[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2646-H2654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 1836, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution
142, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Thomas moves that the House take from the Speaker's
table H.R. 1836, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to
the Senate amendment, and agree to the request of the Senate
for a conference thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem at all debating the issue of energy.
My understanding was we had an agreement in which one individual and
then a second individual was going to be allowed to participate. No one
communicated to this side of the aisle that there were going to be
additional people participating.
My understanding is that this place can only function when people
operate on the agreements that they reach.
Mr. Speaker, I have more than a willing opportunity to discuss any
issue under the motion to instruct in which time is divided equally on
either side, but under a reservation on a unanimous consent, the
agreement that we had reached was violated by the other side. I believe
we should move forward.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the
motion to go to conference on H.R. 1836 the so-called reconciliation
measure considered last week. In the House this measure was considered
with little notice, without the consultation with, nor input from, the
Democratic Party. This measure was crafted in the dead of the night,
behind closed doors and now we are instructed to vote to send it to
Conference.
I say vote no on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 1836. This
measure was reintroduced under the cover of a reconciliation bill in
order to deprive the power of the minority in the Senate. The American
people should ask themselves: Why couldn't the Republicans Leadership
bring this bill up under normal procedures? Why did they resort to
procedural tricks in order to thwart the will of the Senate minority?
Then, in order to aggravate the situation, the rule passed in the House
was a closed one, allowing for only one Democratic Amendment and a
motion to recommit. Why was the Republican Leadership in the House
afraid of an honest and open debate on this measure?
It is clear that despite Republican claims to the contrary, this
reconciliation-bill won't be the only tax cut bill sent to the
President this year. Although the budget resolution provided for $1.35
trillion in tax cuts, the Republican wish list includes a total of $2.4
trillion in tax expenditures. Including the interest cost, the total
drain on the budget surplus from these tax cuts over ten years would be
nearly $3.0 trillion, more than the $2.7 trillion available in the
projected surpluses outside Social Security and Medicare.
This bill is essentially the same as H.R. 3, which this Chamber
passed earlier in the year. I voted ``no'' then and I will vote ``no''
now. The Joint Tax Committee estimated the cost at nearly $1.0 trillion
over ten years, excluding interest, with the wealthy receiving the
lion's share of the benefits. According to an analysis by Citizens for
Tax Justice, 44 percent of the tax cuts would go to those in the top 1
percent, while the 60 percent of families with incomes of $44,000 or
less would get a mere 16.5 percent of the tax cuts. The bill does make
a portion of the new bottom 10 percent tax bracket effective in 2001.
However, the bill disregards the need for immediate economic stimulus,
providing only $5.6 billion in 2001. In a budget of $10 trillion, $5.6
billion is a drop in the bucket and there will be no trickle down
economic stimulus resulting from this tax cut.
Democrats offered an alternative tax cut that gave everyone that pays
federal income or payroll taxes a tax cut, and provides approximately
$60 billion immediate economic stimulus through a rebate of $300 for
married couples.
Our alternative was reasonable and fiscally responsible because it
left money to address other problems facing our nation. Our tax cut
protected Social Security and Medicare and invested in education and
prescription drug coverage in Medicare for all seniors.
President Bush ran on the issue of a strong defense, the price of
which we have not yet seen. This budget, however, does not even
consider the cost of the changes he has advocated to our defense
infrastructure. While he deals in theory, our budget dealt with
reality. A realistic tax cut that left enough money in the budget to
ensure a strong defense.
Democrats believe in tax cuts, but not at any cost. Our tax cut fixed
the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that the Republican
bill ignores. It creates a new 12 percent tax rate bracket and expands
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Our alternative even gives
marriage penalty relief to couples who use the standard deduction.
Yet our alternative did this at a realistic cost. Our alternative
cost $585 billion over ten years, with a total cost of $750 billion
including interest.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican
tax trick. Vote against the motion to go to conference on H.R. 1836.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
The motion was agreed to.
Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Stark
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stark moves that, to the maximum extent permitted
within the scope of the conference, the conferees on the part
of the House in the conference on H.R. 1836, the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, be
instructed to produce a Conference Report in which--
1. The revenue losses and associated debt service costs do
not grow as a percentage of gross domestic product on either
a long or short term basis. In order to do so--
A. The Conference Report shall not include phase-ins longer
than 5 years, delayed effective dates, or sunsets.
B. The Conference Report shall include provisions on all of
the following issues: marriage penalty relief, increasing
per-child tax credit, estate tax relief, pension reform
legislation, and permanent extension of the research credit.
C. The Conference Report shall adjust the current law
alternative minimum tax so that it does not disallow the
benefits of the tax reductions contained in the bill.
2. The Conference Report shall be designed so that its
revenue loss and associated debt service costs for each
fiscal year do not exceed the projected non-Social Security/
non-Medicare surplus for such fiscal year. For
[[Page H2647]]
purposes of the preceding sentence, the projected non-Social
Security/non-Medicare surplus for any fiscal year is the
projected amount of the surplus for such year determined by
disregarding the receipts and disbursements of the Social
Security and Medicare Trust Funds and by reducing the
projected surplus for any year by its ratable portion of $300
billion over the 10-year budget period.
3. The Conference Report provides benefits to every family
with children that has income or payroll tax liability and
the Conference Report includes inflation adjustments so that
the benefits provided to families with children are not
reduced over time.
4. The conference committee shall be required to meet in
preparing the Conference Report pursuant to House Rule 22.
Mr. THOMAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California would yield,
I think it is almost complete.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will continue to read.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
instruct be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, how long is the motion that we
are not wanting to read? How long is that reading?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California addressing
a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair?
Mr. FILNER. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman that
the Clerk is close to finishing reading the motion.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I just again want to register my opinion
that this House should be taking up the crisis of electricity in
California where my constituents are dying.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
withdraws his request.
The Clerk will continue to read.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
instruct be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, under the
reservation of objection of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas),
I wanted to say that I felt that the gentleman was correct in his first
statement. There was an agreement and the gentleman was absolutely
correct. We intruded on his good nature by extending the courtesy that
he had offered to us.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the gentleman was correct in his
assumption and his statement of the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we can now get on with the motion to instruct and
debate it as we agreed.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark) for that explanation.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7 of rule XXII, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Clerk had quite finished, but I
would just read the last section or two here, the conference report
does provide benefits to every family with children that has income or
payroll tax liability, and the conference report includes inflation
adjustments so that the benefits provided to families with children are
not reduced over time, this is required in our motion to instruct, and
that the conference committee shall be required to meet in preparing
the conference report pursuant to House Rule 22.
This motion to instruct does have three basic directions, and they
deal with constraining the exploding revenue costs.
The motion to instruct requires that the conference report would
preserve the funds necessary for Medicare and Social Security which the
current bills do not, and it should provide benefits to all families
with children that have income or payroll tax liability.
Mr. Speaker, we do, as I mentioned in the last paragraph, require an
open conference as provided in the House rules.
Since this tax bill has been written by the Senate, compliance with
the House rules is necessary so that there is some input from House
Members on the conference report. We should not completely abandon the
House's constitutional role on tax legislation.
Both the Senate bill and the various tax bills passed by the House
this year affect or create exploding revenue costs.
The revenue costs of the second 5 years in the bill is approximately
twice the costs in the first 5 years, and some press estimates have
suggested that we could be spending $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
These outyear revenue costs will come at the same time as the
retirement of the baby-boom generation, and it will create demands on
Medicare and Social Security systems that we will not be able to
afford.
{time} 1945
The bill is based on rather uncertain surplus protections, but it
ignores the certainty of the demographic pressures on the Medicare and
Social Security systems.
The bill has gimmicks that artificially reduce the cost of the bill
in the 10-year budget window, but blow away the ranch dramatically
after the 10-year period. These gimmicks include delayed effective
dates, long phase-ins and sunsets. Very few provisions of the Senate
bill are fully effective at all times during the budget window.
The conference report uses the current law minimum tax to disallow
many of the benefits promised in the big print of the bill. We all know
that we will enact legislation addressing the minimum tax, legislation
that could increase the cost of this bill by hundreds of billions of
dollars.
I am most concerned personally, Mr. Speaker, with protecting Medicare
and Social Security. The motion to instruct requires the conferees to
construct a conference report that does not invade the Medicare and
Social Security surpluses and that reserves funds for a prescription
drug benefit. We have committed to preserving Medicare and Social
Security surpluses, and there is broad bipartisan support for a
Medicare prescription drug benefit. This aspect of the motion to
instruct merely requires the conferees to preserve fiscal resources to
meet our commitments.
Finally, the motion requires that all families with children that
have payroll or income tax liability should receive benefits under the
conference report. It is clear that the Republicans will guarantee that
the wealthiest segment of our society will receive large benefits from
the conference report.
It is only fair that families with payroll tax liability should not
be ignored. It is within that context that our motion to instruct
conferees is offered and that we ask support for it.
I suspect that the conferees, as few as there are from this side of
the Capitol, will meet late into the night. I further suspect that many
agreements have been struck in private and have been agreed to even as
we talk here this evening.
So as this runs through in a rush to judgment for tomorrow's get-away
day, I would hope that this instruction would be taken to heart and
imposed upon the conferees to protect some of the frail elderly, the
people who depend on Medicare, the lowest-income families in our
country who are trying to raise their children in today's turbulent
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of our motion to instruct.
[[Page H2648]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as is usually the case with motions to instruct, it
contains a number of phrases which seem controlling in nature. For
example, under the first point and the A section, ``shall not
include''; B, ``shall include provisions''; C, ``shall adjust''.
The fact of the matter is that the motion to instruct has no binding
capability whatsoever. In fact, if one goes up to the very first line
and reads the motion to instruct it says, ``Mr. Stark moves that, to
the maximum extent permitted,'' which means any time one reads
``shall'' under here, it has no consequence whatsoever.
However, we should not let this opportunity go by without correcting
some of the factual misstatements that have already occurred, not just
about the bill that we have in front of us, but about the bills that
the House has voted on in terms of modifying the tax obligation of
citizens of the United States.
In the bill that the House passed dealing with the child tax credit,
which seems to be the thrust of point number three of the listed points
in terms of providing benefits to every family with children that has
income tax on payroll tax liability, the answer is simple. The bill
that passed the House provided for the ability to utilize a refundable
credit to cover payroll taxes beyond income taxes.
I would also tell my colleagues it is a factual statement that, on
the Senate finance bill which just passed the floor of the Senate by a
vote of 62 to 38, not only did they provide a tax credit on a
refundable basis to those individuals who do not have income tax
liability, but who have also exceeded their payroll tax exposure. So
notwithstanding the statements that this is not being done, the fact of
the matter is it simply is not true.
As we go through and examine the other structures, we have to
remember that this tax conference is being conducted under the budget
resolution which passed both the House and the Senate, which said we
must pay down the public debt, we must protect the Medicare or HI Trust
Fund, we must protect the Social Security Trust Fund, and we are to set
aside $300 billion for a prescription drug modernization in Medicare,
and there is an additional $500 billion fund which is available for
other discretionary programs as the Congress may determine. All of that
with an inclusion of a $1.350 trillion tax bill that is the reason for
us being here tonight.
So not withstanding the lamentations, the concerns and the wringing
of hands, this motion to instruct, which has no binding effect
whatsoever, outlines a number of concerns that have already been taken
into consideration and are being dealt with.
I believe that the concern of many of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle is to see the Senate move in a bipartisan way with 62
Senators supporting the Senate product and are moving now to a
conference.
I am reminded of our days in the minority when the phrase is risky or
rushing to judgment, because, frankly, if anybody has bothered to turn
on the TV and watch the Senate floor, to describe the Senate rushing to
judgment with more than 100 amendments over the last 4 days in which
every item was examined and voted on could hardly be described by most
people being neutral as rushing to judgment.
Conferences are a unique animal around here. When the House passes a
bill that is different than the Senate and the Senate passes a bill
different than the House, under the Constitution we are required to
reconcile the differences in the bill. That is called going to
conference. If it takes an hour, it takes an hour. If it takes a week,
it takes a week. The job of the House and the Senate conferees is to
reconcile the two bills to be presented back to each House in the same
form to be voted up or voted down.
I will tell my colleagues that, if one does not like the product
produced out of the bipartisan bicameral conference committee on
permanently reducing taxes of hard-working Americans by a $1.350
trillion over the next decade, one has every right and obligation, I
believe, to vote no, just as some of your colleagues on the other side
of the aisle did.
So let us wait until we have a product before we condemn it; for
example, the argument that we do not supply tax relief to those
individuals who have no income tax obligation or payroll tax
obligation. The product that came from the Senate in fact meets both of
those criteria. The product that came from the House met one of them.
Let us kind of turn the flame down until one has an honest actual
target to shoot at. This motion to instruct is a gun with no bullets.
Wait until we have the product in front of us. If my colleagues do not
like it, they can vote no. I think they will find, based upon the House
and the Senate coming together, the product will be overwhelmingly
accepted, voted on, and signed by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a sweeping
prediction here to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman
of the Committee on Ways and Means, that before I have seen the final
product, I am not going to like it. I can assure my colleagues I am not
going to like that final product.
This motion to instruct conferees contains many good elements. As the
chairman has acknowledged, this is one of the tools of the minority to
make a point. I recall the distinguished majority leader of the House
now when he was the, I believe, minority second person in command on
the Republican side, when he said that the Clinton budget would be
fiscal Armageddon; and I recall when the former chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, Mr. Kucinich, the gentleman from Ohio,
indicated that we were headed toward a depression with the Clinton
budget agreement in 1997. So there are tools that the minority employs
from time to time to make a point around here.
The key point of this motion is that the conference report should not
include phase-ins longer than 5 years. This limits the ability of each
party to push costs we cannot afford now out into the future. It also
means that whatever we enact into law would probably stick.
It also is fair to acknowledge that this is truth-in-advertising for
the House of Representatives tonight. Nor is it unheard of. As the
current chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has said many
times, and I agree with him, the House works off of a 5-year
projection. So to ask that this bill is fully phased in within 5 years
is simply consistent.
The motion to instruct also asks that the alternative minimum tax be
adjusted so that none of the benefits in this bill is reversed by AMT.
Again, taxpayers get what they have been promised. Another truth-in-
advertising provision.
I would add my personal plea to the leadership on the other side,
however, that we explore how to solve, even on a temporary basis, the
incentive stock option issue with the alternative minimum tax. As the
chairman knows, the interaction of the regular tax treatment of
incentive stock options and AMT treatment leads to a tax trap to
individuals in a declining market. I have a number of letters on my
desk from people who know that right now.
The gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) has said to me
consistently, and I believe him, that he wants to resolve the AMT
issues as they arise and to look at the whole issue sometime in the
future. AMT is a serious issue that we have to take up, and I have been
on it consistently for a couple of years. I appreciate his sentiments,
but this issue is one that taxpayers are facing today. They are filing
for bankruptcy, and we cannot wait to resolve this issue in the next
year or the year after.
So I request the chairman to seek at least a temporary solution in
conference such as removing incentive stock options from the
alternative minimum tax for last year and this year while we decide how
to permanently resolve the many problems of alternative minimum tax in
which I will remind this body multiply and get worse day after day
after day.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H2649]]
Mr. Speaker, to show my colleagues the seriousness of the minority's
offer on the motion to instruct and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal), in terms of the statement that he just made, especially in
dealing with the part A provision that says that it shall not include a
phase-in longer than 5 years, I think it would be instructive if some
of my friends on the other side of the aisle would revisit the Democrat
tax plan which was offered on three separate occasions on the floor of
the House which contains on its estate tax structure a 10-year relief
period.
So I find it interesting that they are attempting to impose on the
conference a standard of time limit which they chose not to impose on
themselves in bills that they offered.
That should give my colleagues just one example of the seriousness of
the approach of our friends on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to 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 chairman for yielding
me this time, and I appreciate all the hard work and time he has put
into putting this tax plan together.
As I look at the motion to instruct conferees, I know that the actual
motion to instruct violates the very Democrat plan that has been
offered here on the floor previous times, as the chairman just
mentioned. So not only does it violate the earlier Democratic
substitutes that we have seen, it also backs us off of the very
important commitments that we have achieved in the budget resolution
that we are achieving in this tax bill.
Number one, what we are accomplishing here with this conference
report as we roll this through is to put the details into the tax
provision of the budget resolution. We have a vision which is the 10-
year budget, which has very important priorities but in that budget has
very strict provisions that do these things: pays off our public
national debt as fast as possible to a very negligible, almost zero
dollar amount by the end of this decade.
{time} 2000
Two, once and for all, once and for all, for the first time in 30
years, we will stop the raid on the Social Security and Medicare Trust
Funds by making sure that we apply those dollars to those very
programs, and to pay off the national debt, which helps us with those
programs on top of that.
And, third, we see that the American taxpayer, the hard-working
families of America, continue to overpay their taxes. After we pay down
our debt, after we improve Medicare and Social Security, people are
still overpaying their taxes. And that is why we are taking a very
important step by giving people some of their money back. We are
putting money back into the paychecks of the very hard-working
taxpayers who gave us this surplus in the first place.
So what is important to watch is that as we take a look at this
motion to instruct, it actually dilutes those commitments. It actually
takes us off of the very commitments we seek to achieve, on hopefully a
bipartisan basis, which is protecting Social Security and modernizing
Medicare, and we have a $300 billion provision to modernize Medicare
with a prescription drug benefit; paying down our national public debt;
and, yes, as people overpay their taxes, giving them some of their
money back. And we are doing it in such a way that it will help
stimulate the economy, create jobs in this country and do it, yes, fast
enough to make a difference.
Now, as to the criticism that this bill is being rushed through, that
just simply is not the case. Take a look at the Senate. We can see they
are clearly not rushing things. As the chairman mentioned, amendment
after amendment, 110 hours of debate over this bill. Since January, we
have been working on this provision. And, as a matter of fact, on these
very provisions that we will hopefully be achieving in this bill we
have been working on for 3 years. Vote after vote in Congress, bill
after bill has been passing Congress. This is the crescendo effort to
finally give people some of their money back. It is a bipartisan-
bicameral effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, these bills are not sound tax policy, they
are not sound economic policy, and they are not sound social policy.
The conference committee is going to try to put together two bills.
In this case, two minuses cannot make a plus. These bills are built on
the sands of uncertain estimates. The preceding speaker talks as if the
money is in the bank. It is not there. It is not there. These bills
will not help in the present. If so, very little. And what they are
going to do is to risk our future.
Much of the relief will be backloaded, my colleagues can be assured
of that. Most of it will be in the second 5 years. And then, when we
project beyond those second 5 years, it will explode in the later
years.
Where is the money going to be for the education bill that we just
passed? Not raiding Medicare? The plans I have seen for prescription
drugs take money out of Medicare, and there is no plan here on the
majority side to find it anywhere else.
The chairman of the committee says, well, a conference committee can
be 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 days, 4 days. I would bet this is going to be a
few hours in a back room without full bipartisan participation:
Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate.
Essentially, this bill will not help hardworking Americans. So much
of the money goes to the wealthiest. We do not know the percentage yet,
but when we see the final product, my colleagues can be sure that it
will not overwhelmingly go to hard-working middle-and low-income
families.
I urge we support the instruction.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This motion is an attempt to improve a bill that is probably
insusceptible to improvement. Indeed, it has always been challenging in
discussing this tax measure whether to focus on its fundamental
inequity or to consider its gross fiscal irresponsibility, because this
measure has embodied so many aspects of both.
It need not have been that way. There has been strong bipartisan
support in this Congress for reasonable tax relief. But reason does not
seem to be in vogue in Washington this year. Take, for example, the
matter of correcting the marriage penalty tax. We could have done that
the day after the Inauguration and done it on a unanimous basis in this
Congress. Democrats tried in 1995 to implement the so-called Contract
on America, but Republicans had higher priorities and they rejected any
correction of the marriage penalty in the Committee on Ways and Means.
Again this year, we find very much the same set of priorities.
Because the bill that comes to us tonight from the United States Senate
does not provide one cent of relief to those Americans who thought they
were going to receive marriage penalty correction during this year.
They have deferred the entire thing for another 5 or 6 years. So all
these pretty photos of married couples and the discrimination they
face, they need to know that if we approve the bill that was just
approved over at the United States Senate, they will not get a penny of
relief out of this bill.
It need not have been that way. The priorities could have been
different. A bipartisan moderate approach to resolve the major
inequities could have been accomplished, but instead, things like the
marriage tax penalty were used as political ploys instead of as a basis
for coming about with reasonable reform.
As the Senate Committee on Finance chairman said of the bill this
week, quote, one criticism is that this bill's tax cuts are backloaded
for high-income taxpayers. In other words, high-income taxpayers
receive a lot of relief toward 2011 instead of 2001. This is a true
fact, but not a valid criticism. That is some real double-speak.
What it really means is they are loading up these tax cuts in a way
that
[[Page H2650]]
at the very time more people are making their demands felt as they
retire as baby boomers, there will not be the resources there to meet
those needs. Need increases, the ability to meet those needs decreases.
And this is part of an overall plan of this administration and those
within this Congress. This weekend, the Secretary of the Treasury gave
an interview to a paper in London where he called for the total
abolition of the corporate income tax. We will see one measure after
another. As one of our Republican colleague said, there is another bill
pending here. And the special interest lobbyists seeking tax breaks are
swarming around it like ants at a picnic. This bill is presented to us
tonight as a great picnic for the American people. But all they will
get out of it is one series of stings after another.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, I appreciate the presentation of my colleague from Texas.
It is always enjoyable.
There were 62 votes for that tax package today. There were 12
Senators of the gentleman's party who voted for it. And I would urge my
friends from California, who just made an impassioned plea about
dealing with energy in California, perhaps they should spend a little
more time with their Democratic Senators on the other side of the
aisle, holding their hands, because the Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein, voted in favor of the package.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this simple motion
calling for some truth in advertising and fiscal honesty in the tax
bill.
While we can have honest differences of opinion about the size and
structure of the tax cut, we should all be able to shoot straight with
the American people about the cost. Unfortunately, it appears that this
tax bill will use every budget gimmick in the book, and possibly invent
a few more, in order to hide its true cost.
This motion very reasonably asserts that the cost of all tax cuts
should be shown honestly and be phased in within 5 years so the costs
do not increase dramatically and surreptitiously in later years. The
tax bill passed by the other body would delay full implementation of
the five most expensive components until 2009 and 2011. More than 70
percent of these costs occur in the second 5 years.
Even worse, the cost of this bill would explode to $4.1 trillion in
the next decade, at the very time that the Social Security and Medicare
programs will begin to face severe financial challenges with the
retirement of the baby boom generation.
This tax bill bets the ranch on surplus projections continuing to
grow. If those projections are off just a bit, we will be forced to dip
into Medicare trust funds before we even start dealing with the
increases for defense or other needs as yet not addressed.
By passing a large backend-loaded gimmick-filled tax cut, we risk
returning to the era when deficit spending placed a tremendous drag on
our economy and ran up $5.7 trillion worth of debt. Even though I would
be delighted to be wrong, I fear we are also squandering our
opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare and pay down our
national debt.
I do not want my grandchildren to look back 20 years from now and ask
why I left them with the tab for tax cutting we will politically enjoy
today. I used to think no one else in this body would want to do that
either, but I was wrong. The least we owe our grandchildren and the
rest of our constituents is a little honesty, and that is what this
motion to recommit is all about.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady), a gentleman on the Committee on Ways and Means, lest
someone believe that the entire State of Texas, based upon the number
of speakers who have come to the mike on the other side of the aisle,
is all on one side. I would also hasten to indicate that both the
Senators representing the great State of Texas voted for the measure
that passed.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would remind all
Members that while it is permissible to comment on a vote in the
Senate, it is not permissible, under the precedents of the House and
clause 1 of rule XVII, to refer to a particular Senator's vote.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for 3
minutes.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time to me.
I think the President is taking, and this Republican Congress is
taking a very responsible approach to tax relief in America today. The
tax relief under this proposal starts slow and it builds. It grows. As
we pay off more and more of the public debt, and as the surplus grows,
tax relief grows with it. We do not have a budget surplus in
Washington, because I guarantee my colleagues that Washington will
spend every dime the taxpayers send up here, but we do have an actual
tax surplus because people are paying too much into government for what
they are getting for it.
There are people I think in Washington who are still out of touch
with the real world, who think we just do not tax people enough, and if
we did, that would solve everything. But look at the way real families
are taxed in America: When they start their day, they get up in the
morning and get a roll or a coffee and pay a sales tax; step in the
shower, pay a water tax; jump in the car to go to work, pay a fuel tax.
At work, at the office, they pay an income tax and a payroll tax. At
the end of the day, they get back and drive to their home, on which
they pay property taxes. They open the door, flip on the light and pay
an electricity tax; turn on the television, pay a television tax; pick
up the phone, pay a telephone tax. If they are married, when they kiss
their spouse good night, they pay a marriage penalty tax, and on and
on, until at the end of their life, they die and pay a death tax.
No wonder people have such a hard time making it, why there is not
enough money left at the end of the month just to meet the needs of
their children, just to provide for retirement, for college, and the
day-to-day necessities. Washington needs to get out of the way to give
people back more of what they have earned, not what Washington has
earned. We need to give them the power to make their decisions for
their children, for their schools, for their health care, because we
are overtaxing real families in America.
In fact, Tax Freedom Day was just a week or so ago, May 3. That means
for most of our families, they worked from New Year's Day to May 3 just
to pay their taxes, and then they started working for themselves. So
they have worked 5 months into the year before they start working for
their children, their family, their own American dream.
The Republican tax relief plan, the President's tax relief plan is a
responsible one, one that has more faith in our families than in
Washington to squander those dollars. I am convinced, and I am a new
member of the committee, that our Tax Code is too complex. I do not
agree with the instructions here dictating what that bill will do,
because I think bipartisan Members from the House and Senate ought to
sit down and ought to work through the complexities of this. This is
not the time to dictate. This is not the time to destroy the
bipartisanship. This is like getting to the end of the marriage vows
and the minister starts making things up.
{time} 2015
Mr. Speaker, this ought not be the time we do that. Let us keep a
strong, steady path and come forward with a bipartisan tax relief bill
that we can all be proud of.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and see if he can explain what the Senate
representation from Maryland did, without violating House rules.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman will not be able to
refer under the Speaker's admonition how my two Senators voted on this
bill; but I think the gentleman will find that they did the right
thing.
[[Page H2651]]
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman would indicate his intention on the vote
on final passage, we might be able to anticipate a comparison between
what his Senators did and what the gentleman is doing.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it would be very consistent with my
Senators.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, budget reconciliation is
supposed to be to reconcile this bill with the budget resolution. And
our budget resolution spells out a 10-year number that is available for
tax relief.
Our motion to instruct basically says let us be honest about that.
Let us be sure that the tax provisions are phased in in a way that it
is not backloaded. By backloaded, we mean estate tax relief when it
does not take effect for 10 years and then explodes in cost at the same
time we have problems in funding the Social Security system and the
Medicare system because of the baby-boom generation reaching the age of
65.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is basically truth in advertising. Let us
put the provisions in and not backload it and have to pay later.
The second thing is that this reconciliation bill ought to speak to
our priorities; and I do not think that our priorities ought to be tax
cuts today and tax cuts tomorrow and nothing else. We should speak to
the fact that we want to pay down the national debt, that we want to
preserve Social Security and Medicare and yes, put more money into
education like the overwhelming majority of this body voted to do.
Yet if we do not pass this motion, I am afraid that the
reconciliation bill will do what the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said. That
is, he wants to put 15 pounds of sugar in a 10-pound bag. It is going
to be 30 pounds of sugar in a 10-pound bag. It will squeeze out our
ability to do anything else.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was not in the room when it
was pointed out, notwithstanding his eloquence on the provision, that
the phase-in should not exceed longer than 5 years. I do want to remind
the gentleman that three times on the floor of the House the Democrats
presented a tax plan, and I can provide my colleagues, for example,
with some of the numbers. Under the estate tax relief, the language of
the Democratic plan said in 2002, relief would be at $2 million; in
2003 and 2004, $2.1 million; in 2005 and 2006, $2.2 million; in 2007
and 2008, $2.3 million; in 2009, $2.4 million; and in 2010 and
thereafter, $2.5 million.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman asking us to meet a standard
higher than they impose on themselves. I happily accept that challenge.
But to indicate that we should meet a standard that the Democratic
party did not meet in the Democrat's own program is just a little much
to take; and, frankly, it brings into question the sincerity of the
motion to instruct and the criteria that are placed in that motion to
instruct, which is in fact to hold us to a standard the Democrats chose
not to hold their plan to.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman looks at the Democratic
substitute, the gentleman will find that 95 percent of the provisions
take effect within the 5-year window. I think that is pretty good. If
the gentleman would agree to live up to that 95 percent standard, I
think we would be glad to amend our motion.
Mr. Speaker, the point is that we do not want to have the
overwhelming majority of revenue hit when we are in the last years of
the bill, and the proposals we are talking about may do that. The
Democratic substitutes never do.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, continuing on my time, if the gentleman
would look at the Democratic tax plan presented on the floor on three
different occasions, the single largest dollar amount under one of the
major provisions occurred in 2010; the second largest amount in 2009;
the third largest amount in 2008, et cetera.
The point is the Democratic substitute is structured similar to
everyone else's. The motion to instruct requires us to meet a standard
the other side of the aisle chose not to meet themselves on virtually
every one of the items they have in their bill.
Mr. Speaker, I understand their desire and what they want. All I am
saying is when the other side of the aisle chooses to impose a standard
on the majority, I would hope that the minority would have already
honored that standard.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would like to be refreshed on what the
Democratic tax plan is, it is here and available.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. My recollection is the gentleman is referring to the
provisions concerning the estate tax relief. The other provisions were
all phased in within the 5-year window, and the dollar amounts in the
estate tax in the last few years was a minor amount in the overall
effect of the bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would tell our distinguished chairman that the
Democrats are entitled to one mistake, for instance, the Senate vote
from the State of California today; and we had one provision that
phases out over 5 years, and I think almost every provision in the
chairman's bill phases out over 10 years. I would give him one free
kick if that will solve that issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, focusing on these phase-ins, if only the
Republican bill, if only the gentleman would promise that he would come
as close to not backend loading the ultimate bill, as we did in our
Democratic plan, he would get my vote against this motion. In fact,
instead the House bills explode in the second 10 years to a cost of
$4.1 trillion.
We need standards and rules for a unipartisanship-led conference
dedicated to such extreme mispackaging of a tax bill.
I want to talk to my Republican colleagues and say this motion to
instruct could save a lot of heartache back in their districts because
there is a new regime in the Senate. There may be 41 Senators opposed
to any further tax cuts. If they let a bill go through that is widely
publicized as providing constituents with tax relief, and then they
open up their tax booklets at the end of the year and they see that you
did not take care of the AMT, and the AMT takes back all of the
benefits talked about in the speeches, if they see there is no marriage
penalty relief or pension reform and their IRA is still $2,000, and if
they see the R&D tax credit has been allowed to expire, they are going
to ask why was that allowed to occur? Why did we celebrate a tax bill
that did not deal with those provisions? And only a vote for this
motion to instruct can be my colleague's defense.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a
significant contributor to a number of key issues, including the
pension and Individual Retirement Account legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, just looking at the motion to instruct, I
find it interesting that the other side is instructing the conferees to
include provisions that were not in the Democratic substitute. I have
the Democratic substitute in front of me. There is a requirement twice
here that the conference report shall include increasing the per child
tax credit, for instance, which was not in the Democratic substitute.
We just heard that we need to add all of these things, and yet when
the Democrats offered their own tax bill, it was not included.
I see a permanent extension of the research credit must be included.
That is an instruction to the conferees, yet the Democrats have no
research and development tax credit in their plan.
There is a discussion here of the AMT saying we shall adjust the
current law
[[Page H2652]]
AMT tax so it does not disallow benefits. That is in the House-passed
bill in conference. That is something that this House took up as part
of the legislation.
It has a number of provisions here saying we must be sure that the
revenue laws and associated debt service costs do not exceed Social
Security and Medicare in the HI Trust Fund. That is included in our
budget resolution and included in the House-passed version. And as the
chairman said in the Senate-passed bill today, it does not in fact do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I would make the suggestion that the motion to instruct
is not consistent with the Democrat's own tax plan that they came
forward with.
I would make the further point that despite what we have heard here
today on the floor, the budget resolution under which this tax
provision is provided does provide for tax relief, but only after
taking care of Social Security and Medicare in ways this House has
never done.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is shaking his head, but I have spent 8
years here, and I have watched us raid the Social Security and Medicare
Trust Fund. We are setting aside all of those trust fund surpluses for
those programs in ways that we have not done before.
We are also providing for debt relief in ways that are unprecedented.
We will relieve the country of more of our national debt than we have
done ever in this House. All of the available debt will be relieved. We
also have increases in spending where appropriate: education spending,
defense spending.
Yet after all of that, Social Security and Medicare are being
preserved, after the debt being handled in a way that is unprecedented
and is appropriate, and after increasing domestic discretionary
spending, still because there is a $5.6 trillion tax surplus building
up in Washington, there is some room left for the folks paying the
bills. That is the roughly 25 or 26 or 27 percent of the surplus that
is provided for in the tax relief measure that the Senate passed today.
Incidentally, the Senate passed that bill with 12 Democrat Senators
supporting it. And in the House, we had tax bills go through which are
part of the larger bill with 58, 68 up to 186 Democrats supporting some
of the tax provisions in this underlying legislation which we will have
an opportunity to vote on in the next day in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees is not consistent with
the Democrats' own tax plan; and it seems to be inappropriate to be
instructing conferees to be doing something that was not considered
appropriate when the Democrats had an opportunity to offer their own
plan.
Mr. Speaker, this does fit within the budget nicely. It provides some
tax relief to the hard-working Americans that created every cent of
that surplus. It is not only reasonable, it has been bipartisan. Twelve
senators supported it today. We have votes here in the House that have
been bipartisan on most of the provisions that are in the tax bill
before us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the motion to instruct and move on
to provide the American people with needed tax relief.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the House rules say about wagering on
the House floor, but if the rules were silent, I would be inclined to
offer the Republican proponents and my opponents a wager. I would give
them, whoever wanted to accept this wager, $1,000 every year that they
meet their projected 10-year budget proposal if they would in turn be
willing to give me $1,000 for every year in the next 10 years that they
do not meet the budget proposal.
{time} 2030
I would like to have that memorialized in the Congressional Record
and hope that I could collect every year for the next 10, and I think I
might leave that open for a while.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the President offers this tax cut plan as
his energy plan. He refuses to do anything about prices of energy,
which has gone up a thousand percent on the wholesale electrical market
in the State of Washington, but instead offers a few dollars in the tax
cut plan. As a short-term response to our energy crisis, this is an
abject failure; and I will say why and I will say how.
We live in interesting times. Tomorrow we cannot say who is going to
control the U.S. Senate, but we know the oil and gas industry is going
to control the White House. As a result of that, every single dollar,
every single dollar that my constituents might get next year back from
this tax cut, maybe 15 bucks a month for a middle-class family, is
going to be eaten up several fold by energy companies. They are going
to take that couple bucks from Uncle Sam, and they are going to ship it
in their envelope to the energy companies, many of them who happen to
be the President's political allies.
Now, at a townhall meeting a guy told me he was cutting his energy
use, but his prices were skyrocketing. And he said, Jay, that plan,
that tax cut plan, sort of reminds me of a money-laundering operation.
One just takes the money, launders it through the taxpayers and gives
it over to the President's political allies in the energy industry. Why
not just cut out the middleman and just give it all to the energy
industry, just cut out the middleman?
That would be wrong because we have people losing jobs today in the
State of Washington, 43,000 people losing jobs, and the President and
the Republican Party will not act on this. It is a travesty. We should
be doing a price cap, a price mitigation plan tonight instead of this
bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
showed the truth of this tax bill. The GOP majority, GOP, gas oil and
pollution, is going to make sure that when we leave for our recess we
have passed a tax bill 40 to 45 percent of which goes to the wealthiest
1 percent of our population.
The people who live in my district in San Diego, California, will get
very little out of this tax bill; and whatever they get, as the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) said, is going to go directly to
Exxon or to Enron or to any one of those energy companies that is
bleeding California dry.
We are going to leave town with that tax bill, but we are going to
leave town without doing anything for the people in San Diego or the
rest of California or the rest of the West.
The chairman of the committee is from California. He knows we are
being bled dry. He knows we are paying $70 billion this year for
electricity, whereas 2 years ago we paid $7 billion. The demand has not
increased significantly. The costs have not increased significantly.
Where is that 10-fold increase going? It is going into the 800 percent,
900 percent, 1,000 percent increase in profits by the major oil
companies and the major electricity generators of this country, and yet
this Congress is not going to act on the issues confronting California.
The people of California ought to be telling the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, solve our crisis. Stop the bleeding in
California. Give us a reasonable cost for electricity, and then we can
go home and enjoy our vacations.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to do two things: one, to respond to the offer of
a wager of the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), and I would tell
the gentleman that I would be more than willing to risk $1,000 a year
over the next 10 years with one proviso. The gentleman is concerned
about whether or not we will honor our budgetary numbers and live
within our means. I will tell the gentleman that if he makes sure that
the Republicans are in the majority for each of those 10 years, I have
no question at all that the gentleman would owe me $1,000 a year.
If, however, included in his wager that the gentleman's party regains
the majority, I can assure him the American people are going to lose
far more than $1,000 each for the rest of their lives.
So, if the gentleman will assure me of a continued majority of the
responsible party that has produced a surplus
[[Page H2653]]
that we have now, that is not a wager; that is an investment.
I will also tell the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), who has
repeated this several times, that he is pleading on the floor to stop
the bleeding in California, I have to tell my friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner), it is pretty hard to do it from here
because, frankly, the bleeding is a self-inflicted wound.
The gentleman ought to go to Sacramento. His party controls the lower
house of the legislature, the upper house of the legislature, and the
gubernatorial mansion; and if his party would address supply and demand
rather than assuming it is a rock and roll band on the question of
delivering energy, California can address its significant level. If
California wants to maintain air standards higher than the national
level and plead for us to assist them when, in fact, the national level
is unsatisfactory for Californians, then I would tell the gentleman
once again that this bleeding he cries out for in California is self-
inflicted.
Mr. FILNER. The gentleman is here. Would the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) yield to talk about the bleeding in California?
Mr. THOMAS. No, I have no interest in yielding.
Mr. FILNER. * * *
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman will suspend.
Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) yield to the other
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, I am not
yielding. I am trying to make a statement in conclusion.
Mr. FILNER. * * *
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is
out of order. The time is controlled by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as was pointed out by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the majority is always willing to
look at motions to instruct if they are, in fact, useful and
appropriate. What we have seen during the course of this debate is that
the motion to instruct offered by the other side attempts to hold the
conference to a time-year standard that they would not hold themselves
to, and that beyond that the requirements stated of having to be in
this particular tax package are items that they did not hold themselves
to.
So it would seem to me that one of the basic standards in examining a
motion to instruct to see if it, in fact, is serious and ought to be
considered by the majority is to contain provisions which the minority
lived up to in its own measure presented on the floor. We found it to
be deficient in a number of areas; and, therefore, I would reluctantly
urge my colleagues, notwithstanding, I am sure, the meritorious and
positive attempt to provide a help to the conference, that we reject
this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think this debate is about
several issues; and, frankly, it is about crafting a conference process
by this motion to instruct that would allow us to do some of the things
that we say in this House we are committed to.
It is interesting that we just voted on an education bill, leave no
child behind; but, frankly, with a $1.6 trillion tax bill out of this
House we will leave many children behind.
I want to work with my colleagues from California because I need to
say to this House the energy crisis, the energy problem, is not a
California problem; it is a national problem. Some of us believe that
it is important to have short-term relief, and that short-term relief
some agree and some disagree may be to eliminate on a temporary basis
the gasoline tax that we have and provide dollars to the highway trust
fund in substitute of what we are paying out to the richest Americans
in this country.
So the motion to instruct might allow us to craft a tax bill that,
one, is addressed in the first 5-year period and, two, protects Social
Security and Medicare.
I would hope my colleagues would listen to the fact that we cannot
spend a bunch of money and try and solve America's problems. This is a
good motion to instruct, and we should bring the tax bill down. It
should be a reasonable bill. We need to address the energy problem; and
if we do so, we need it with the monies that are now being expended in
a wasteful manner, giving away to rich people, rich tax dollars, and
not helping those who are in need.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on the Budget, to close the debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a large chart. I simply have this piece of
paper which I previously have put in the Record. On this one sheet of
paper, we show the consequences of the conference agreement that we
adopted on the budget and the consequences in particular of the tax cut
that we are about to send to conference.
This tax cut will have a cost in the area of $1.3 trillion. When one
factors into the budget all of the puts and takes, one starts with
$5.610 trillion, it seems that everything is possible. My lord, $5.610
trillion. But if we back out the Social Security surplus and then back
out the Medicare surplus, the available surplus for policy actions
before tax cuts is substantially less than that. It is about $2.6
trillion.
When one backs out the tax cut, we end up with, after interest
adjustments, a contingency reserve of $504 billion. There is $504
billion for policy initiatives, for estimating errors, over a period of
10 years. Now that, too, sounds like a lot of money until we look at
the bottom line and see that in the first 5 or 6 years that cushion for
errors, that contingency reserve, ranges between $12 billion and $30
billion; never a big number, particularly when we consider this: in the
puts and takes that I have just mentioned, in getting to this so-called
contingency reserve, this cushion fund, there is no calculation for an
increase in education, inflation only. No real spending increase in
education at all.
More seriously, more importantly, we have in this budget a
placeholder number for national defense. It is $325 billion next year,
but everybody knows that Mr. Rumsfeld is now transforming our military
and will soon be on the Hill, after this is all done, with a request
ranging anywhere from $20 billion to $35 billion next year, and
probably $250 billion to $350 billion over the next 10 years at a
minimum. Nobody disputes that.
I showed this chart today to Mr. Rumsfeld when he testified before
our committee. I told him that what we assumed is that he would be up
here next year for at least a $20 billion increase.
{time} 2045
Each year thereafter, it was staircased by $5 billion until it
reached $50 billion. He did not demur to those numbers.
Here is what happens when we factor in defense at that level and when
we also factor in to these calculations, emergency spending, which is
at the historic average of about $5 billion to $6 billion a year. Next
year, the contingency reserve in 2002 is $12 billion. Defense and
emergencies alone will need $15 billion. That means we are back in the
red again. In 2003, defense and emergencies will need $24 billion. The
contingency reserve is $19 billion. In 2004, defense and emergencies
will need $31 billion. The reserve is $24 billion. That is how thin the
ice gets as a result of this budget and, primarily, as a result of the
proposed tax cuts. That is the risk we are taking.
Furthermore, for those who want to say there is still money left for
education, there is no money in here for education over and above
inflation. That is already factored into the equation. Once we do the
defense budget, there is no room left for policy initiatives. There is
nothing set aside for Social Security and Medicare, other than what
they will accumulate in their own trust funds.
[[Page H2654]]
That is why I am opposed to this budget. It comes too close to the
margin, too close for comfort, and leaves no room for error. I think
everybody should bear that in mind, because this motion to recommit
tonight at least says, let us take the tax bill and try to make it as
well-contained as we can within the parameters of the budget we have
here. That is the least we can do, is send our conferees to the
conference committee and tell them, do a better job than either House
has yet done in fitting this tax bill into a budget reality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Stark).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STARK. 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 198,
nays 210, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
YEAS--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
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
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
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)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--210
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
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
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
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
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
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
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
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
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Becerra
Bereuter
Cannon
Chambliss
Clement
Cubin
Culberson
Dicks
Dooley
Frost
Graham
LaHood
Largent
Moakley
Murtha
Oxley
Rahall
Scarborough
Shaw
Smith (WA)
Visclosky
Whitfield
Wilson
Young (AK)
{time} 2108
Messrs. GOODLATTE, WATTS of Oklahoma, ISSA, BUYER, and BALLENGER
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the
Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Thomas, Armey, and
Rangel.
There was no objection.
____________________