We take their money, and the first thing we do is pay ourselves. The 
second thing we do, when we discover there is money left, do not give 
it back to that person, people at the Kool-Aid stand. Just spend it, 
spend it, spend it.
  When the person at the Kool-Aid stand says, hey, can I have a little 
back of what I gave you? You have some extra money. No, not if you care 
about your kids' education. No, not if you care about more cops on the 
street. No, not if you care about prescription care. In fact, no, not 
if you care about any future need of the country. What an exaggeration.
  The Republicans and the conservative Democrats deserve more from the 
liberal side of the Democratic party. My colleagues ought to follow the 
leads of their conservatives over there and give back these taxpayers a 
little of what they deserve.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member. I 
like the introduction by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis). As 
one of the most conservative Members of the House, as ranked by the 
Concord Coalition and other groups, I am proud to answer the question 
of the gentleman from Colorado, because it is true that Democrats have 
been concerned about spending.
  We would like to spend money to see that our parents' Medicare is 
safe. We would like to spend money to make sure that the checks for 
Social Security go out each month to those beneficiaries. We would like 
to spend money to see that teachers can have a reasonable salary. All 
of those things are purposely being denied in the Republican budget 
which is driven by this tax cut. This is not Broadway. These are facts.
  The Republicans, for example, ran out of money for next year's 
Medicare payments and had to go through some blue smoke and mirror 
accounting tricks to find an extra $20 billion yesterday in the Senate 
bill because, otherwise, they would have had to dip into 2002's 
Medicare trust fund by 20 billion bucks to balance the budget.
  That is how bad this bill is. There is no money left for a 
pharmaceutical benefit unless, of course, we choose to take it out of 
Medicare and thereby dismantle the Medicare system which, under the 
former leadership of Speaker Gingrich, was the Republican plan and 
still remains the operative policy today.
  Privatize Social Security as the Republicans try to have us do, so 
that we can save that money and give the tax cuts back to the rich.
  So make no mistake about it, we conservatives would like to save 
money. But those of us who have ever run a business and not inherited 
it from our fathers, or worked all our lives in the public trough would 
like to see that the poorest of Americans get taken care of. That is 
the American way. We would like to see that the children's health care 
is taken care of. We would like to see that Medicare survives. That 
takes tax dollars.
  The fairest way to tax the American people is to let those who are 
very rich and very wealthy pay a larger percentage. That has been the 
American way for a long time. We hope, as Democrats, that that 
continues to be the American way, not the Republican way to give the 
money back to the rich donors to their campaigns, the huge corporate 
officers and the beneficiaries of huge stock options, support the 
people in Aspen who are living the life of luxury, and let the people 
on Main Street go broke. That is not the Democratic way. That is the 
Republican way, and we should oppose it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think too many people in 
Washington are out of touch with the real world and the way families 
have to struggle these days. It is true that tax relief under this plan 
starts pretty modestly and grows. It is done so that it increases as we 
pay off more of our national debt; and as our surplus increases, the 
tax relief increases. That is the responsible way to do it.
  But they will tell us it is only for the wealthy. But if we look at 
families today, we just had tax freedom day, which meant, from January 
1 to May 3, the average American family worked for that time period 
just to pay their taxes. Starting last week, we started to work for 
ourselves. No wonder it is so hard for families to make ends meet.
  Under the President's proposal and under the Republican proposal here 
today, in this first year, for a teacher whose husband works at the 
auto dealership as a mechanic, who has two kids, it means tax relief 
for about $500 this first year; and it increases each year to about 
$1,600.
  Now, in Washington, people do not think that counts. But I can tell 
my colleagues, when one is raising children, an extra $120 or $140 a 
month for school clothes or to fix the car or to pay for utilities or 
all the things that come up for health care when your child is sick, 
that is real money.
  My colleagues will hear today about a rebate scheme. But let me tell 
them, they will love the rebate scheme as long as they do not mind 
overpaying at the cashier, at the counter, and watching the clerk hand 
the change to the next guy in line. They will love rebates.
  But if my colleagues think if one overpays that the change ought to 
come back to one in proportion of what one overpaid, then my colleagues 
are going to support the President's plan and the principles in the 
Republican plan.
  What is wrong with eliminating the marriage penalty? What is wrong 
with not taxing people at death? What is wrong with encouraging small 
businesses to create new jobs? We know if we head into recession, we 
will lose 3 million jobs in America. That is 3 million families that 
are going to hurt very badly. If we can make changes today, maybe we 
cannot save all those jobs, but we can save some of them, and we ought 
to try.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) to answer a couple of questions if he 
has the time, because he talked about helping small businesses. He 
talked about marriage penalty. I assume he wants estate tax relief.
  Where are all these things in this bill that we are talking about 
today? Where are these things? I am missing it. Where is it?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the principles of this bill----
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman, be careful what word 
he uses, because he has got the Speaker here. Do not talk about the 
other body now, but go ahead. Be careful.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this bill creates the vehicle for 
tax relief for Americans. As we sent it to the Senate, as we talked 
through the principal items we talked about, that is what this bill is 
about. The gentleman knows it and may not like it, but he understands 
it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is serious business today. This is a serious 
debate. That is why today I seriously oppose the majority's tax 
reconciliation bill before us and strongly support the Democratic 
substitute which I feel is much more fiscally responsible, long-term in 
outlook at better enables us to pay down our national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of problems with this tax reconciliation 
bill, not least of which that this is the single most important act we 
can do if we are interested in setting up for failure future 
generations of leadership and our children and grandchildren.
  The great unspoken truth in this debate is all the focus has been on 
the

[[Page H2214]]

next 10 years and projected budget surpluses that may or may not occur, 
but very little attention has been given to what happens in the second 
decade with the aging population, the demographic boom, the soon-to-be-
retiring baby boom generation. We have serious unfunded liabilities and 
responsibilities that need to be taken care of. If we want to set up 
the next generation of leadership and our children for failure, this is 
the best way of doing it.
  Just take this chart, for instance. It shows the Social Security 
surplus in the trust fund and what it looks like over the next 10 
years. Half of the projected surplus in the next 10 years is coming out 
of the Social Security trust fund which no one here wants to touch. But 
if we look at the second decade and beyond when the boomers start 
retiring, we see a sea of red of unfunded liabilities.
  If this tax cut the way it is currently drafted passes, it will 
gradually phase in over the next 10 years and become fully implemented 
at exactly the same time the baby boomers start to retire. If that is 
not a recipe for disaster, I do not know what is.
  But what else is unspoken is the hidden cost of the budget resolution 
that is working its way through Congress. Where is AMT relief in this 
tax bill, the alternative minimum tax? We all know that that is 
something we are going to have to deal with in the next 10 years. Where 
are the tax extenders? Where are the projected plus-up in cost for the 
missile defense shield, for increase in defense spending, for farm 
relief if the farm economy does not turn around?
  These are things that we all know we are going to have to deal with 
and deal with in a fiscally responsible manner. We nor future 
Congresses are going to meet those obligations and reduce our national 
debt with this tax reconciliation bill. So I encourage my colleagues to 
support the Democratic substitute, which is more fiscally responsible 
and places a priority on debt reduction and to preserving and 
protecting Social Security and Medicare for future generations.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire about the time remaining on 
either side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1836 which 
continues this body's efforts to quickly enact meaningful tax relief.
  While I understand that this bill mainly represents a vehicle to get 
us to conference with the Senate, I am particularly pleased that the 
House's reconciliation bill focuses on the most important component of 
the President's tax cut, a reduction in marginal tax rates.
  With almost $960 billion in tax relief, this legislation provides a 
solid base for addition of other important tax cuts during negotiations 
with the Senate. As we work to reach agreement with our friends on the 
other body, however, I urge the retention of these rate cuts.
  First, unlike the tax policy of the prior administration, marginal 
rate cuts do not discriminate. They do not favor only individuals 
engaging in activities deemed worthy. They do not use IRS agents as 
social engineers. Under these marginal rate cuts, if one pays income 
taxes, one gets a tax cut. It is that simple.
  Second, bold marginal rate cuts can help prevent a further slide in 
our economy. During testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means 
earlier this year, noted economist Martin Feldstein explained that, ``a 
large tax cut coming at this time will help to assure a stronger short-
term recovery from the current economic slowdown.''
  He went on to say that, while adjusting the tax rates cannot 
eliminate the business cycle, a tax cut now would be useful, as the 
increase in after-tax incomes and expectations that such increases will 
continue in the future will boost confidence as well as spending power.

                              {time}  1430

  Increasing the short-term effect by starting the tax cuts at the 
beginning of the year would reinforce this favorable effect.''
  Simply put, the sooner we pass rate reductions, the more likely they 
are to help address concerns about the softening economy. Arthur 
Laffer, who advised former President Reagan, said it quite simply, 
``George W. Bush's tax cut proposal will benefit the American economy 
in the near term by bringing the current slowdown to a quick end. In 
the long run, it could increase the economy's growth rate. Pro-growth 
tax policies do wonders for the economy.''
  Cutting marginal tax rates encourages individuals to work harder and 
to take risks. For the small businesses who pay taxes on the individual 
schedule, these tax cuts will make it possible for them to expend the 
capital necessary for them to continue to grow.
  Recent research by Robert Carroll and other economists found tax rate 
reductions had a significant influence on small business growth and 
that reducing the top marginal rate down to 33 percent would result in 
approximately 10 percent higher revenues for those small businesses in 
the top tax bracket. In another paper, the group found that boosting 
small businesses' after-tax income by that much would increase their 
likelihood of adding more employees.
  A dynamic analysis of the United States economy done by the Heritage 
Foundation estimated the rate reductions contained in this legislation 
would increase the family of four's after-tax budget by $2,624, leading 
to an increase in consumption while also driving up our anemically-low 
national savings rate.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, let our economy grow. Let us pass this tax 
bill out of the House today, get into conference with the Senate, give 
our economy a boost, and get us back on the path to economic growth.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  My colleagues, why the need to circumvent the rules of this House and 
the Senate? Why not follow the legislative process in this Congress? 
Why do we have this bill, so-called reconciliation bill, before us 
today? Why, especially when this bill's benefits go mostly to the 
wealthy and not enough to the rest of middle America?
  Why is it that in this proposal the tax cuts that are within it would 
benefit the richest of Americans; that 1 percent of Americans would get 
44 percent of the benefits of this bill and yet 60 percent of Americans 
earning some $44,000 or less, 60 percent of America, will receive 
something on the order of about 16 or 17 percent of the entire wealth 
in this package?
  Why are we rushing so quickly to do this? Why must we evade the 
process? Why can we not go through the committee process? Why can we 
not have this inspected in the light of day? Why can the sun not shine 
on what we are doing?
  Why can we not, in fact, feel the same urgency for our energy crisis 
as we apparently feel in this Congress towards giving tax cuts which 
will benefit mostly the wealthy? If we are in need of acting quickly in 
any regard in this body at this moment it is in regards to the energy 
crisis, which will affect middle America today. When those blackouts 
occur, those who have money can buy their way out of them.
  Yet here we are today not following the legislative process that we 
are accustomed to, to try to rush through a package of benefits that 
will not help most of middle America. This is a major use of our time, 
and it is a major use of taxpayers' money, because every day the lights 
are on here we are spending money.
  I would urge my colleagues to use more caution, more prudence in 
moving forward. Because, quite honestly, if we need to act today, it is 
on dealing with this energy crisis that will hit every single home of 
middle America. That is why today it does not make sense for us to 
evade the process, go around it, circumvent it, not show the American 
public what we are doing completely, which will not affect most of the 
people having a chance to watch this debate.

[[Page H2215]]

  It is time for us to get down to the business this Congress was 
elected to do. It is time for us to take care of urgent matters, such 
as the energy crisis now, and deal with tax cuts in a fair and prudent 
manner for all of America.
  The tax proposal that comes in the Democratic alternative is exactly 
that. It provides immediate relief to all Americans, and it does it in 
a fair way; and it makes sure that we protect Social Security, 
Medicare, education, crisis for our farmers in the heartland, and does 
it in a way that still saves us money to take care of crises like the 
energy crisis we are facing.
  That is where we need to go. And I would hope that this Congress 
would heed the call of Americans who say, keep my lights on. Give me 
fair tax relief, but keep my lights on.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a distinguished Member of 
this House that does not ask to speak unless he really believes that it 
is important to the national security of our great Republic. It is a 
great and distinct honor for me to yield the remainder of my time to 
him.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha) is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the way we are doing 
this. I voted against every tax cut so far. When I go home, and I have 
been home the last 8 weeks in a row, only one person has brought up to 
me that we need a tax cut. Only one person has said, and I ask them, 
How many of you in this room make over $300,000 a year? Not many hands 
go up in my district.
  The point I am making is the way we are doing this is what worries 
me. We have a pent-up demand in defense; we have promised the troops we 
are going to give them a 7 to 10 percent pay increase. We have all 
kinds of weapon systems which are out of date. We have an O&M problem. 
And all these are outlay problems. We have a procurement problem as far 
as the ships go in the Navy. I remember back 20 years when half our 
airplanes were grounded because of lack of spare parts. I remember 
offering an amendment to put $5 billion in for spare parts; $5 billion 
for O&M.
  Now, I voted for the last tax cut. It was a bipartisan tax cut. When 
I say the last tax cut, the tax cut that came in the Reagan 
administration that most of us were convinced by President Reagan and 
the leadership in the House that this was going to improve things. We 
ended up with $4 trillion worth of deficit. Now, we can blame it on 
spend, we can blame it on everything, but the facts are we ended up 
with a bigger deficit. I worry about the same thing again.
  It seems to me that before we take up a tax cut of this size, we 
should figure out exactly what we are going to do with the money. When 
I went down to Austin to visit with President Bush, he asked a number 
of us what we thought needed to be done. I told him I thought this year 
alone we needed $30 to $35 billion more for defense alone.
  I worry about my district. They just cut off the gas to some of the 
people that could not pay their bills. In Pennsylvania you cannot turn 
the gas or electricity off during the wintertime; obviously, people 
would freeze. But they have now turned it off. They could not afford to 
pay for prescription drugs and heating; and yet we are passing a tax 
bill, however it is configured in my estimation. That worries me that 
we are going to be right back to where we were before.
  Now, they assured us that supply-side economics would work. All of us 
believed that at the time. I remember sitting in a corner and the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means came back there and said, 
Look, this is going to work. He said, You need to vote for this tax cut 
because it will stabilize policy, it will increase economic activity, 
it will make more money available for investment. Well, as all of us 
know, for whatever reason, it did not work right.
  But my major concern is our national security. I have not seen any of 
the details of what the President's going to propose. I hear all kinds 
of rumors. I hear the President saying he is going to spend more money 
on defense. I listened to him during his campaign. I think most of the 
people in the military thought that by this time there would be a 
supplemental appropriation and that there would be more money available 
for the military.
  And I understand that he wants to study the situation. I appreciate 
that. He has some of the best advisers that any President ever had, and 
I know he is committed to a strong national defense. But I frankly do 
not see how we are going to get there. I do not see how we can increase 
the quality of life for the troops.
  I was for the draft, one of the few people in the Congress that voted 
to continue the draft. I was not for the volunteer army because I knew 
that personnel costs would be exorbitant, but I thought a cross-section 
of Americans ought to serve in the military. It turns out it is very 
expensive. We have to offer bonuses; we have to pay extra money. If we 
want to keep a quality force, it is essential. Today's force must be a 
quality force for them to meet the issues that they face today.
  So I would urge the Members to vote against this reconciliation bill 
until we see the details of the budget.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I guess everyone is thoroughly confused right now, based upon the 
statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Why do 
we not do this in the light of day? Do we know where and how we are 
going to be spending any of this money?
  I hate to be the one to tell my colleagues, if they are not aware of 
it, but the House and the Senate have already passed a budget. That 
budget takes care of paying down the debt. It covers Medicare. It 
protects Social Security. It provides more than sufficient money for 
defense.
  I find it ironic they have now reached a point that on a Republican 
administration, with the former Secretary of Defense as the Vice 
President, the former military chief of staff as the Secretary of 
State, and with the honored Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense 
that we are worried about whether or not the defense of this country is 
going to be taken care of. Where were my colleagues in the last 
administration based upon the folk who were running the show?
  I hate to tell my colleagues this, but we have already passed three 
tax bills. It was more than a month ago. Even above the Arctic Circle, 
the sun does not stay up that long. And I know some of my colleagues 
want to make this a partisan fight, but on one of those tax bills that 
we passed, the marriage penalty, there were 64 Democrats that agreed 
with us. We do not call that partisan; we call it bipartisan. On the 
Estate Tax Bill there were 58 Democrats who voted on that package. We 
call that bipartisan.
  It has been said that my colleagues engage in the politics of envy in 
an attempt to slow down giving people their money back. And when we 
hear the other side talk about the fact that only millionaires benefit, 
we begin to think that maybe that is true. When we say sometimes our 
colleagues use fear tactics, if we listened to the gentleman from 
California, who said there were going to be no Social Security checks 
going out; that, in fact, there was not enough money for prescription 
drugs for Medicare, I would remind my colleagues that it was this 
Republican majority that for the first time put preventive and 
wellness, when we became the majority, provisions into Medicare. Long 
overdue; not done by the previous majority.
  So I guess our concern is that a few months ago we were hearing from 
the Democratic leadership that we had to get money out into the hands 
of people. It had to be done fairly quickly. We are on the verge of 
doing that, and now the statement is this needs to slow down; this 
needs not to move forward. And at some point, I hope people realize 
that my colleagues will be arguing the issue of the day when this 
majority, with right-thinking Democrats, are trying to make sure that 
programmatic change goes forward and assists the beleaguered chairman 
of the Federal Reserve Board.
  But more importantly, since we have more money than we are spending 
right now, it is called a surplus, and we need to reduce the taxes 
that, under a budget we have already passed, takes care of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania's concerns, we ought to return

[[Page H2216]]

some of the taxpayers' money. It is not this bill. We are going to 
conference to find out what that bill is going to be, and it is time we 
do that so we can move forward.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rise today in support of H.R. 
1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001, a bold and fair 
tax relief plan that will reduce the inequities of the current tax code 
and help ensure that America remains prosperous. This measure will 
reduce taxes for everyone who pays income taxes, and it will encourage 
enterprise by lowering marginal tax rates.
  This Member strongly believes that some considerable portions of the 
Federal budget surplus should be returned to the American taxpayer, 
especially to middle income Americans. And, this Member also believes 
it is symbolically and financially important to use part of the surplus 
to at least make significant reductions in the national debt. 
Therefore, this Member is pleased to support the President's common 
sense plan that funds our nation's top priorities, pays down our 
national debt and gives tax relief to every taxpayer. Over-charged 
taxpayers deserve some of their own money back. It is interesting to 
note that in the first four months of fiscal year 2001, the surplus 
generated $74 billion. Clearly, the American people are being taxed too 
much.
  In fact, Federal taxes are at the highest peacetime rate in history. 
Americans currently pay more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing 
and housing combined. This year, it will take most Americans more than 
four months of paychecks to pay their tax burden.
  This Member is supportive of this tax cut because George W. Bush is 
President and we have a Republican Congress to check truly excessive 
levels of Federal spending. The legislation will help strengthen our 
economy, create jobs, and put money back in the pockets of those who 
earned it and need it most.
  The measure provides immediate tax relief by reducing the current 15 
percent tax rate on the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples 
($6,000 for singles). A new 12 percent rate would apply retroactively 
to the beginning of 2001 and also for 2002. The rate would be reduced 
even further to 10 percent as follows: 11 percent in 2003 through 2005 
and 10 percent in 2006. The reduction in the 15 percent bracket alone 
provides a tax reduction of up to $360 for couples in 2001 ($180 for 
singles), increasing to as much as $600 for couples in 2006 ($300 for 
singles).
  Furthermore, in accordance with President Bush's income tax rate 
reductions, H.R. 1836 reduces other income tax rates and consolidates 
rate brackets. By 2006, the present-law structure of five income tax 
rates (15 percent, 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent and 39.6 percent) 
gradually would be reduced to four rates of 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 
percent and 33 percent. No American will pay over one-third of his or 
her income in income taxes.
  This Member supports the reduction in the tax rates provided in H.R. 
1836 because the bill reduces taxes for all Americans who pay income 
taxes, spurs economic and job growth for all Americans and provides an 
average of $1,600 in tax relief for the average American family (family 
of four) phased in over a 5-year period. The $1,600 amount represents 
the average mortgage payment for almost two months, one year's tuition 
cost at most community colleges, and the average gasoline costs for two 
cars for one year.
  The legislation will also begin to address the growing problem of the 
alternative minimum tax by repealing the current-law provisions that 
offset the refundable child credit and the earned income credit by the 
amount of the alternative minimum tax. In addition, it should be 
remembered that this is only the first element of the Bush tax plan--
additional tax relief is in sight for married couples and others that 
will benefit from more targeted tax cuts.
  According to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, savings to 
taxpayers over ten years would be $958 billion under the provisions of 
H.R. 1836.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his 
appreciation to our President, George W. Bush, for his willingness to 
steadfastly ``demand a refund'' for the American taxpayer. This Member 
urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1836 as an important step toward 
tax relief for all Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Rangel:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax 
     Reduction Act of 2001''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act 
     shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of 
     section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (d) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title.

            TITLE I--REFUND OF 2000 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES

Sec. 101. Refund of 2000 individual income taxes.

 TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE REDUCTIONS; EXPANSION OF EARNED 
                        INCOME CREDIT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 201. Individual income tax rate reductions.
Sec. 202. Modifications to earned income tax credit.

                   TITLE III--MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF

Sec. 301. Marriage penalty relief.

            TITLE I--REFUND OF 2000 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES

     SEC. 101. REFUND OF 2000 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 65 (relating to 
     rules of special application) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6428. REFUND OF 2000 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, each individual shall be treated as having made a 
     payment against the tax imposed by chapter 1 for such 
     individual's first taxable year beginning in 2000 in an 
     amount equal to 100 percent of the amount of such 
     individual's net Federal tax liability for such taxable year.
       ``(b) Maximum Payment.--The amount treated as paid by 
     reason of this section shall not exceed $300 ($600 in the 
     case of a married couple filing a joint return).
       ``(c) Net Federal Tax Liability.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `net Federal tax liability' 
     means the amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of 
     subchapter A (other than the credits allowable subpart C 
     thereof, relating to refundable credits).
       ``(2) Families with children.--In the case of a taxpayer 
     with 1 or more qualifying children (as defined in section 32) 
     for the taxpayer's first taxable year beginning in 2000, such 
     taxpayer's net Federal tax liability for such year shall be 
     the amount determined under paragraph (1) increased by 7.65 
     percent of the taxpayer's taxable earned income for such 
     year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 
     `taxable earned income' means earned income as defined in 
     section 32 but only to the extent includible in gross income.
       ``(d) Date Payment Deemed Made.--The payment provided by 
     this section shall be deemed made on the later of--
       ``(1) the date prescribed by law (determined without 
     extensions) for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 
     for the taxable year, or
       ``(2) the date on which the taxpayer files his return of 
     tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable year.
       ``(e) Certain Persons Not Eligible.--This section shall not 
     apply to--
       ``(1) any estate or trust, and
       ``(2) any nonresident alien individual.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter B of chapter 65 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 6428. Refund of 2000 individual income taxes.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning in 2000.
       (d) Protection of Social Security and Medicare.--The 
     amounts transferred to any trust fund under the Social 
     Security Act shall be determined as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.

 TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE REDUCTIONS; EXPANSION OF EARNED 
                        INCOME CREDIT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE REDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(i) 12 Percent Rate Bracket.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2001--
       ``(A) the rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (d) on taxable income not over the initial bracket amount 
     shall be 12 percent, and
       ``(B) the 15 percent rate of tax shall apply only to 
     taxable income over the initial bracket amount.
       ``(2) Initial bracket amount.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the initial bracket amount is--
       ``(A) $20,000 in the case of subsection (a),
       ``(B) 80 percent of the dollar amount in subparagraph (A) 
     in the case of subsection (b), and

[[Page H2217]]

       ``(C) 50 percent of the dollar amount in subparagraph (B) 
     in the case of subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(3) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in a calendar year after 2002, the $20,000 amount 
     under paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall be increased by an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     subsection (f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding rules.--If any amount after adjustment under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall 
     be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.
       ``(4) Adjustment of tables.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
     tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this 
     subsection.''
       (b) Adjustment in Computation of Alternative Minimum Tax.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 55(a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) the sum of--
       ``(A) the regular tax for the taxable year, plus
       ``(B) in the case of an individual, 3 percent of so much of 
     the individual's taxable income for the taxable year as is 
     taxed at 12 percent.''
       (c) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Section 32 is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Subclause (II) of section 
     1(g)(7)(B)(ii) is amended by striking ``15 percent'' and 
     inserting ``12 percent''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
       (f) Protection of Social Security and Medicare.--The 
     amounts transferred to any trust fund under the Social 
     Security Act shall be determined as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.

     SEC. 202. MODIFICATIONS TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Increases in Percentages and Amounts Used to Determine 
     Credit; Marriage Penalty Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 32 is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Percentages and Amounts.--
       ``(1) Percentages.--The credit percentage, the initial 
     phaseout percentage, and the final phaseout percentage shall 
     be determined as follows:


 
                                                      The
                                      The credit    initial    The final
    ``In the case of an eligible      percentage   phaseout    phaseout
          individual with:                is:     percentage  percentage
                                                      is:         is:
 
1 qualifying child..................        34       15.98       18.98
2 or more qualifying children.......        40       21.06       24.06
No qualifying children..............      7.65        7.65        7.65
 

       ``(2) Amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The earned income amount and the initial 
     phaseout amount shall be determined as follows:


 
                                                                  The
                                                  The earned    initial
  ``In the case of an eligible individual with:     income     phaseout
                                                  amount is:  amount is:
 
1 qualifying child..............................      $8,140     $13,470
2 or more qualifying children...................     $11,120     $13,470
No qualifying children..........................      $4,900     $6,130.
 

     In the case of a joint return where there is at least 1 
     qualifying child, the initial phaseout amount shall be $2,500 
     greater than the amount otherwise applicable under the 
     preceding sentence.
       ``(B) Final phaseout amount.--The final phaseout amount is 
     $26,000 ($28,500 in the case of a joint return).''
       (2) Modification of computation of phaseout.--Paragraph (2) 
     of section 32(a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Phaseout of credit.--The amount of the credit 
     allowable to a taxpayer under paragraph (1) for any taxable 
     year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of--
       ``(A) the initial phaseout percentage of so much of the 
     total income (or, if greater, the earned income) of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year as exceeds the initial phaseout 
     amount but does not exceed the final phaseout amount, plus
       ``(B) the final phaseout percentage of so much of the total 
     income (or, if greater, the earned income) of the taxpayer 
     for the taxable year as exceeds the final phaseout amount.''
       (3) Total income.--Paragraph (5) of section 32(c) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Total income.--The term `total income' means adjusted 
     gross income determined without regard to--
       ``(A) the deductions referred to in paragraphs (6), (7), 
     (9), (10), (15), (16), and (17) of section 62(a),
       ``(B) the deduction allowed by section 162(l), and
       ``(C) the deduction allowed by section 164(f).''
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsection (j) of section 32 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(j) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2002, each of the dollar amounts in 
     subsection (b)(2) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3), for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any dollar amount, after being 
     increased under paragraph (1), is not a multiple of $10, such 
     dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of 
     $10.''
       (B) Subparagraph (C) of section 32(c)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``modified adjusted gross income'' and inserting 
     ``total income''.
       (C) Paragraph (2) of section 32(f) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Requirements for tables.--
       ``(A) In general.--The provisions of subsection (a)(1) and 
     the provisions of subsection (a)(2) shall be reflected in 
     separate tables prescribed under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Subsection (a)(1) table.--The tables prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) to reflect the provisions of subsection (a)(1) 
     shall have income brackets of not greater than $50 each for 
     earned income between $0 and the earned income amount.
       ``(C) Subsection (a)(2) table.--The tables prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) to reflect the provisions of subsection (a)(2) 
     shall have income brackets of not greater than $50 each for 
     total income (or, if greater, the earned income) above the 
     initial phaseout threshold.''
       (b) Repeal of Denial of Credit Where Investment Income.--
     Section 32 is amended by striking subsection (i).
       (c) Earned Income To Include Only Amounts Includible in 
     Gross Income.--
       (1) In general.--Section 32(c)(2)(A)(i) (defining earned 
     income) is amended by inserting ``, but only if such amounts 
     are includible in gross income for the taxable year'' after 
     ``other employee compensation''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 32(c)(2)(B) is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iv), by striking 
     the period at the end of clause (v) and inserting ``, and'', 
     and by adding at the end the following new clause:
     ``(vi) the requirement under subparagraph (A)(i) that an 
     amount be includible in gross income shall not apply if such 
     amount is exempt from tax under section 7873 or is derived 
     directly from restricted and allotted land under the Act of 
     February 8, 1887 (commonly known as the Indian General 
     Allotment Act) (25 U.S.C. 331 et seq.) or from land held 
     under Acts or treaties containing an exception provision 
     similar to the Indian General Allotment Act.''
       (d) Modification of Joint Return Requirement.--Subsection 
     (d) of section 32 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Married Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the taxpayer is married at the close 
     of the taxable year, the credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) only if the taxpayer and his spouse file a 
     joint return for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Marital status.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
     individual legally separated from his spouse under a decree 
     of divorce or of separate maintenance shall not be considered 
     as married.
       ``(3) Certain married individuals living apart.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), if--
       ``(A) an individual --
       ``(i) is married and files a separate return, and
       ``(ii) has a qualifying child who is a son, daughter, 
     stepson, or stepdaughter of such individual, and
       ``(B) during the last 6 months of such taxable year, such 
     individual and such individual's spouse do not have the same 
     principal place of abode,
     such individual shall not be considered as married.''
       (e) Expansion of Mathematical Error Authority.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 6213(g) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of subparagraph (K), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (L) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (L) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(M) the entry on the return claiming the credit under 
     section 32 with respect to a child if, according to the 
     Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders established 
     under section 453(h) of the Social Security Act, the taxpayer 
     is a noncustodial parent of such child.''
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

                   TITLE III--MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF

     SEC. 301. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF.

       (a) Standard Deduction.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating 
     to standard deduction) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under 
     subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
       (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
       (C) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
       (D) by striking subparagraph (D).
       (2) Increase allowed as deduction in determining minimum 
     tax.--Subparagraph (E) of section 56(b)(1) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply to so much of the standard deduction 
     under subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(2) as exceeds the 
     amount which would be such deduction but for the amendment 
     made by section 201(a)(1) of the Tax Reduction Act of 2001.

[[Page H2218]]

       (3) Technical amendments.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by 
     striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through 
     ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect 
     to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''.
       (B) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following flush sentence:
     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount 
     referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 142, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) 
claims the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, said the people should be 
thoroughly confused, and I guess he knows what he is talking about 
since it is his tax bill that is on the floor. And he talks about all 
of these tax bills that we passed.
  We better get back to how a law is made, because what we pass here, 
unless it gets over to the other body, it never gets to the President. 
So forget all of these things that we have passed here. We are not 
passing any tax law here. We have given up our authority to pass a tax 
law here. What we pass here are vehicles so the other body will then 
send to us a tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman, when we take over the House and I 
become chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am anguished to 
find that we may not have authority to do anything other than ask the 
other body, what would you like us to send over so we can go into 
conference?
  What does the gentleman mean by ``we''? It is the other body's bill. 
The gentleman could have taken the estate tax and sent it over there, 
the child credit and sent it over there, the marriage penalty and sent 
it over there; but, no, the gentleman says that we are going to send 
this over there, and is so proud of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman is proud of what they send back 
over here, because most of us will not be involved in that decision. So 
if there is confusion, I agree. But my colleagues should understand 
why. And that is, we are confused because we do not know what the other 
body is going to send to us as our bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the tax vote today is essentially a procedural vote to 
go to conference, since the only reason we are here is to add a 
reconciliation instruction to a tax bill to speed up the process in the 
other body. But that does not mean this is an unimportant vote.
  The House should go to conference with the best product, and the best 
product is the Rangel substitute. It contains rate reductions for the 
American people, marriage penalty relief, improvements in the earned 
income tax credit, and a rebate of $600 for married couples. But let me 
stress this, and my colleagues talk about the juxtaposition of the two 
political parties, our substitute is affordable. The Republican bill is 
not. Our substitute is fiscally prudent. The Republican bill is not.
  Mr. Speaker, the substitute does not push 10 years into the future 
tax cuts which we cannot afford today. If we cannot afford them now, 
why does anyone think we can afford them when the baby-boom generation 
begins to retire? I would call everyone's attention to that front-page 
piece in The New York Times yesterday about who is going to get this 
tax cut. I was mistaken, because I used to argue that the Republican 
bill would only take care of the wealthy. I discovered yesterday it 
really takes care of the super-wealthy. That is an extraordinary 
achievement, even for the other party.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be investing in the promotion of retirement 
savings, and we know that this bill that the Republicans have is 
deficient on that score. The pension provisions approved by the House 
lack direct incentives for anyone other than those who least need it to 
save for retirement. We could have done something about that here with 
simply spending $100 billion over 10 years. Over 10 years, I emphasize.
  The pension provisions produced by the other body are superior in 
structure to the House pension provisions, but squeezing those 
provisions into the $40 billion box was done.
  At the very least, I would recommend to the conference that they take 
the House cost figure and spend the additional money on the other 
body's retirement savings proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go back to something. The main point here is that 
no one in business across this country would use up all of the surplus 
when they see large investment needs just around the corner. Education, 
defense, the environment, the retirement of baby-boom generation 
members are all going to make gigantic demands on the Federal budget 
beginning in 2012, and we are going to have nothing to offer to those 
people once this bill goes into effect. The responsible thing to do is 
to support the Rangel substitute and object to and oppose the 
irresponsible majority party's position on this tax cut.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the minority on bringing forward a tax cut to 
this body. It is not an exercise that they are particularly accustomed 
to, but I commend them for getting a substitute together to cut taxes 
for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that not only the base bill that is before us, 
H.R. 1836, which is an across-the-board rate cut for the American 
people, as well as the other tax vehicles, the tax cut provisions that 
we have passed through this House that will be part of the conference 
between the House and the Senate, those items being the marriage 
penalty relief, the increase in the child tax credit, estate tax 
relief, the Portman-Cardin bill on IRAs and 401(k)s, savings vehicles, 
will provide the kind of stimulus for savings and investment that we 
need in this country; whereas the substitute that is offered by the 
minority, as good as it is, will not do that.
  Their bill is more narrowly targeted, to say the least. It will not 
provide incentives for small businesses or entrepreneurs to increase 
investment in their businesses, to create more jobs, and to give the 
economy the kind of kick that we need to continue economic growth in 
the future.
  While I commend the minority for bringing forth a tax cut to this 
body today in the form of their substitute, I would urge the Members of 
this House to vote against the substitute and for the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, picture this. Pull into a 7-Eleven late at night. The 
gentleman tops the gas tank off at the pump. It comes to $18 because of 
the last 8 years' worth of energy policy that we have had. The 
gentleman walks into the clerk at the 7-Eleven and hands the clerk $20 
for the $18 charge out on the pump. What happens next? What happens 
next?
  Does the clerk take the money and stick it all in the cash drawer and 
say it is close enough? Does the clerk take the change that is owed and 
stick it in the little charity box that might be in front of the cash 
register, as many of the convenience stores have, maybe it is for 
Muscular Dystrophy, maybe it is for Special Olympics? No. That is not 
what happens.
  Does the clerk look at the person next in line and say, they deserve 
the money more than you do, so let us give it to somebody else? No, 
they do not do that. Do they take the extra money, and as the gentleman 
before me said, we have some investments that we need and so we are 
going to invest that

[[Page H2219]]

overcharge in something right here at our local 7-Eleven; thank you 
very much. No, that is not what they do.
  What do they do? They give, my colleagues, their change back. That is 
what our Federal Government needs to do. We have been overtaxing 
America for some time now. Americans have been paying the tab. We have 
bills that we have been able to pay. We have investments that we have 
met. We have spending that we have taken care of. We have debt that we 
are paying down. We have set aside Social Security, and there is change 
left over.
  What the Rangel substitute says is we will give part of the 
gentleman's change back, but we will keep the rest, because we have 
extra spending that we need or we have extra investments, as the Rangel 
substitute seems to presuppose.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not what we say in our Republican budget, and 
that is not what we say in this reconciliation bill. We say, just like 
in Iowa, the clerk would run into the parking lot to give the change. 
American taxpayers deserve their change back. Vote for the underlying 
bill and against the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me if we gave $20 to the guy at the gas 
station and got $18 worth of gas, and we owed the owner $3.4 trillion 
in national debt, we would say put the $2 on our account; but that is a 
different way of doing business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I had a constituent at a town hall meeting 
in Washington ask a very interesting question, I thought, about the 
President's tax cut and energy bill which must be considered together. 
He asked this question: What earthly good is it to get some very modest 
tax cut, if every single dollar I get in a tax cut I have to turn 
around that month and give to an energy company in Texas? Every single 
dollar I get, I am going to give it to the energy industry which 
increases electrical bills and gas prices. He is right. What good is 
it?
  Mr. Speaker, what he asked me, if the Republicans want to do that, if 
they want to take absolutely no action about this energy crisis in the 
short term, nothing to help people in the short term with energy 
prices, what he asked me was why do they not just eliminate the 
middleman. Why not just give all of the tax cut to the energy industry 
and not have it go through us? I thought about that and thought it is 
clear.
  The Bush energy inaction plan, together with the Bush tax plan, is a 
giant money-laundering operation. The Republicans are not content to 
give 43 percent of all the tax cut to the top 1 percent, much of which 
goes to the wealthy oil barons; they want to make sure all of the money 
gets to the energy industry oil barons. That is not right.
  Why not have a sensible substitute and a sensible energy tax policy? 
We need a time-out from this madness of having the energy industry 
increase their prices to my constituents 1,000 percent in 1 year. It is 
a crime. This simple money-laundering operation to make sure all of the 
money in this tax vehicle goes to the energy industry is not going to 
do anybody any good except President George Bush's political friends.
  It is time for this President to understand he does not work for the 
oil industry anymore. He works for us. Reject this bill, pass the 
Democratic substitute and our energy policy, which will help middle-
class Americans.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Washington, I 
would hope that he would tell his constituent who asked that question, 
would he be better off with both higher energy prices and higher taxes, 
surely not. Surely he realizes that one way we can help that 
constituent is to cut his taxes, to give him more of his own money to 
use to meet those high energy bills.
  The gentleman should know that the President appointed long ago a 
task force to come back with recommendations on energy policy, which 
this country has lacked for a decade and we are very sorely in need of 
having. So this President is trying to respond to the energy needs of 
this country, and we expect that report, in fact, tomorrow from the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can tell the constituent of the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) that help is on the way, not only on the 
energy front but certainly on the tax front, as we have demonstrated by 
our votes here in this House to cut taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the base bill provides a tax 
cut to people who pay income taxes. The problem is the Federal 
Government is collecting too much in income taxes. I think the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) knows that. The solution is to let 
the taxpayers keep more of their income rather than sending it to 
Washington. Providing money to really low-income individuals who do not 
earn enough money to pay income taxes is not a tax cut. It is simply an 
excuse for those who do not want tax cuts to spend more money.

                              {time}  1500

  When President Clinton and every Democrat voted to pass the largest 
tax increase in history, they voted to punish hard work, penalize 
success and tax the American dream. They believed then and still 
believe now if you work hard and become successful, the government is 
entitled to over 40 percent of your income. That is just wrong.
  Today with this vote, Republicans are saying if you work hard, you 
get to keep more of your money. I honestly believe if you ask any 
American, they would agree that the government does not deserve to keep 
more than one-third of a taxpayer's hard-earned money. The budget 
surplus we currently enjoy was created because Americans pay too much 
in taxes. It is a tax surplus. This substitute does not want to give it 
back to you. The government did not create the surplus, and I do not 
think the government deserves to keep it.
  Every Member should remember this money belongs to the people. If 
they vote for any substitute, they will deny every American who pays 
taxes from getting their own money back. Americans want, need, and 
deserve a tax break. They deserve tax relief because that is what 
America is all about.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this entire process is unbelievable. It is unreal. It is 
a sham. It is a shame. It is a disgrace. The tone in Washington has not 
changed and this reconciliation process proves it.
  We are passing this bill today so we can rush the Republican tax bill 
to conference. We are rushing to pass a $1.35 trillion tax bill. That 
is a lot of money. That is a great deal of money. We cannot afford to 
be wrong. Somebody needs to tell the American people what would happen 
if we are wrong. The Republican tax bill is based on a 10-year budget 
projection that may be wrong. It is going to jeopardize our ability to 
provide for our senior citizens, jeopardize our ability to invest in 
priorities like education and prescription drug benefits for all of our 
citizens, and jeopardize our ability to pay down the national debt, 
save Social Security, and protect Medicare.
  We should be taking care of the basic needs of all of our people and 
not just some of our people but all of our people and not rushing to 
pass a tax bill that we cannot afford. This Republican bill is not 
right for America. It is not fair and it is not just. And this entire 
process is rotten to the core. Where is the bipartisanship that we hear 
from the White House, that we hear from the other side? It is not here 
with this bill. It was not here last week and it is not here today. We 
have wasted an important opportunity to work together on a bill that is 
good for all Americans.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against it and vote for the 
Democratic

[[Page H2220]]

substitute. If we want clean water, if we want clean air, if we want 
safety in the workplace, then support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers asked the 
question, how can we afford the tax cut? Well, I say if we cannot 
afford the tax cut at this time of surplus, when can we ever afford a 
tax cut? It is the taxpayers who created this surplus for us and it is 
they whom we should be rewarding by turning back some of those dollars 
for them to spend.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reconciliation measure and in 
opposition to the substitute motion. President Bush has very wisely 
made rate reduction the foundation of his tax relief proposal. He wants 
to help all income tax payers, especially low- and moderate-income tax 
payers as quickly as possible and this bill embodies his commitment to 
give Americans broad-based tax relief.
  The bill is fair, it is fiscally responsible, and it is good for the 
economy. Rate reduction is fair. Everybody who pays income taxes will 
receive tax relief under this proposal. It targets no one in and no one 
out. In addition, it provides retroactive tax relief for people in the 
lowest brackets by reducing the 15 percent rate to 12 percent effective 
at the beginning of this year.
  This tax relief bill takes 6 million people off the tax rolls, and it 
enables a woman on her own with two children to earn up to $31,000 in a 
year without having to pay income taxes. Rate reduction is fiscally 
responsible. The tax cut is phased in over 10 years, and it represents 
a very small fraction of the estimated $20 trillion the government is 
expected to take in over the next decade.
  And rate reduction will help American families. Once the cuts are 
fully implemented, an average family of four with $55,000 in income 
will see $2,000 a year in tax reduction. $2,000 is the same as 10 weeks 
of groceries, a semester of tuition at a community college, or 2 
months' worth of mortgage payments. These are real dollars that should 
go where the taxpayer chooses to send them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the reconciliation bill and reject 
the substitute.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman from Washington asks if not now, when could we give a 
tax cut? I would respond to this rhetorical question, that if you are 
talking about repealing estate taxes, I would suggest the time would be 
2011.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing an awful lot about 
the need to pass the biggest tax cut since 1981, and we always seem to 
go back to 1981. Maybe it was the teacher in me, I am not real sure, 
but for some reason I thought, well, what exactly happened in 1981?
  Well, I got to looking at it, and found out some information. Like 
this bill, the Reagan tax bill of 1981 was an exploding tax cut. If it 
had not been changed, CBO estimated that by 1986 it would have reduced 
revenues by 5.5 percent of the gross domestic product. At today's 
level, that is about $550 billion per year. And because of these 
projections, Congress passed legislation in 1982 to raise revenues by a 
little over 1 percent.
  Another part of this history lesson is, it could not come out of the 
House, it was passed by the Senate under Senator Dole's guidance. Two 
years later, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 raised taxes again. 
Taxes again were raised in 1987, 1989, 1990, and then in 1993. Taken 
together, all six of these tax increases reversed about two-thirds of 
the 1981 Reagan tax cut.
  Proponents of the Bush tax cut often argue that the deficits of the 
1980s and the early 1990s resulted from surging spending rather than 
reduced revenues. The figures that they cite on spending are 
misleading. Why? Because they include soaring interest payments on the 
national debt. Gee, we have not heard this before. Appropriations 
declined relative to GDP while our entitlement spending held roughly 
constant as a share. Tax revenues fell relative to GDP. The result was 
an increase in the public debt. Remember that thing we keep talking 
about, the public debt, pay it down, let us get rid of it?
  Well, if we do not look at this, we are going to lead ourselves into 
higher and higher payments on the debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I needed to provide this history lesson as a warning. 
This is an exploding tax bill. Most of its benefits will not take 
effect for 5 or 10 years. Revenues will be reduced just when the baby 
boomers retire, and that money will be needed for their retirement and 
health care. If we pass an irresponsible tax bill, a future Congress, 
like 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, will have to find the money for these 
needs. We need to pass the responsible Rangel substitute.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding me this time, and I thank my friend from Florida for bringing 
up the 1980s. A key element which Paul Harvey may refer to as the rest 
of the story, who was the majority in Congress in 1981, 1982, 1983, 
1984 but liberal, big-spending Democrats? And what do they do when they 
get your money? They spend it. Why are they opposed to a tax reduction? 
Because they believe in their heart of hearts, and this is the crux of 
the whole matter, the big philosophical, empirical difference between 
the parties is that in their heart of hearts they believe they can 
spend your money better than you can. They believe the American people 
are incapable of spending decisions which might benefit society by 
creating jobs and creating more tax revenues.
  I was speaking at a high school recently and I asked a young lady on 
the front row of a class how many of you have a job. She had a job. She 
made $7 an hour. I said, ``So if you work for 2 hours, you make $14.''
  She said, ``No, sir, I only get to bring home about $11 because of 
the taxes.''
  I said, ``I knew that. But let us say you do not really object to 
paying $3 in taxes or $4 in taxes out of your 2 hours that you work, 
you pay $4 in taxes and that $4 goes to roads, bridges, education, 
military, Medicare and you don't have a problem with that, right?''
  She said, ``No, sir I don't mind that.''
  I said, ``What if you knew that instead of $4, that we could run the 
government on $3.50 out of your earnings, what would you want with the 
rest of the money, that extra 50 cents? Would you want to keep it or 
would you want it to go to Washington so you could feel even more 
patriotic?''
  She said, ``That's my 50 cents. I want to keep it.'' That is all that 
this is about, is saying to the American people, we could run the 
government on less money. The only question is, who wants the return? 
Do you want to send it to the government or do you want to keep it 
yourself? And when you go out as an American taxpayer and you buy 
washing machines or tires for your cars or clothes or whatever, you 
create jobs, you stimulate the economy, the economy grows, and it is 
good for America.
  Let the American people spend their own money. Support tax relief.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority 
leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for 
the Democratic substitute and against the Republican tax bill which I 
think is fiscally irresponsible and the wrong plan for America. 
Republicans in the last days are so committed to this massive tax cut 
for the wealthiest special interests that they are even suggesting that 
cutting taxes is a substitute for a real energy policy in our country.
  This is a full-service operation. To sell a tax plan, they are 
willing to use any argument that is available to try to convince the 
country that the tax plan is the right thing to do. First, it was the 
economy that was in trouble. That is why we needed the tax plan. Now it 
is the energy problem that causes the need for the tax plan. I fully 
expect it is going to be suggested as the cure for the common cold.

                              {time}  1515

  We should be voting today, rather than on this plan, for immediate 
relief

[[Page H2221]]

from soaring electricity prices. We should be directing the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission to do something now to give people in 
California relief.
  This tax bill will not give the ordinary citizens in California, in 
Oregon, in Washington, and through the rest of the country that are 
facing huge increases in energy prices any reasonable relief. If milk 
prices in California had gone up the way energy prices have gone up in 
California, a gallon of milk in California today would be $190, for a 
gallon of milk.
  This tax bill offers no reasonable relief for the middle-income 
families and the poor families in California and the West that are 
facing huge energy price increases. Gasoline in the Midwest in some 
places has gone to $2.22 a gallon. If you want to know where relief is 
needed, it is at the pump. And again, this tax bill is so focused on 
the wealthiest Americans, it does very little for those poor and 
middle-income Americans who are having to go to the pump today to buy 
gasoline at $2 and $2.22 a gallon.
  We should be passing today a bill that addresses our long-term, 
short-term, and medium-term energy problems in this country. But 
Republicans have chosen tax cuts for the wealthy special interests 
first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. This is a one-trick 
pony. The only thing they ever want to talk about on this floor is tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
  In addition, this bill becomes a budget buster. It is going to cause 
high deficits. It is going to cause high interest rates and high 
inflation. We did this in the 1980s; we do not need to do it again. It 
could very well, alone, wipe out the budget surplus that the people of 
this country have worked so hard to produce, to keep interest rates 
down, to keep inflation down. And again, half of it is focused on the 
wealthiest folks in the country, people who do not even need tax 
relief, instead of focusing the tax cut, as we do in our substitute, on 
the hard-working, middle-income families and people trying to get in 
the middle class.
  Now, finally, by passing this tax cut, if that is our choice today, 
it is so large that it forces things out of our budget that people 
desperately want. People want money for education, to build new 
buildings, to help local school districts hire teachers, to have after-
school programs and pre-school programs. It will cause us to eliminate 
all of those efforts in education.
  We are going to take up an education bill here in the next few days. 
It is not going to have any additional money in it, because the budget 
assigns most of the surplus to this tax cut. It makes impossible a 
universal Medicare prescription drug program. When I go home now people 
come up to me and say, where is the drug program? You ran ads for it, 
the President ran ads for it, all the Democrats and Republicans ran ads 
saying they were for prescription drugs. Where is it?
  Well, I will tell you where it is: it is in this tax cut. There is 
not going to be a prescription drug program that goes to everybody who 
needs it in this country, because we have spent the money on the 
wealthiest special interests, so the people, the senior citizens of 
this country who want this program, are not going to get it.
  Where are the cops-on-the-beat? We are not going to have enough. We 
are not going to fight crime and prevent crime, because we are 
squandering too much money on a tax cut for the wealthiest interests. 
Where are the environmental protections? Where is the research on 
renewable sources of energy, on fuel cells, on trying to solve this 
problem in an environmentally-sensitive way? Again, we are spending 
those dollars in this tax cut.
  This is the wrong choice for America today. We could do better than 
this if we would pass a tax cut that is reasonably priced, that is 
focused on the people who need it, and will continue the economy we 
built in this country over the last 10 years.
  I urge Members to vote for the Democratic substitute and against this 
irresponsible tax cut that will wreck the greatest economy we have seen 
in our lifetime.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the minority leader has engaged in a tactic that is 
fairly common around here. It is the tactic of obfuscation. But no 
amount of obfuscation can get around the fact that the American people 
today are being taxed more than they have ever been taxed before in 
peacetime. In fact, as far as the research that I have been able to 
conduct can uncover, this is the highest rate of taxation for the 
American people except for one time in our history, which was during 
World War II. You cannot obfuscate that fact. We are paying more in 
taxes than we ever have.
  And what is the result of that high rate of taxation? We have a 
surplus. We are taking in more money than we need to run the 
government. So what are we going to do with that surplus? We are paying 
down debt as fast as we can. Regardless of all the rhetoric that you 
just heard, this House and the Senate passed a budget that accounts for 
this tax cut, that accounts for paying down $2.4 trillion in debt over 
the next 10 years, that accounts for a prescription drug benefit for 
seniors, that accounts for Medicare spending and Social Security 
spending.
  Shame on people who say that if we give the American people some of 
their money back, their hard-earned money, if we let them keep more of 
the money that they earned, that we are going to throw the elderly into 
the streets. Shame on them. That is just not the case, and they know 
it.
  For years in this House, years, decades, the Democratic majority 
passed budgets that not only did not pay down debt, it added to the 
debt. They spent money willy-nilly while raising taxes in a vain 
attempt to keep up with their spending habits.
  But in the last 6 years, the Republican majority, with spending 
restraint, has managed to balance the Federal budget and create a 
surplus. Now we would like to give the American people the rewards of 
those efforts, and I believe we are going to do it. It is the right 
thing to do. It is the right thing to do for the American people, it is 
the right thing to do for economic growth.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Am I understanding the gentleman right that the gentleman is saying 
that the Democrats in the Congress for years have been on the kick of 
tax and spend, and that tax and spend was for the purpose of 
implementing programs, for the purpose thereof of reelection; because 
over those years there has been a dependency created among some 
constituency in this country, that those people had to be reelected to 
go forward with those programs, irregardless of the cost? Is that what 
I am hearing the gentleman say?
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that may be the 
interpretation of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), but I 
really believe that Democrats are well intentioned. They really believe 
that the Federal Government ought to spend money for the benefit of 
people in this country.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I have 
no doubt of the intent. But my daddy was one of the smartest people 
that I ever knew. He had less than a third grade education, and I often 
heard him say that the road to the poorhouse was paved with good 
intentions.
  We have created so many programs in this country, so many programs 
that have to be funded, that it has created excessive taxation on the 
American people.
  What we are talking about here today, sir, is cash flow. There are 
people in this Chamber and this body who are concerned about the cash 
flow of the Treasury of the United States, rather than the cash flow of 
the constituency at home, who get up every day or work 12 hours, 14 
hours, sometimes around the clock, to make ends meet for their 
families.
  But we are taking so much of it. And we also require them to have to 
shift their cash flow at home to meet necessities, where it used to be 
they could meet necessities and niceties because they had the money. 
But today they do not.
  It has been mentioned about energy. Yes, gas prices are excessive, 
and they are going to go even higher. But a lot of it has been due to 
the recent years of overprotection, overregulating, the

[[Page H2222]]

lack of providing the facilities and the infrastructure to have the 
energy necessary to keep this country going, that now the price is out 
of hand and now some people are getting concerned about it, only 
because of the cash flow of the Treasury, not the cash flow of people. 
And when it comes to the charge while operating this government, we 
have a different charge than the marketplace does. We have a different 
charge structure than States and local governments do, because when it 
comes to taxes for local government or taxes for the State, everyone 
within that State practically pays the same or pays on the same basis. 
When we go to the marketplace and buy our product, we all pay on the 
same price structure. But when it comes to the operation of the 
government, we have five tiers of price structure, five marginal rates. 
We only had four prior to the previous administration, but there was a 
fifth one added in 1993, moving it to 39.6 percent.
  That is unfair. This bill allows the removal of some of those 
marginal rates and consolidation of and lowering of the tax rate on 
every taxpayer in this country, increasing the cash flow to the family 
and the private sector, which will result in an increase in the cash 
flow of the Treasury. We need to be looking at the cash flow of our 
citizenry, not the cash flow of this Treasury.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by pointing out that the minority leader 
in closing on the Democrat substitute twice mentioned that the 
Republican underlying bill, the underlying tax cut, is a tax cut for 
the wealthy special interests. Did Members hear that? The wealthy 
special interests.
  Guess who the underlying bill benefits? Guess who this tax cut that 
the Republican majority is attempting to past today benefits? It 
benefits everybody in this country who pays income taxes. That is your 
special interest. That is your wealthy special interest.
  If you pay income taxes, I guess you are a wealthy special interest. 
So be it; we are going to cut your taxes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic 
alternative and commend our distinguished ranking member for bringing 
it to the floor and in opposition to the Republican's risky tax cut.
  Our best hope for reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing 
pollution is through renewable energy and energy efficiency. Yet 
funding for renewable energy is cut by almost one-half and energy 
efficiency research and development is cut by over 30 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans attempt to justify the tax bill by 
saying it is needed to offset a slow down in the economy.
  My colleagues, in case you haven't noticed, the biggest threat to our 
economy is the energy crises which will be felt throughout the country.
  The Republicans are willing to tank the economy with their cavalier 
attitude toward the energy needs of Western United States.
  The Bush budget cuts about one-half billion from energy research into 
renewable sources which are the wave of the future.
  Indeed even without the energy concerns, the Republican tax bill is 
excessive, which is based on a surplus which we may not have and comes 
at the expense of investments which are priorities to the American 
people. Administration have repeatedly spoken of ``hard budgeting 
times'' and the need therefore to make difficult choices.
  In other words in order to pay for this risky tax cut, Bush's budget 
cut millions of dollars from breast and cervical cancer even when we 
know that early detection saves lives.
  Cuts in child care block grants, ignoring school modernization needs 
modernization needs and the cuts in investments go on.
  Don't let the Republicans tank the economy----
  Vote ``no'' on their risky tax cut!
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to House Resolution 
142, the previous question is ordered on the bill and the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188, 
nays 239, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               YEAS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--239

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock

[[Page H2223]]


     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cramer
     Cubin
     Napolitano
     Phelps

                              {time}  1550

  Messrs. SAXTON, KENNEDY of Minnesota, THOMPSON of California, MICA, 
and SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, the Rangel 
amendment/substitute, I was detained with constituents and arrived as 
the roll closed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 197, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               YEAS--230

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--197

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cannon
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Horn
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1610

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 118, the Economic Growth and 
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, I was on official business to examine 
the computers that were being demonstrated to assure honest and 
effective implementation of voting. I strongly support the tax relief 
provided by this legislation, thus, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 118, I was 
unavoidably detained. I strongly support tax relief and had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 118, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________