[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 74 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2832-H2844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1836, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 153, I call up 
the conference report on 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 153, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report, see prior proceedings of the House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, the day has arrived. There was a contest for President last 
year. There were very clear and particular themes underscoring the 
candidacies of each of the gentlemen running for President. One of them 
said he wanted to bring a different atmosphere to Washington and he 
wanted to return some of the taxpayers' money. Governor George W. Bush 
became President. There is a different climate in Washington, and this 
morning we are returning some of the taxpayers' money. The conference 
agreement on H.R. 1836 is clear evidence of that different environment.
  I want to thank the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). Without his ability to focus, 
guide, support and nurture, this conference report would not be before 
us. I want to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), for his willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder in trying to 
produce a responsible product. But probably more important than that, I 
want to thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, the 
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the ranking minority member of 
the Senate Committee on Finance, the gentleman from Montana, Mr. 
Baucus, because they decided that the only way legislation as 
significant and sweeping as this could pass the Senate would be if from 
the beginning it was a bipartisan effort.
  It does not take too much analysis to realize that if you have a 
Committee on Finance divided evenly between 10 Republicans and 10 
Democrats, you are not going to be able to move anything unless it is 
bipartisan.

                              {time}  0830

  But they were committed to returning the taxpayers' money enough that 
they built a bipartisan product from its instigation in the Senate, 
carried it through the floor and into conference. And along with the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), we put together a bipartisan 
product coming out of the conference.
  Now, I know there is some consternation because not every member of 
the conference signed the conference report. What is important to note 
is there was a bipartisan signature structure because the underlying 
legislation is bipartisan in itself.
  There have been a number of statements about this piece of 
legislation which I do think need to be addressed. There are 
individuals who are still using a statistical analysis of a fictitious 
piece of legislation in terms of the distributional effects on the 
taxpayers based upon the tax changes.
  I would urge my colleagues in a number of places on the floor to pick 
up the material entitled Distributional Effects of the Conference 
Agreement for H.R. 1836 prepared by the bipartisan Joint Committee on 
Taxation to give you some feeling of the way this bill has been 
constructed. Notwithstanding the rhetoric you are going to hear once 
again about how this goes only to the wealthy, if you will simply look 
at the change in Federal taxes and the percent of the benefit going to 
particular income groups, for example: in those income categories 
between $10,000 and $20,000, in this calendar year, 11.5 percent of the 
benefits go to the $10,000 to $20,000; $20,000 to $30,000 9.4 percent; 
$30,000 to $40,000, 6.4 percent; $40,000 to $50,000, 5.4 percent; 
$50,000 to $75,000, 4.5 percent; $75,000 to $100,000, 3.5 percent; 
$100,000 to $200,000, 2.6 percent; $200,000 and over, 1.3 percent. In 
other words, those who have the lowest income get the greatest benefit.
  In other words, if your income category is $10,000 to $20,000 a year, 
you get 11.5 percent of the benefit. If it is $200,000 and over, you 
get 1.3 percent. In fact, it is a numerical cascading structure in 
which every increment moves in the direction you would expect if it is 
a fair distributional structure.
  In addition to that, I have heard statements about the fact that this 
particular package will destroy Medicare, that once again Social 
Security is under threat. I wonder how long the bumper sticker 
political rhetoric is going to be continued. The Senate Budget 
Committee, the House Budget Committee, those responsible for examining 
the budgetary structure, say in every year of this agreement, the HI or 
the Medicare Trust Fund is fully protected and the Social Security 
Trust Fund is fully protected. This agreement meets the requirement of 
the budget that we passed to protect Social Security and Medicare in 
every year of the 10 years of the agreement.
  Now, let me address the 10 years because that clearly was one of the 
most popular themes during the rule. I am sure there will be a number 
of speakers to take the well to say, hey, this agreement is phony 
because it only lasts 10 years.
  This legislation was considered under the budget reconciliation rules 
that apply to the Senate. Under budget reconciliation, it is possible 
to pass legislation limiting the rules of the Senate

[[Page H2833]]

in terms of debate and hours to debate a subject normally unlimited and 
only require 51 votes to do so. It was created because it was almost 
impossible to move legislation just like this through the Senate 
without the limitations that are currently available in the 
reconciliation structure. It is a two-edged sword. It means you are 
able to get through the Senate legislation like this, but under the 
rules of the Senate it can only be for 10 years and that if any revenue 
bill extends its effect outside the 10-year window, it is, as we say, 
subject to a point of order and, therefore, the entire package fails.
  I will tell my colleagues that if you want permanent tax change, it 
requires 60 votes in the Senate to accomplish that. I have before me 
what a 60-vote bill would look like. It is, if you notice, a blank 
piece of paper, because that is what the tax bill would be if it were 
to be permanent. You would not have $1.35 trillion of tax relief for 
hardworking American taxpayers. You would not have a lump sum payment 
in lieu of withholding adjustment of almost $40 billion going out to 
Americans to help stimulate the economy this year. You would not have 
permanent rate reduction. You would not have the refundability for 
child credit that is in this bill. You would not have anything.
  So I appreciate the wringing of the hands and the concern that this 
only lasts 10 years. I tell my colleagues, every one of you who are 
worried about this only lasting 10 years, join with me, let us walk 
across the Capitol, and you produce 60 votes. If you produce 60 votes, 
you will have it permanent. If you do not, it is as simple as that. 
Unfortunately, under the rules in which the Senate must operate to have 
a clear majority express its will, it can only be done within the 10-
year framework.
  So we will hear the argument that all of this is only for 10 years. 
But if it is only for 10 years, what a 10 years it will be. More than 
$1.3 trillion in a time of surplus will be returned to the hardworking 
taxpayers. I know some of you are concerned that it is not going to be 
available to continue to feed the Federal dog. The problem, of course, 
we know is that when you start one of your programs, it is a cute 
little puppy but as you continue to feed it with hardworking taxpayers' 
dollars, it grows into an enormous, large dog that eats almost all the 
resources. We have seen it over and over again. That is why we were in 
deficit year after year after year. What we have, courtesy of the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), is a budget under which we are 
required to work with, yes, provides this kind of taxpayer relief but 
also provides a responsible, over-the-cost-of-living growth structure 
for the Federal Government.
  I know you are used to unrestrained growth. A little discipline is 
not necessarily a bad thing. Frankly, a little relief for the American 
taxpayer is not necessarily a bad thing, either.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have been here for 3 decades, and I have never heard such poppycock 
in my life.
  What we are talking about, the 10-year end of this bill, is because 
the Senate made me do it? It is true that we have violated every 
constitutional principle we could think of in terms of writing law and 
raising revenue but, my God, is the new Republican thing is ``it wasn't 
me, the Senate made me do it''?
  We are supposed to create revenue here. We are the ones that are 
supposed to write the tax bills. But what did we send over to the other 
side? Nothing. And so now we are sorry because they have shoved this 
piece of legislation down our throats.
  Bipartisanship. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, when you appointed me 
to serve on the conference committee along with our distinguished 
majority leader and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, I was so proud because I would have been the only Democrat 
in the House of Representatives, where the people govern, to at least 
try to guide this away from just the rich and maybe reflect the 
concerns of the moderate and the hardworking people of America. So as 
soon as I was appointed, I waited and I waited and I waited for an 
invitation to the meeting. But the invitation never came.
  Now, I do not know where the bipartisanship is unless one of the 
Republicans is a closet Democrat, but I can tell you this, I went 
looking for the meeting. The White House was at the meeting, Republican 
Members of the House were at the meeting, Republicans from the Senate 
were at the meeting. But guess what? Not one Democrat from the House 
was at the meeting.
  Now, the chairman of the committee waves a piece of paper saying, 
this is what the bill would look like if the Senate had not made them 
accept it. Well, do not wave empty paper. Where is the bill, I ask the 
gentleman from California? Why is it that Members of this House have no 
copy of this bill that explodes in 10 years? Show us the bill if you 
are so proud of it. Or should we beam it up on the Web net as we have 
been advised and that is the only way we are going to find out what is 
going on?
  I tell you this: If you were proud of this document, it would not 
have been patched up in the middle of the night. We would not be here 
on Saturday morning. We would not have meetings in the darkness of the 
night where people do not know where they are, but we would have been 
walking forward, Democrats and Republicans, proud of what we were 
doing. Instead of that, we have no bill, we have a lot of sarcasm, and 
yet we are expected now to go home and be proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Better than that, I 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic Party. Maybe he can find the 
bipartisanship, but for 3 days I have searched for it and it was not to 
be found in this Capitol.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, on my way in here this morning in the 
dawn's early light, I was thinking of proper titles for this bill. I am 
sure it has some classy title that has been given it by its sponsors.
  How about the ``Special Interest Relief Act''? How about the 
``Deficit Re-Creation Act''? How about the ``Plunder Medicare and 
Social Security Act''?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote against this bill. It has been a 
long night, a long night of a conference to put together the biggest 
tax bill in the history of our country. And as the gentleman from New 
York just said, it was done in a cloud of secrecy. Democratic Members 
of the House were not allowed in the meetings where this bill, the 
largest tax bill in our history, was put together. And so what we have 
today is a giant relief act for special interests in this country, not 
for the people of this country. And we are not acting on the most 
important crisis that faces our country today which are runaway, back-
breaking electricity prices on the West Coast of the United States.
  The President said he came as a uniter, not a divider. He said that 
he would collaborate with Democrats and that the parties would work 
together.

                              {time}  0845

  Yet from day one on this bill, it has been my way or the highway 
every day.
  I dare say there was more collaboration in this conference between 
Republican Members and special interests than between Republicans and 
Democrats to find the right bill.
  In fact, the chairman of the committee had this to say in this 
morning's Washington Post: He said the decision to scale back numerous 
provisions rather than jettison a few reflected a political 
calculation. He said a number of groups in the Senate pushed for 
individual provisions so negotiators sought, and I quote, ``to fit in 
as many of those special interest groups as possible.''
  Look at what had to be done to shoehorn in as many of those special 
interests as possible. We moved, in effect, the sunset date back a 
year. Why was it not moved back five more years? Why was every special 
interest in the country not shoehorned into this bill?
  We wind up with becoming the laughing stock of the country because 
one has to die before 2010 in order to get the full benefit of the 
estate tax.
  Someone said in the morning paper, this is going to be a Saturday 
Night Live routine, and it is. Can one imagine the routines that can be 
done?

[[Page H2834]]

  Now let me give three quick reasons why this bill should be defeated: 
first, we believe that this tax cut comes over 20 years to over $5 
trillion, over $5 trillion. It is backloaded. It is backloaded. It is 
backloaded. It explodes in the final years. It will cause the largest 
deficits this country has ever seen, and precisely at the time when the 
baby boomers are going to be coming into the Medicare system and the 
Social Security Trust Fund. We are going to be raiding those funds of 
needed dollars to take care of future generations.
  Secondly, it is weighted to the top. The top 1 percent get 36 percent 
of the benefits of this bill.
  We have no argument with people who have made a lot of money. We 
bless them. Thank God people can make a lot of money in this country 
and all of our citizens feel they can make a lot of money. We bear no 
grudge. We welcome their ability to do this, but we make a choice when 
we give that much of the tax cut to the people at the top. It means we 
do not give enough to the people in the middle class and the people 
trying to get in the middle class.
  This is the opportunity society. We want people to feel they can get 
wealthy. We want people to work hard. But how will they take a tax bill 
that gives everything at the top?
  Finally, it is fiscally irresponsible. We have worked so hard, we 
have worked so hard in this country, to get us back to a time of 
surpluses and not deficits. And tonight, today, this morning, we take a 
U-turn. We turn away from the most important achievement of this 
country and this economy.
  I began to think that citizens had lost all faith in us because we 
could not deal with the deficit, and finally we summoned the courage in 
the early 1990s to take care of the deficit. We made the hard 
decisions, and I would argue that the Members of this Democratic Party 
sacrificed their seats so that we could return to fiscal 
responsibility.
  It is what Senator Jeffords talked about in such ringing terms 2 days 
ago, and now we turn our back on this most important achievement. 
Again, if we were doing this risky scheme to give a larger tax cut to 
the middle class, maybe one could justify it. But, no, that is not what 
we are doing. We are doing this for special interests. We are doing 
this so the largest, wealthiest special interests in this country can 
get all of their things shoehorned into this bill.
  Let me just say this this morning, or yesterday morning, and even in 
some places this morning, children are going to school in trailers in 
this country because we have not built the school buildings to house 
them. Our forests and our public lands need protecting. Our seniors, 
especially on the West Coast, need low-income energy assistance. People 
want more cops on the beat so that we feel safe on our streets, and 
middle-income families who are paying $2.25 a gallon for gasoline would 
like to have the majority of this tax cut.
  Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this is a tax bill, probably the last tax 
bill. The President sent us an energy plan last week. It has all kinds 
of tax incentives to produce alternative energy in this country. There 
is not one red cent in this bill to advance the energy interests of 
this country. This is not what we ought to be doing this morning.
  Twenty years from now people will look back on this morning as a 
momentous, defining moment in the economic history of this country and 
the social history of this country. I urge Members on both sides of the 
aisle to examine the facts and examine their conscience. This bill, in 
my opinion, is an outrage. It is an outrage to the common sense and 
decency of the American people, and I ask each of the Members to 
consider carefully their vote because I believe with all my heart it 
will be remembered for their entire career and will be remembered by 
them for the rest of their lives.
  Please do the right thing and reflect the values of the great 
American people: decency, honesty, fiscal responsibility, and common 
sense. Vote no on this tax bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minority leader for providing us 
with a defining statement. I think it can be made no clearer in terms 
of the difference here on the floor today. The gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) said, mark my words, this is the last tax bill. He said 
this is the last tax bill.
  He must know something we do not. Obviously, he is consulting with 
the new majority leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle from South Dakota; 
and apparently the new majority leader has assured him this will be the 
last tax bill.
  If one wants to know the difference, the defining statement between 
the two sides, we think there ought to be more tax relief bills. 
Clearly the statement indicates there will not be any more. He knows 
more than we do about the way the Democrats are going to run the other 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget and a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, someone who created the 
structure which allowed us to provide this kind of legislation to come 
to the floor.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all 
Members that personal references to the Senators are not allowed under 
the Rules of the House.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman and all of those that have 
worked on this bill. It fits within the budget. It is a good product, 
and it is not an outrage. The minority leader said it is an outrage. If 
it is such an outrage, why will the majority party today be joined by 
as many as 40 Democrats who support this bill? If it is such an 
outrage, why will it be that at least 10 Democrats in the Senate will 
join with the majority party in support of this bill? If it is such an 
outrage, why is it that this is supported by the American people in 
great numbers across our country? Because they know, as we know, who 
should be spending the money in this country.
  This bill, I think, is a stark contrast between excuses and 
opportunities. What we just heard from the minority leader is a number 
of excuses, excuses that we have heard for a number of years as to why 
we cannot have a tax cut.
  I have heard so many times people say tax cutting is easy; I am for 
tax cuts; coming to the floor and cutting taxes is one of the easiest 
things we can do. Then why is it since World War II that we have only 
done it twice before? If it is so easy, why is it that this is only the 
third time that we have been able to have this kind of tax relief for 
the American people since the end of World War II? It is because it is 
not easy. It is difficult.
  Why is it difficult? Because there are so many excuses for why people 
cannot have their resources back and why the government should be 
spending that money itself.
  What are some of those excuses that we have been hearing? The number 
one excuse was we cannot provide tax relief to the American people 
because it dips into Social Security. For one of the first times we 
have a budget that says we are not touching any of Social Security. 
This tax bill fits within that budget. We do not touch Social Security. 
We will not touch Social Security. That was a bipartisan decision. I 
hope that that holds, and it fits within this budget.
  The second is that we should not do it because it touches Medicare. 
The minority leader said that this bill touches Medicare. That could 
not be farther from the truth. It does not touch Medicare. It should 
not touch Medicare. It will not touch Medicare. That also was a 
bipartisan agreement, and we should continue that practice here today.
  The third excuse was we should pay down the national debt first. In 
fact, this budget accomplishes the largest reduction of the debt held 
by the public in our history. This bill does not change that in one 
way, shape or form; and by the end of the 10 years of this budget we 
will have eliminated the debt held by the public, except for that which 
is needed for the cash flow.
  We have heard this is for the rich, and the minority leader 
mistakenly said 36 percent of the relief goes to the top 1 percent. 
Could not be farther from the truth; could not be farther from the 
truth. Read the distribution

[[Page H2835]]

tables. Of course, that is a little hard to do, but, in fact, that is 
not the case.
  We have heard it is the wrong time, the wrong way. It is the wrong 
process. We have heard it is too dark at night. We have heard every 
excuse in the book, except for the one that really matters, and that is 
the opportunity that this gives to the American people itself.
  The real issue here today is who should spend the money. Do we 
believe that individuals and families make the best decisions about how 
to spend their money, or do we believe government is in the best 
position to do so? The special interests that we heard from the 
minority leader are in this bill. Want to hear what they are? People 
who are married, people who have children, people who are worried about 
the education of those kids, people who are worried about their small 
business and farms, and people who are worried about more and more 
money that goes to Washington that is not available to pay for higher 
energy bills, higher college costs and higher expenses.
  Vote for this bill. It fits within the budget.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an obscene hoax on the American people, and 
it is not about taxes. It is about the Republican plan to fundamentally 
cripple the ability of government to do its job. It is about 
sacrificing our Nation's priorities on the altar of tax breaks to the 
wealthiest among us.
  The Republican leaders would like nothing more than to hamstring our 
Federal Government's ability to function. They know it and we know it.
  They praise the President's leadership, and on that note I will join 
them. The President's leadership led to one of the most outstanding 
acts in the political scene of this year and perhaps this century when 
the gentleman from Vermont decided to switch parties. In his statement 
he said ``that in the past, without the Presidency the various wings of 
the Republican Party and Congress have had some freedom to argue and 
influence and ultimately to shape the party's agenda. The election of 
President Bush changed that dramatically.

                              {time}  0900

  We do not live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to 
expect that people like myself, who have been honored with positions of 
leadership, will largely support the President's agenda and yet, more 
and more I find I cannot. Those who do not know me may have thought I 
took pleasure in resisting the President's budget or that I enjoyed the 
limelight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had serious 
substantive reservations about that budget, as you all know, and the 
decision it set in place for the future.
  Looking ahead, I could see more and more instances where I will 
disagree with the President on very fundamental issues. The issue of 
choice. The direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, 
missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other 
issues, large and small. Now, for some, success seems to be measured by 
the number of students moved out of public schools. In order to best 
represent my State, I will leave the Republican Party and become an 
independent. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
follow the President's leadership and take that good advice.''


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Again, the Chair will remind 
all Members that personal references to Senators are not in order, 
except to identify them as sponsors of legislation.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very likely last 
tax relief measure in this Congress.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who, on a bipartisan basis, was 
responsible for a major portion of this bill, the pension and IRA area.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to congratulate the Chairman and his colleagues for 
excellent work on this tax relief measure. I know I am not supposed to 
talk about Democrat Senators, but I will talk about them in terms of 
sponsors.
  Senator Max Baucus, who did sponsor the legislation on the Senate 
side, and Senator John Breaux, who is one of the sponsors on the Senate 
side, worked very hard with Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the 
Finance Committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means; and they did a fantastic 
job in putting together a great bill.
  A couple of points need to be made. One is that this is about 25 
percent of the tax surplus that is permitted to go back to the 
hardworking American people that sent, after all, every dime of that 
surplus to Washington. That is certainly fair and not consistent with 
what we have heard on the other side.
  In terms of special interests, let us talk about the special 
interests here. First, all of the President's major proposals are here, 
the ``big four.'' Across-the-board tax relief that benefits every 
single American, while those at the lower- and middle-income levels get 
a disproportionate amount of the tax relief under this provision. An 
increase in the child tax credit, allowing all American families to 
have a little more to be able to raise their kids and the expenses 
incurred by that. It is also refundable, so it helps folks that do not 
pay any Federal income taxes, some who pay payroll taxes, some who pay 
no payroll taxes or Federal income taxes. Marriage penalty relief. All 
of us know about that, we have been fighting for that for years.
  Finally, in this legislation, we get relief to folks who are married 
so they are not paying more just for the benefit of being married. 
Death tax repeal; very important to small businesses around this 
country, and those four are all in this legislation. All finally, after 
so many years of talking about them, so much discussion here on the 
House floor, we will have enacted into law to help the American people, 
not special interests, but the people who work hard every day to make 
this country work.
  Other things are also added. The adoption tax credit to let people 
adopt children more readily. Education tax credit to help with tuition, 
to help with student loans; and, finally, the retirement security 
provisions which are extremely important to let every American save 
more for their own retirement. Raising the IRA contribution from $2,000 
to $5,000. Had it been indexed to inflation originally, it would be a 
little over $5,000 a day. We are doing a catch-up there where it should 
be. On the 401(k) side, helping people to save more, again, for their 
own retirement.
  This is a good bill. That is why 68 percent of the American people, 
55 percent Democrats, support it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time. I might just express my disappointment to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), because over the last few days I 
had given him a number of provisions that I thought other Members of 
this body, Democratic Members particularly, would find helpful in terms 
of this tax bill, so perhaps we could have voted for it. But, then I 
found, after the gentleman had received all of these tax proposals that 
I had, that well, he was not allowed to go into the conference or 
allowed to go into the meetings. So I am sorry that I burdened the 
gentleman with that information, because it is pretty obvious that the 
gentleman was shut out. So I just want to make this effort to thank him 
for his effort.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2836]]

  Mr. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from California 
to know, when I found out that I was excluded from the meeting, I did 
seek to see whether or not another member of the Democratic leadership 
perhaps had been invited; but as I said to the gentleman early this 
morning, the gentleman should know, not one Democrat in this House of 
Representatives got the chance to participate in this bill.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I think the good news 
is the fact that the Senate will change in another week. This will be 
the last extreme bill that we will have before the body that will be 
sent to the President.
  I would like to point out a few things. One, the document that showed 
that we have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, that same 
document said that there was only a 50 percent chance of accuracy that 
these 5-year numbers are correct and they have no basis to make an 
accuracy projection on the 10-year numbers. This could have been $8.9 
trillion or $1.6 trillion or perhaps 0. So we are basing this $5.6 
trillion surplus on speculation, and that is exactly what this bill is 
all about.
  Now, let me just make a couple of observations. The chairman of the 
committee says that this will not affect Social Security, because in 
the 10-year window, it will not have any impact on Social Security. The 
reason for that is because in the year 2014, 13 years from now, is when 
Social Security has the cash flow problem. So basically, yes, for the 
next 10 years, it may not have an impact on Social Security, but it 
will have a devastating impact on Social Security in terms of its long-
term survivability.
  I will say that a ``yes'' vote on this bill, will mean that senior 
citizens will, in fact, have significant reductions in their benefits. 
There is no question about it. The chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget made an interesting observation. He said that this bill really 
does not go to the wealthy. The problem is that he is using a 5-year 
projection. Of course, in the 5-year projections, it is not until the 
6th to the 10th year that the tax benefits for the wealthy actually 
phase in. As a result of that, those people that earn $1.1 million a 
year on their tax returns will get 38 percent of these benefits. That 
is not good budget policy.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, who certainly, over the course of the rest of this 
session of Congress, is going to have something to say about whether or 
not this tax bill will encroach on Social Security or Medicare.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  I just wanted to say this, that I am not going to report an 
appropriations bill that spends one penny from the Social Security or 
Medicare funds.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) and all of those responsible for bringing 
this conference report to us.
  It absolutely is appalling how we continue to hear, particularly from 
the other side, that every time we are going to give tax relief that is 
going to stop us from doing all of these other things and that it is 
going to in some way impact upon the Social Security Trust Fund. 
Believe me, this tax bill does not spend one nickel of the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  The surpluses are going to be out there until 2016. Instead of 
throwing rocks at what we are trying to do, giving Americans some tax 
relief, I would invite my Democrat friends to join with me in solving 
the problem of Social Security, because beginning in 2016, there is 
going to be some problems, because the surplus is going to go away in 
2016. By using just one-third of that surplus right now, we could solve 
the Social Security problem for all times.
  So let us quit using this as a political hammer, and let us recognize 
that we need to legislate for the next generation and not the next 
election.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me start off by complimenting the conferees on the retirement and 
pension provisions that are in this conference report. As the chairman 
mentioned frequently, that bill had been worked in a very bipartisan 
way, and I think in conference that spirit was continued, and I am very 
pleased with the provisions that are included in the conference report 
as it relates to the pension and retirement provisions.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I will be forced to vote against 
a bill that I worked very hard on because of the other provisions that 
are included in here. The pension retirement provisions are less than 4 
percent of the revenue costs of the bill; but the other provisions 
explode in costs, and I have spoken on this floor several times about 
this legislation. It does make it much more difficult for us to pay 
down our debt.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said, I did not 
know we were appropriating the Social Security benefits. Maybe the 
Committee on Appropriations is trying to take the jurisdiction away 
from the Committee on Ways and Means on the Social Security system. But 
this bill if, in fact, we are off by 1 percent on the growth rate of 
our Nation, we will find that we have appropriated all of the surplus 
during the next 10 years for this tax cut. I would hope that during the 
next 10 years, we will have priorities in addition to tax cuts, that we 
could deal with education, that we could deal with prescription 
medicines.
  What I am concerned about is that we are putting into effect today 
tax relief that will jeopardize our ability to provide these other 
priorities for the American public. This is a reckless bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) control the remainder of time on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning we are hearing again a very interesting 
debate. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who worked in a 
bipartisan way for meaningful pension reform and relief, now abandons 
the larger measure. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) speaks 
of speculation. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when I was in the 
private sector and I watched Washington spend more and more and more 
and more of the people's money, including Social Security funds, it was 
interesting how those forecasts and estimations never seemed to make a 
difference in the minds of the previous majority.
  I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), reduced to reading 
a statement from someone in the other body that had nothing to do with 
the tax relief today; and I heard the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), the minority leader, speak of a Saturday Night Live sketch. 
Perhaps he was thinking about the fictional character of Tommy Finnagan 
as portrayed by Jon Lovitz years ago who was somewhat factually 
challenged, because indeed the presentation from the left has been 
completely factually challenged this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join us to offer meaningful 
relief in the marriage penalty, to finally put the death tax to death, 
for marginal rate reductions, and for the American people getting some 
of their hard-earned money back immediately. Rather than have the 
incendiary comments, let us work together.

[[Page H2837]]

  Mr. Speaker, I believe today on this floor, despite the wailing and 
gnashing of teeth, despite the extreme rhetoric of the other side, we 
will have meaningful tax relief for the American people; and it is 
about time. Wouldst that my friends would join us again; but they are 
already saying today, just one, no more. How sad that is. But at least 
on this one, I say to my colleagues, let us join together for 
commonsense tax relief, because the money belongs to the people, not to 
the Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go back to the days of 
deficit spending. There are a lot of numbers flying around Washington, 
D.C. these days, and I know a lot of people do not know who to believe. 
So I am not going to use any of the numbers of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) or any of the numbers of the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) or any of the Daschle numbers; I am going to use the 
President's numbers.

                              {time}  0915

  He stood in this Chamber not long ago and he projected we would have 
over the next 10 years a $5.6 trillion surplus. Some people think that 
is a guess, some people think it is a gamble, some think it is a dream. 
But sometimes dreams come true. Let us assume it happens.
  He wants to pay down $2 trillion on the national debt. As a fiscally 
conservative Democrat, I want to do that. I like that. That takes us 
down to $3.6 trillion.
  Then he says, as we all have said, ``We are not going to touch the 
Medicare or Social Security trust fund monies.'' Now, 400 of us voted 
to do that. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations just said 
we are not going to do that. We subtract that out and we are down to 
$700 billion.
  Now what do we do? We are going to have a tax cut in the amount of 
$1.35 trillion. I rounded that down to $1.3 trillion, and we have a 
$600 billion deficit. Using the President's numbers, with no new 
program funding, nothing for education, nothing for military pay, 
nothing further as far as spending is concerned, we have a $600 billion 
deficit, using the President's numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the deal. We have a $5.7 trillion national debt. 
Last year, we paid $329 billion in interest on the national debt. Let 
us not go back to the days of deficit spending. For the sake of our 
children and grandchildren, defeat this irresponsible proposal.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support 
of this legislation, and hope Members will help our constituents to see 
how much help it is going to give to young families getting started in 
life. It not only drops the taxation on part of their income to 10 
percent, but it also gives them two 15 percent brackets before they 
move up into the higher bracket, so they will be able to earn much more 
income, give their family a much better start before they begin to 
carry the kind of burden they carried today. Not only will they get the 
double 15 percent bracket, the advantage of the 10 percent bracket, but 
they will have the double child tax credit over time, $1,000 per child.
  We are going to keep young families out of those mid ranges of our 
Tax Code for most of the years of their raising their young children. 
This is an enormous change in the sort of launching of children and 
families in our society. I am very proud that we are making it 
possible.
  Let me say lastly that I am sort of astounded at what I hear from the 
other side. It is absolutely as legitimate to, in a sense, spend the 
surplus through the tax vehicle as through the spending vehicle.
  I know many of them want to increase spending in this area and that 
area. Because we spend $80 billion a year through the Tax Code, America 
has a primarily employer-provided health care system. All that, the 
private sector health plans that employers provide to their employees, 
is made possible because we exempt those premiums through the Tax Code.
  We spend over $80 billion every year through the Tax Code. I want 
another tax bill that provides that same tax equity and tax support to 
everyone who pays their own health insurance premiums. That is every 
bit as intelligent and effective a way to expand access to health 
insurance as a subsidy program from Washington, which I know many of 
them support.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the tax bill. It is going to 
make a big difference in people's lives.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about this bill 
jeopardizing Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, but 
somebody needs to speak for the American soldier.
  I am on the Committee on Armed Services. I take this work very, very 
seriously. This bill jeopardizes dollars for defense, as so aptly 
pointed out by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) just a 
few weeks ago.
  Later on this year, during either the appropriation process or an 
amended budget process, I will take this floor, Mr. Speaker, and I will 
do my best to get additional dollars for the American soldier, because 
the roofs are leaking on the family housing, the spare parts bins are 
empty, training is being curtailed.
  As a matter of fact, in Missouri there are more non-flyable 
helicopters because of lack of spare parts than those that fly. I think 
this jeopardizes the national security. We must look at that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, several months ago I was at Johnson High School talking 
to the seniors, and a little girl named Julie Long sat in the front. I 
asked her if she had a job, how much she got paid. She had a job, she 
made $7 an hour.
  I said, ``Julie, if you work for 2 hours, you take home $14.'' She 
said, ``No, Mr. Kingston, of course not, I pay taxes, about $4 worth.'' 
Okay, so on the $14 that she has earned, she was paying $4 in taxes. 
Now, she understands we need to pay for the military, we need to pay 
for education, roads and bridges and functions of government. She said, 
``Yes, sir.'' I said, ``Julie, what if you found out that I could do 
all that for $3.50, not $4. What would you want me to do with the other 
50 cents?'' She said, ``It is my money, Mr. Kingston. Give it back to 
me.''
  That is what this bill is all about. All it says is that we are going 
to take care of Social Security, Medicare, normal functions of 
government, especially education; come on, I say to the gentlemen, it 
is the President's education package. Then we are going to pay down the 
debt. With what is left, we are going to return it to the American 
taxpayers.
  It is not time for class warfare, to bring out the same arguments we 
heard on health care reform, Medicare reform, regulatory reform. It is 
not time for all the fearmongering. Let us just say who this money 
belongs to, which is the taxpayer, not us in Washington, and let us say 
it is their money and we are going to return it to them.
  That is what this bill is all about. I urge my colleagues to support 
the conference report.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), a while ago said when this President ran for 
office, he said there was going to be a change in the environment in 
Washington, D.C. Over the last few months we have seen that. In fact, 
most recently we have found that the fundraising in this town has moved 
from the Lincoln bedroom in the White House to the Cheney bedroom. So 
already we are seeing this big change that was talked about.
  What I would like to do this morning is just make some observations 
on the bill. We are being told by our Republican colleagues that we 
must give the money back. Taxpayers have been

[[Page H2838]]

overcharged. Well, let us analyze those two statements.
  Number one, we have to give the money back, but the problem is, the 
money is not here. The money is not here. It is a projected surplus 
over the next 10 years. We hope and pray it is going to be here, but it 
is not today. So I say, Mr. Speaker, we cannot give the money back if 
we do not have the money.
  But this bill does expend all that money, and know full well, if 
there is a downturn in the economy worse than today, the first thing to 
go is cutbacks in programs, and not going back on these tax cuts. This 
will be sacrosanct, we are not going to be able to touch it.
  As far as overcharging the taxpayers, the taxes that have been coming 
in over the years have for the most part been going to pay down the 
annual debt. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) indicated what 
the interest charge was per year, so taxpayers were not being 
overcharged. They were being charged for the excesses that started with 
the tax cut of the Reagan administration.
  Let me say a couple words about this new thing that is added to the 
bill. That is the fact that we are going to send checks back. Maybe the 
chairman of the Committee knows how much that would cost, but to send a 
check to taxpayers in a month or so is going to cost millions and 
millions of dollars. Those same millions of dollars could be going for 
more teachers and more police on the beat.
  I just want to tell a little story about sending checks back. It 
comes from an experience in the State of Wisconsin. Then Tommy 
Thompson, the Governor, signed legislation a little over a year ago to 
send the checks back to Wisconsinites because of a projected surplus. 
So we all got about $320 back, very close to what we are going to get 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, Tommy Thompson got out of town. He left the State, and 
that State that sent the checks back today is faced with a $760 million 
deficit. So I want to thank all for the checks from the Wisconsinites. 
It is going to go to increased gas and to pay back that $320 to the 
State.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tax Conference Report before us today is the result 
of the surplus dollars projected to be available over the next ten 
years. The White House and Republican authors of this bill looked at 
the Congressional Budget Office report, which predicted that $2.7 
trillion would be available over the next ten years, and like a kids in 
a candy store, their eyes got big like saucers. Unfortunately, my 
Republican colleagues got so excited about the CBO's guesstimate that 
they forgot to finish reading the report. CBO was so unsure of its 
surplus estimate that they felt the need to devote an entire chapter to 
explaining the uncertainty of their projection. If my Republican 
colleagues had taken the time to review the entire budget document, 
they would have read that ``a downturn in the economy, depending on its 
severity and duration, could greatly diminish or even eliminate 
surpluses over the next few years.''
  This tax bill is a gamble. Locking in a tax cut of the proportion 
will gamble our ability to provide for a sound fiscal future. Looking 
at the nation's long-term fiscal health, beyond 2011, reveals massive 
deficits as we try to deal with the costs of providing for our 
children's education, defense needs, prescription drug benefits, and 
the solvency and soundness of the Social Security trust fund. The 
Comptroller General tells us that deficits will occur ten years from 
now even if we don't pass this $1.35 trillion tax cut!
  The Conference Report before us is filled with back-loaded tax cuts. 
It is a ticking time bomb that is set to explode at precisely the same 
time that the baby boomers begin to retire. It is in the second 10 
years that the true cost of this tax bill will be known--precisely the 
same time that the bulk of baby boomers are retiring. According to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the cost of the bill in the 
second ten years is $4.1 trillion. To accomplish this, the bill delays 
marriage penalty relief for 5 years and waits until 2011 to repeal the 
estate tax--hiding the true cost outside of the 10-year budget window.
  By the authors' own admission, this bill is a floor not a ceiling for 
additional tax cuts. Other bills the Republican Leadership has 
indicated will likely be considered include a business tax package to 
accompany the minimum wage, tax extenders, adjustment in the 
Alternative Minimum Tax, and various tax incentives for health care and 
education. In addition, the Conference Report does not take into 
account the hundreds of billions in interest costs that will have to be 
paid because passage of this bill will jeopardize our ability to pay 
down the debt. When the debt and all of the remaining tax bills are 
added together, the total cost is nearly $3 trillion! That's more than 
the $2.7 trillion in projected surpluses that are available outside the 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Inevitably, the Republican 
tax bills will collapse under their own weight.
  The tax plan is deja vu. Twenty years ago, Congress passed a large 
tax cut that quickly tripled the deficit and quadrupled the national 
debt. Apparently, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to 
have selective recall when it comes to that part of our history.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tax Reconciliation Conference Report before us today 
is an irresponsible tax proposal that will be paid out of the pockets 
of our children. I urge its rejection.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated, it is simple. 
People are either for tax relief, or they are not.
  This bill provides tax relief for families with children, for married 
couples, for farmers, for small businesspeople. Mr. Speaker, when the 
year 2011 comes around, we will sure want a Senate that reaffirms tax 
relief, not one that increases taxes, like in 1993. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an outstanding American and a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is not the way to go. It is 
going to take the country down the wrong road. What if we are wrong? 
The Republican tax bill is based on a 10-year forecast that we know 
probably will not happen. In fact, the people who made the forecast 
have said that it is not going to come true. According to them, there 
is only a 10 percent chance that their forecast will be correct.
  We cannot afford to be wrong on this one. We are locking ourselves 
into a 10-year plan when we are not even sure that the money would be 
there.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), does he know what this 
would be like? It would be like counting the chickens before the eggs 
hatch. That would not be fair for the American people. What if we are 
wrong? What if the surplus does not happen?
  The administration, the Republicans, somebody is not telling the 
whole truth. They are not telling us the whole story. They need to be 
honest with the American people, honest about the true costs of the tax 
bill, honest about what will happen if the surplus does not 
materialize, honest about what will happen to Social Security, honest 
about Medicare and other priorities.
  We have an obligation, a mission, and a mandate to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The Republicans are playing 
with the numbers. It is deceptive, it is a sham, and it is a shame. We 
should be paying down the debt, saving Social Security and Medicare, 
taking care of the basic needs of all of our people.
  The Republican bill is not right for America. It is not fair and it 
is not just. We should vote down this bill. We should do it for the 
American people. We have an obligation to vote it down.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), I should have worn a paper bag down 
here today.
  How can anyone look the American people in the eye and say we have a 
surplus when we owe the Social Security trust fund $1 trillion? There 
is no account. There is no money. They have nothing but IOUs. But 
somebody else is going to get a tax break today.
  We owe the Medicare trust fund at this moment $228 billion. There is 
no lockbox. There is no bank account. They have an IOU.
  We owe our Nation's military retirees, the people who they are all 
going to go give speeches to next Monday and tell them how much we 
value them, we owe them $163 billion. There is no account. There is no 
bank account. They took the money and they are going to give it to 
somebody else.
  We owe our Nation's civil servants $501 billion.

                              {time}  0930

  Now, how can anyone look me in the eye and say we have a surplus when 
we

[[Page H2839]]

owe those folks that money? My colleagues have taken money out of their 
paychecks with the promise that my colleagues were going to set it 
aside for their retirement.
  It is not there. This is wrong for America. We have a unique 
opportunity to start paying down the debt; and, instead, my colleagues 
are giving their big contributors a tax break. Shame on you.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have no response?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) has 6 minutes remaining and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) has a couple of speakers.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), an outspoken Member on our 
government's budget.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to choose my words very carefully 
today, because tomorrow I may eat them, just as I have heard many 
statements made on this floor today that I think are going to be eaten.
  When you govern this country based on political promises and polls 
rather than sound economics and good policy, the market will correct 
us.
  Let me remind everyone to start looking at what is happening to long-
term interest rates as we have been debating this tax cut. They have 
gone up 4 percent, which means a tax increase on all soon-to-be 
homeowners.
  Now, this budget bets the ranch that the surpluses that everybody 
talks about are going to be there. If they are not, we are going to 
have a difficult time governing in this body in a bipartisan way.
  Social Security has been mentioned, and my number one disappointment 
in this budget is the fact that there is no money left for us to do the 
kind of bipartisan Social Security reform that I wanted to work with my 
President for. My colleagues have spent it all. Then my colleagues come 
in and sunset in 2011.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to do something for estate taxes. I wanted to 
have an immediate $4 million exemption for small businesses owners all 
over the country effective now. This one does not survive the laugh 
test. It does not even deserve the laugh test.
  We heard defense mentioned a moment ago. I know that the die is cast. 
I was here in 1981. I have heard a little revisionist history on the 
floor this morning.
  The facts, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke of, 
were the result of the 1981 vote; and we are in danger of repeating it.
  I hope I am wrong. I hope I will be able to eat the crow you will 
dish out to me in a year from now, if I am wrong. But if I am right, 
get your knives and forks out.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and a colleague and a companion 
on the conference committee that produced this document.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, as a young professor, I remember the despair 
that my profession of economics had in the 1970s dealing with the 
malaise of that decade, the stagflation, the hopelessness, and the 
helplessness of the economy that caused the American people to turn to 
Ronald Reagan when we just did not seem to be able to get the economy 
to move.
  Ronald Reagan, God bless his heart, broke the back of inflation, and 
by cutting taxes and reducing government regulation on the economy, he 
got this economy into 2 decades now of growth that have never been 
paralleled in the history of the economy.
  But here is the fact, here is the fact: because Ronald Reagan cut 
taxes, enabled the economy to grow, the fact is the American people 
doubled the amount of money they sent to Washington in the decade of 
the 1980s. That is a fact. It happened. Because we had better jobs, we 
had a growing economy, we spent more money.
  What did Washington do? Washington spent $1.56 for every increased 
dollar we sent to Washington, not Ronald Reagan. This Congress spent 
that money year after year after year. Not only did they spend all of 
that, but they spent every surplus dime of payroll taxes that decent 
men and women in this country paid expecting it to go to mom and dad's 
Social Security.
  The Democrat Congresses wasted those Social Security surpluses year 
after year after year on every risky spending scheme they could trump 
up. That went on until 1993. And in 1993, the President of the United 
States raised taxes and the deficits went on and the spending went on 
until 1995.
  Since 1995, the American people have continued to do their job and 
continued to send increased amounts of money to Washington, but 
something changed with that new Republican majority.
  Since 1995, for every dollar we have sent to Washington, government 
spending has gone up by less than 50 cents. That is where the surplus 
comes from. We restrain this lust for spending other people's money, 
and the surplus is there.
  We were able under these circumstances to stop the 40-year raid on 
Social Security. We did that. It was a simple little ethical thing. We 
just looked at our children; and we said, why do we not honor them 
while they honor their parents when they pay those payroll taxes and 
let us stop this business of wasting it on every new, risky spending 
scheme somebody could concoct?
  Here we are today, a great day for the American people, a day where, 
thanks to George Bush, for the first time in 2 decades, we are talking 
about across-the-board reduction in taxes for every American that pays 
taxes. That is a remarkable thing to be celebrating in this country. 
And what do we hear over here? Oh, do not do that. Do not do that. We 
have new spending schemes, new risky spending schemes. You will deny us 
the money for our new risky spending schemes.
  Well, the party is over. The party has moved. The party is no longer 
in Washington. The addicts are going to have to take the cure. We are 
no longer going to get stoned on other people's money and our new 
spending programs. No.
  We are going to move the party to America where people will spend 
their own money on things that are healthy, beneficial, and, in fact, 
assure a brighter future for their own children because of one simple 
thing, because they love their children best.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me take this time to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, for taking my place in 
the tax conference. Had I been there, I would have been able to have a 
different view, but I thank the gentleman so much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1981. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey) was not. He was then an economist, perhaps not so 
successfully because he came to Congress.
  Ronald Reagan asked the Congress of the United States to spend every 
nickel of Social Security surplus in his budgets. George Bush first 
asked the Congress of the United States to spend every nickel of Social 
Security and Medicare surplus.
  The Congress of the United States from 1981 to 1993 spent less money 
than Ronald Reagan and George Bush asked us to spend. Those are the 
facts, my friends. Those are the facts.
  Very frankly, my colleagues knew the facts in 1981. I mentioned them 
a little earlier today. Let me recite them again so that my colleagues 
understand the premise that was underlying 1981. He was not a liberal. 
He was not a Democrat. His name was Stockman. He knew what you were 
doing in 1981, notwithstanding the same kind of rhetoric that we heard 
on this floor today.
  He said that we knew that the budget we were passing would result in 
triple digit debts, deficits. We knew that we would escalate the debt. 
We knew that interest rates would remain high and at historically high 
levels in 1980.
  You light a time bomb today that will blow up for generations yet to 
come. It is your duty, your responsibility to defeat this bill. Do so.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman here in the House, I waited to 
see where we could work together on a bipartisan effort so that we 
could provide the much-needed relief that Californians are crying out 
for.

[[Page H2840]]

  When I go home today and I meet those folks that I represent, the 
people who are not going to get one iota of a tax break on relief, the 
people in my district currently are probably the hardest working folks, 
senior citizens, that have paid their way, that have given us the 
riches that we have in this country.
  They are waiting. They are waiting to see what action is going to 
take place here. The folks in my district want to keep the lights on in 
California. They get no help from this budget on the energy crisis. 
There is an energy crisis.
  There are children who are crying because they want to know that they 
are going to be able to have school rooms that are not going to fall 
down on them because they are going to be built to secure their 
education and their livelihood there. That is not in this budget.
  What about the promises we made to seniors for Medicare and Medicaid 
reform to help them? What about those people in my district that have 
been gouged by those energy producers from Texas?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are attempting to justify 
their tax bill by saying this tax break for their wealthy friends is 
needed to offset a slowdown in the economy.
  My Republican colleagues, in case you have not noticed, the biggest 
threat to the economy is the energy crisis which will be felt 
throughout the country. There is a solution, and these solutions are 
the wave of the future, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
  Yet this tax cut necessitates a cut by 50 percent in research and 
renewable energy and 30 percent in energy efficiency. Instead of 
passing this reckless tax bill, and, yes, instead of letting this House 
lie silent for two whole days, we should have taken up an energy bill. 
We should have passed the Inslee bill to help the entire West.
  Do not let the Republicans tank the economy with their reckless tax 
vote. Vote no. Vote responsibly. Vote no on this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey), my friend.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, just a few 
moments ago, and I was reminded about the capacity of the human mind to 
deceive itself.
  Ronald Reagan never sent a balanced budget up to this Congress, not 
once in all the 8 years that he was there. This bill is a mistake 
today. Anyone can make a mistake and any group of people can make a 
mistake, but it takes a certain level of foolishness to make the same 
mistake over again.
  In 1981, we passed a tax bill under the direct urging of a new 
Republican President. The result of that bill was deep recession and 
huge deficits, $5 trillion of deficits today as a result of that tax 
cut.

                              {time}  0945

  Now we are being asked to do the same thing over again. If we do it, 
we know what is going to happen; and our Republican colleagues intend 
it to happen. There will be no money to deal with crumbling schools. 
There will be no money to deal with prescription drugs. There will be 
no money to deal with the problem of 13 million children living in 
poverty. All of those things our Republican colleagues do not want to 
address. That is why they want this tax cut passed. Let us defeat this 
bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Inslee.
  Mr. INSLEE. My Speaker, my Republican colleagues' fiscal plan is a 
little like a money-laundering machine because every dollar they give 
to the American taxpayer, the taxpayers are going to give $2 to the 
energy companies, and the Republicans will not do a single thing about 
it.
  While energy prices go up a thousand percent, they do nothing. Last 
night, I was reading Tom Brokaw's book about the greatest generation. 
He quoted Roosevelt saying, ``This generation has a rendezvous with 
destiny.'' Well, under this plan, the baby boom generation has a 
rendezvous with a fiscal disaster when we start to retire. The 
Republicans have put us on the horns of this dilemma. When the baby 
boomers start to retire 10 years from now, when the Republicans sunset 
the repeal of the estate tax, which gives a whole new meaning to estate 
planning, the Sopranos may have a job under the Republicans' plan in 
the year 2010. If this goes through, Saturday, March 26th, 2001, will 
be a day of fiscal infamy.
  Defeat this bill. Join us in a fair plan where the baby boom 
generation will stand up for fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle will be yielding the remainder of his time 
to our distinguished Speaker to close.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman that the Speaker will 
close, but he has honored me with just a statement at the end which 
would take 10 seconds, so it is a closing on this side.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
want to sincerely thank the Speaker for thinking enough of the 
Democrats and the Committee on Ways and Means in appointing me to the 
conference. I only wish that he had told the majority leader and the 
chairman of the committee that he had done that. Because somehow this 
conference turned from a Ways and Means conference to a Republican 
conference; Republicans from the White House, from the House, and from 
the Senate.
  I just cannot understand what was in this bill that was so terrible 
that my colleagues did not want one Democrat to be able to see it. And 
I say this because as we leave here on this Memorial weekend, not one 
Member of our side has been able to see my colleagues' bill. They have 
come and asked me for the bill, I have referred to it to the majority 
leader, and I guess he has referred it to the Speaker. But ultimately, 
we should be right there on our television, on our Web site, seeing 
what you rascals have really done, because you never really brought 
anything to this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am waiting to go hear just exactly what happened.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House. 
Without his focus, attention, and diligence we would not have had the 
atmosphere to bring this accomplishment to fruition.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and 
I thank him for his diligence and his hard work.
  I thank my friends on the other side of the aisle. And to my good 
friend, the gentleman from New York, we are all in this process, and I 
think there were a couple of Democrats that were involved very heavily 
in this conference for a lot of hours. I am just advising my colleagues 
that revisionist history and trying to talk about different things, 
facts still remain facts.
  Let me just say that maybe we just ought to tone down our rhetoric 
this morning, because it is not a Republican victory nor is it a 
Democrat victory if this bill passes today. The American people win. 
The American people, who get up in the morning, the farmer in Nebraska 
this morning that has been up for 3 hours doing chores, he is going to 
get a better break on his taxes. And that farm he spent his whole life 
on he may be able to pass on to his children and grandchildren.
  The truck driver driving across the delta of Mississippi this 
morning, trying to get home to his family for Memorial Day, he is going 
to get a better tax break so he can take better care of his kids and 
plan for his kids' education. He wins on this.
  It is the single mother in California, whose kids were up early this 
morning watching the TV. Not this. They are watching cartoons. Maybe it 
is the same thing. But anyway, that mother will be able to take care of 
her children. She gets a better tax break. She can plan for her 
children. And there are benefits for her that have never been in 
another tax bill.
  I hear a lot about the budget, and I hear about Presidents in the 
past. It was 1996 and 1997 and 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001 that 
this Congress balanced the budget for the first time in 40 years. And 
because we balanced the budget, we started to pay down the debt. And, 
yes, in September of this year we will have paid $650 billion down in 
public debt, and we have a surplus that allows us to give back to the

[[Page H2841]]

American people. It is time we give to the American people. Because if 
we do not give them that surplus, we will spend it and we will have 
bigger government, and we will have more programs and we will not see a 
surplus again.
  It is time that we get on with this issue, it is time we get on with 
this work, and it is time we give the American taxpayer a tax break.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
want to thank the Speaker and my colleagues for the opportunity and 
privilege of serving. H.R. 1836 was created by a bipartisan team 
following President Bush's blueprint. There is a new direction in 
Washington, both in substance and in bipartisan cooperation. For a 
decade of growth and for some relief to the American taxpayer, let us 
vote ``yes'' on 1836.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in grave opposition to 
this Conference Report on H.R. 1836, the Tax Cut Reconciliation bill, 
and the conservative Republican budget.
  All that glitters is not gold in this tax cut. Americans need relief 
now, and most of all, they need leadership. Sadly, the Majority has 
sought to twist and abuse the House process to benefit the wealthy.
  The Minority has been shut out of this process and kept waiting 
through the night, only to be given a the draft of the plan 1 hour 
before it going to the floor of the House.
  The tax bill is fundamentally unfair. This bill is designed to 
benefit the rich, cutting the four highest rates, and doing little for 
the rest of America. Fully 70% of this tax bill goes to the top fifth 
of taxpayers. The richest 1% of Americans earn 39.9% of the cut, while 
most Americans get a raw deal, with the bottom fifth of all taxpayers 
getting only 1.0% of the cut. This simply is not a good plan for 
America. I would have voted for the one-time economic stimulus package, 
which would have provided $85 billion in relief to taxpayers this year. 
Now, it has grown to $421 billion.
  The bill provides no marriage penalty relief until 2005, despite the 
fact that the sponsors campaigned on the need for such relief. The bill 
repeals the estate tax, which overwhelmingly helps the wealthy, but 
does nothing about the gift tax. The repeal is effective only for the 
estates of decedents dying on or after January 1, 2010, and before 
January 2, 2011. This is not the kind of real tax relief that Americans 
need. We can and must do better.
  If we worked together in a bi-partisan fashion like we did in the 
1997 Clinton balanced budget, Americans would have the relief that they 
need today. Instead, under this plan we are faced with is a serious 
crisis in Social Security and Medicare, all for the sake of this huge 
tax cut.
  What is really needed is progress that helps all Americans, and not 
just the wealthy few. We need a reasonable energy policy now. We need 
research and development for Lupus, Sickle Cell, and HIV AIDS, which 
currently have no cure. And under the ``Leave No Child Behind'' 
rhetoric, our children are left behind because we short-change the 
nation's educational needs.
  I call on the Congress to do what is fair and what is right for all 
Americans
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, after eight years of hard 
work, we finally have our financial house in order.
  When I was elected in 1992, we had a $290 billion surplus.
  This year, CBO projects a non-Medicare, non-Social Security surplus 
of $92 billion and the combined surplus is projected at $275 billion; 
under the President's budget, the non-Medicare, non-Social Security 
surplus would never again be that large within the ten-year budget 
window.
  At a time of unprecedented surpluses, we should have tax cuts--but I 
believe in responsible tax cuts--tax cuts that allow us to pay down the 
debt and pay for domestic priorities such as prescription drug coverage 
for seniors and improvements in education.
  I favor the Democratic plan of dividing the surplus into thirds.
  One-third for tax cuts, One-third for debt reduction, and One-third 
for national priorities such as education and prescription drugs.
  I believe in fixing the marriage penalty, but not delaying its 
implementation for four years as the Bush plan proposes.
  I believe in relief from estate taxes, but not for billionaires, and 
not for a plan that hides its cost by not phasing in for 10 years.
  I believe in giving the relief now--not ten years from now in a move 
that will blow a hole in the budget and leave us with massive deficits.
  We need to be clear about one thing.
  The Bush tax cuts are based on 10-year budget projections that can 
vary greatly and potentially lead us back to deficits.
  Despite the current surplus the federal government is enjoying, 
danger lies just over the horizon.
  The uncertainty of the next ten years is trumped by the certainty of 
the second ten.
  Starting in the later half of this decade the baby boomers will begin 
to retire, drastically increasing our entitlement commitments. Should 
we find ourselves facing deficits in 2008 we will truly be in a dire 
predicament.
  Most misleading about this tax bill is that it treats taxpayers with 
similar incomes far differently based on the state in which they 
reside.
  This is because it greatly increases the impact of the Alternative 
Minimum Tax which eliminates deductions for state taxes.
  While the tax cut itself is large, it is not so large that it 
provides relief to the lower income Americans who pay the majority of 
the taxes through payroll taxes rather than income taxes.
  I don't believe in selling a tax cut as an economic stimulus package 
when most of the relief will come years from now, long after this 
economic cycle has passed.
  The President says people should use the tax cut to pay their 
skyrocketing energy bills.
  However, without provided relief from payroll taxes the Bush plan 
does nothing for people who are most affected by energy costs.
  And I don't believe that we should cut taxes so far that we run the 
risk of going back into deficit spending.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for 
America, but one everyone knew was coming. The bill we have before us 
repeats the mistakes of the 1981 Tax Bill, mortgaging our future for 
immediate political benefits.
  The only question is: Who is going to play the role of Senator Dole 
this time? Who is going to have the courage to begin to turn this boat 
around once the immediate euphoria has passed, and the reality of what 
has been done is reflected in budget estimates? How are we going to act 
when the delayed effective dates come due and the hemorrhaging of 
revenue occurs just as the baby boom generation begins to retire, and 
our only choices are to reverse this tax bill or make deep cuts in 
Medicare and Social Security?
  Having said that, let me make a few comments about how the pension 
provisions came out, as I understand them. I am willing to concede that 
this procedure makes it difficult to know exact details, so I will rely 
on the Chairman correcting me if I have misconstrued something.
  I understand that the nonrefundable retirement savings account 
proposal is in the conference report, as is the small business credit 
for administrative costs for start up pension plans. Those are two of 
the three provisions I have been working for these past three years, so 
I thank the Chairman and those who supported these provisions. These 
provisions, when combined with the many solid provisions like 
portability, make this a better bill than when it left the House.
  On the downside, I understand the House version of the 
nondiscrimination rule and the top-heavy rule has prevailed, thereby in 
my view weakening pension coverage for some low income workers. In 
addition, the application of nondiscrimination rules to the catch up 
provision has for the most part been dropped. I know Mr. Cardin was the 
chief proponent of this very good policy, so I regret that outcome.
  I suppose the theme of the pension provisions, as with this entire 
bill, is that it is built around a number of good provisions but on the 
whole it simply goes too far. And we will eventually have to clean it 
up. It would be better to simply vote this down, and start again to 
build a bill that solves problems in the tax code like the alternative 
minimum tax and other complex issues, to the extent we can afford to do 
so. I suspect that will not happen, but still I would hope Members 
would vote this down and start again.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the reconciliation 
conference report.
  For close to a decade, I have made every hard vote to balance the 
budget, eliminate the deficit, and reduce our $5 trillion nation debt.
  I made these votes because they were responsible, and because the 
alternative for my constituents and future generations was continued 
economic hardship, high unemployment, high interest rates, high 
mortgage rates, and a decline in the standard of living that my 
generation has enjoyed.
  This is another of those brutally hard choices.
  I support tax cuts and have recently voted for marriage penalty 
relief and eventual elimination of the estate tax.

[[Page H2842]]

  I expect to vote for needed tax cuts in the future, including true 
relief from the AMT, a package of relief for small business, and a 
permanent research and development tax credit.
  But none of these important tax cuts is included in today's package.
  It includes some good features, such as improved pension portability, 
expanded IRA contributions and marriage penalty relief, but it is 
riddled with gimmicks and it is backloaded. Taxpayers in my district 
will be enormously disappointed when they see how little relief they 
actually get, and learn that, despite promises to the contrary, Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds are included in budget projections.
  My family and I would personally benefit from a reduction in the top 
tax rate. But to their credit, they agree with me that the right vote 
is not about our personal interest, but about our country's interest.
  John Kennedy was right. The question is what can I do for my country? 
And the answer is I can stand for principle and say ``no'' to the 
easier vote.
  I hope the Congressional Budget Office re-estimate of our surplus in 
July is positive. But given current indicators, it is likely to be 
negative. Should this be the case, the vote we take today will plunge 
us back into multi-billion dollar annual deficits.
  I cannot do this. I have risked my political career fighting for 
fiscal responsibility. The right vote on this package--which emerged 
after an all-nighter of the 107th Congress--is ``no''.
  We can write a better tax cut bill and we should.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report providing needed tax relief for the American people and for our 
economy. The retirement security provisions are excellent and will help 
everyone save for retirement.
  Unfortunately, several retirement security provisions had to be 
dropped from this bill because of the Byrd rule, a Senate rule that 
applies to tax bills passed under budget reconciliation rules.
  Several of these provisions would make it easier for small businesses 
to offer defined benefit pension plans. For example, one provision 
would allow small businesses who adopt a new pension plan to pay more 
reasonable PBGC insurance premiums in the early years of the plan. 
Another would simplify annual reporting requirements for small plans.
  We hope to work with the Education and Workforce Committee Chairman 
Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Johnson, and ranking members George 
Miller and Rob Andrews to get these and the other important ERISA and 
tax provisions enacted that had to be dropped from this bill for 
procedural reasons.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed as we vote on this tax 
bill for the fifth time that no substantive change has been made to 
make it more fiscally responsible and direct more help to those who 
need it the most. Accordingly, I have decided keeping commitments to my 
constituents in Oregon was a higher priority than voting ``no'' for the 
fifth time, which I most definitely would have done.
  Luckily change is in the air as recent events on Capitol Hill have 
demonstrated the need for true bipartisanship and working together in a 
cooperative fashion. This hopefully will mean an opportunity to improve 
this package in the course of the year, and I remain committed to doing 
so in a way that makes sense for the people I represent in Oregon and 
the long-term fiscal stability of the country.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, while this member enthusiastically votes 
for H.R. 1836 to give a tax cut to American taxpayers he continues his 
strong opposition to the total elimination of the estate tax on the 
super-rich. The reasons for this opposition has been publicly explained 
on numerous occasions, including statements in the Congressional 
Record. On the other hand, this member is strongly in favor of 
substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the 
rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates. However, to totally 
eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega-millionaires would be 
a terrible idea for the American society and for continuing to foster 
very large charitable contributions for colleges and universities and 
other worthy institutions in our country. Fortunately, I believe it 
will never be eliminated in the year 2010.
  Relatedly, this member includes the following opinion piece by 
William H. Gates, Sr. as it appeared in the Washington Post edition of 
May 25, 2001.

                    A Tax Break's Unfortunate Legacy

                       (By William H. Gates, Sr.)

       The power of organized money has won another round, as the 
     Senate's vote to repeal the estate tax has demonstrated.
       The proponents of wholesale repeal were able to wage a 
     campaign based largely on symbolism and distortion of fact. 
     They cited the plight of farmers, but when a reporter asked 
     for living examples of real small farmers who had lost their 
     farms, they couldn't be found. The deliberative tradition of 
     the Senate caved under the pressure of ideology over reality.
       Missing has been a debate about the potential dangers of 
     eliminating our estate tax. What will it cost in lost federal 
     revenue? How will state treasuries manage without their 
     revenue linked to the federal estate tax? What effect will it 
     have on charitable giving and the nonprofit civic sector? 
     What happens to democracy and equality of opportunity in a 
     society with such great inequities of wealth and power?
       And more technical questions: Are there ways to reform the 
     tax to address concerns about family enterprises? How would a 
     repeal of the ``stepped up basis,'' which exempts estates 
     from capital gains taxes, be administered? Instead of 
     discerning these vital questions, our elected leaders have 
     punted. By structuring full repeal to take effect 10 years 
     down the road, they have obscured the cost and downside of 
     repeal and shifted the burden onto future generations.
       A hundred years ago, we did have a rigorous debate about 
     the need to tax large accumulations of wealth. Then, as now, 
     wealthy people took a stand in favor of inheritance taxes. 
     Andrew Carnegie personally testified before Congress in favor 
     of the estate tax.
       The petition effort that I launched with Responsible Wealth 
     is a similar effort. More than a thousand prominent investors 
     and business leaders--from families that have paid or will 
     pay estate taxes--have called for reform but not repeal of 
     the tax. Many of the signers are owners of small businesses 
     who understand that concentrations of wealth and power are 
     not friendly to small enterprise.
       The fate of the estate tax goes to the heart of the 
     American experiment. What has made America distinct from 
     Europe is our effort not to create hereditary aristocracies 
     and our suspicion of concentrated wealth and power weakening 
     our democracy. It was understood a century ago that the 
     estate tax was an attempt to balance conflicting American 
     values: on the one hand, our respect for private enterprise 
     and personal wealth, and on the other, our concern for 
     democracy and equality of opportunity. Today's debate is 
     missing this historical concern. In its place, we have come 
     to worship a myth of individual merit and success. But the 
     unspoken little secret is that great wealth is never entirely 
     the result of individual achievement. We underestimate the 
     role of luck, privilege and God's grace in our good fortune. 
     And we dismiss the incredible contribution our society makes 
     to creating the fertile soil for successful private 
     enterprise through public investment.
       My own perspective celebrates individual achievement and 
     the hard work of entrepreneurs and leaders in our free-
     enterprise system. But I also recognize that society has 
     played an important role in the creation of wealth. Take 
     anyone of the Forbes 400 and drop them into rural Africa and 
     see how much wealth they would amass.
       Imagine that two infants are about to be born. God summons 
     their spirits to his office and makes them a proposition. One 
     child will be born in a prosperous industrialized country, 
     the United States. Another child will be born into a country 
     of society-wide abject poverty. God proposes an auction for 
     the privilege of being born into the United States. He asks 
     each new child to pledge a percentage of his earthly 
     accumulation at the end of his life to the treasury of God. 
     The child who writes the highest percentage will be born in 
     the United States. Does anyone think either child would 
     pledge as little as 55 percent, the current top-estate tax 
     rate?
       This is not a slight of the vibrant community and human 
     qualities that exist in less-developed countries. I have 
     traveled the world in my work on health and am struck by the 
     quality of the human spirit. But our society has facilitated 
     wealth-building by creating order, protecting freedom, 
     creating laws to govern property relations and our 
     marketplace, and investing in an educated work force. What's 
     wrong with the most successful people putting one-quarter of 
     their wealth back into the place that made their wealth and 
     success possible? Many people repay their universities this 
     way. Why not their country?
       For the sake of our grandchildren, I hope we can revive 
     this vital debate. It may not be happening in the halls of 
     Congress, but perhaps we can take it to the town square.

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act as it fulfills two 
key principles. First is the moral imperative to reduce the tax burden 
on all American taxpayers, who are being taxed at historic levels. I 
believe it is morally right to return some of that money back into the 
pockets and purses of Americans. Quite simply, I believe tax relief is 
about freedom. The more of your money are allowed to keep, the more 
freedom you have to save, spend or invest your money as you see fit.
  The second principle addressed by this legislation is economic 
growth. Central to America's economic growth and continued prosperity 
is education; but, too often students and families educational 
opportunities are limited by the cost or prospect of a crushing debt-
load. The best answer to this dilemma is to encourage advanced family 
savings.

[[Page H2843]]

  I am pleased this conference agreement recognizes the need to provide 
federal tax incentives to help and encourage families to save for 
college. This legislation provides for tax-free treatment of 
distributions from state-sponsored prepaid tuition or college savings 
plans. This bill's language on tax-free distributions mirrors the 
primary provision in legislation I introduced earlier this year, the 
Securing Affordable collegiate and Vocational Education (SAVE) Act.
  The cost of attending college, whether at a public or private 
institution, continues to rise steadily. In order to send their 
children to college, American families increasingly rely upon debt to 
meet these rising college or vocational training costs. All 50 states 
have responded by establishing, within section 529 of the federal tax 
code, state qualified tuition programs that are free from state income 
taxes.
  As the author of Michigan's recently-enacted Michigan Education 
Savings Program I have witnessed first-hand the demand for such common-
sense education savings plans. Although Michigan's program was only 
launched in November 2000, it has been a smashing success as more than 
16,000 accounts have been opened with over $34 million in investments.
  The power of compounding makes these plans especially appealing to 
families who can save only in smaller increments. For example, in 
Michigan, families can put away as little as $10 a week over the first 
18 years of a child's life and, based at a conservative earnings rate 
of 8 percent, have about $20,000 by the time he or she is ready for 
technical school.
  When it comes to saving for college and vocational training, we need 
to help our families turn from a borrowing class into a saving class. 
Today's legislation takes a large step in that direction by providing 
for tax-free treatment of distributions from State Qualified Tuition 
Programs, like the Michigan Education Savings.
  I salute Chairman Thomas for his hard work on this excellent 
legislation and thank him for including this education provision that 
will help millions of families nationwide. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we go again--rushing to get this 
outright deception of a tax cut through--signed, sealed and delivered 
by Memorial Day. There is absolutely nothing in here for Social 
Security and Medicare and even the President's plan to partially 
privatize Social Security, but rather, it raids the money that is so 
desperately needed for these programs. This bill slashes spending on 
health care. There is nothing left for emergencies. Of course not, we 
have an emergency right now with the energy crisis, and there is not a 
single cent devoted to it. How many hundreds of heat-related deaths 
this summer will it take for the Administration to realize that the 
high energy prices is the true emergency, not tax relief?
  By pursuing this tax cut, the Administration and my Republican 
colleagues are consciously choosing to deny the existence of a very 
serious energy crisis. In light of a potential 250% Bonneville Power 
Administration (BPA) rate increase next year, the estimated Northwest 
regional job loss is 224,484. Seattle City Light, serving an area of 
half a million, has raised rates 30 percent.
  Today, the Bush administration would say that we must rush to meet 
the Memorial Day deadline for this tax bill in order to help hard-
working Americans confront the energy crisis. So much for their earlier 
explanation that the economy was on the brink of a recession and could 
only be saved by this massive tax cut.
  I see--all the tax cut dollars will go towards paying energy bills 
and stimulating the profits of the big oil companies--oil companies 
such as Houston-based Enron and Dynegy that have reportedly seen 
revenues climb by 400 percent in the past two years while the 
Californian utilities spiraled into debt.
  As for the working American families who owe no federal taxes and get 
zero to nominal benefits from this blatant deception of a taxcut, how 
will we help them pay their energy bills? Roughly twenty percent of 
families with children will get absolutely nothing under this bill. We 
will just send them into debt with utility bills. But that seems all 
right with the administration. According to them, knowing you will get 
$100 child credit in 18 months will have a psychological effect and 
cause the parent to go shopping and stimulate the economy.
  The Administration simply is closing their eyes and ears to the 
facts, and hiding behind the fraudulent pretext that this tax cut is 
the one and only solution for all of our country's challenges. Next, 
this tax cut will decrease teen pregnancies.
  It's a nutshell game. Is the money under the shell for the big oil 
companies or is it for the wealthiest one percent to go on a shopping 
spree?
  This whole package is really about sending hard-working Americans and 
our country into debt--all for the benefit of the extraordinarily rich 
and major oil companies, many of whom are in Texas. A vote for this 
fraud is a vote to gamble away our Nation's prosperity.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax plan simply does not 
allow them to keep all their political promises. First, we must realize 
this 11-year $1.35 trillion amalgam of tax cuts does little to provide 
immediate tax relief. Next we must confront the fact that the costs of 
these cuts are pushed back just behind the 10-year budget horizon, 
concealing their true cost.
  This tax plan leads us down the path of ``spend today, borrow 
tomorrow'' policy that will leave no room for adequately funding the 
nation's priorities or protecting against unforseen economic downturns. 
As I have said before, I support a substantial tax cut but not at the 
expense of hard-fought fiscal ground and long-standing domestic 
priorities, such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare, 
providing a universal prescription drug benefit, and adequately funding 
education and defense. With the passage of this tax cut, I do not see 
how we can even fund the president's own spending priorities, such as 
an expensive national missile defense system.
  Mr. Speaker, I give the Republicans credit for providing a ``tax 
refund'' by reducing marginal income tax rates, the cornerstone of the 
President's plan. This measure puts a 10% bracket on the first $6,000 
of taxable income for single filers and $12,000 for couples. However, 
taxpayers subject to the 15%, 28%, 31%, and 39.6% will not start seeing 
a reduction in their taxes until 2002 or 2005 or 2007, when each of the 
remaining tax brackets are reduced. Putting aside the merits of how the 
tax relief is distributed, I am disappointed that much of the delay in 
negotiations over this package was over how much relief to give 0.7% of 
taxpayers, those subject to the top marginal rate of 39.6%.
  During the negotiations, I am pleased that the conferees were 
convinced not to scale back the Senate's child refundable tax credit 
that will now be available to working poor families. The per child tax 
credit will be doubled from $500 to 1000 and will be partially 
refundable to those parents earning $10,000 or more and will be 
retroactive to the beginning of this year.

  I am also disappointed that the Republicans, after years of vilifying 
the Federal Estate and Gift Tax by calling it the ``Death Tax'' are 
making the uncertain move of repealing the tax over the next 9 years. 
The estate tax plan that I support, as was proposed by Mr. Rangel, 
would have immediately exempted 75% of those currently subject to the 
tax by raising the exemption to $4 million per couple this year. These 
individuals would then not have to wait until 2010 as set out under the 
Republican plan. Another troubling aspect of the Republican's approach 
is that, in the absence of a federal estate and gift tax, it appears 
that inherited property would be subject to carryover basis rather than 
step-up in basis.
  Mr. Speaker, well, how about the Republican's promise to remove the 
so-called marriage tax penalty? Remarkably, here again, the Majority 
willing to let the American taxpayer wait and pay. Under this package, 
not until 2005 is the standard deduction for married couples raised to 
twice the standard deduction available to single individuals. The plan 
that I and many of my Democratic colleagues in the House support would 
create an immediate standard deduction for married couples equal to 
twice the standard available to single individuals. Thus, the current 
law standard deduction of $7,800 per couple would be increased to 
$9,300 immediately, not in 2005. Mr. Speaker, since marriage penalty 
relief is a major priority for Congress, why don't we provide it until 
2005?
  Next, I would like to point out the white elephant in the middle of 
the room that everyone seems intent on ignoring, the alternative 
minimum tax (AMT). While 1.5 million taxpayers will be subject to the 
AMT this year, the Joint Committee on Taxation projects that 21 million 
taxpayers, including nearly half of all families of four or more, will 
fall under the AMT by 2011. If the AMT is not completely corrected, the 
expected tax relief for many families simply will not be realized. What 
will we say in 2011 to the 19.5 million taxpayers wondering why they 
are subject to the AMT?
  Mr. Speaker, my central objection to this legislation is that the 
conferees have hidden the true costs of the plan. We cannot claim 
fiscal responsibility and overlook the structure and timing of this 
legislation. I support many of the tax cuts in this package, but not 
when they are clearly crafted to threaten fiscal responsibility. We all 
know that the lengthy phase-ins for almost all provisions make the 
package look affordable, but the more back-loaded the package the 
greater the second 10-year costs as compared to the first ten-year 
costs. Members and the public are told that the tax package costs $1.35 
trillion. As a senior member of the House Budget Committee, I must 
report that if the true costs were reflected by assuming that all the 
provisions that expire are made permanent, the cost over the period 
2001 to 2011 would be at least $1.7 trillion, excluding

[[Page H2844]]

interest costs. Most importantly, the cost in the second ten years is 
estimated to be about $4.1 trillion. Thus, this measure that provides 
little immediate relief to few Americans leaves little room for funding 
national priorities such as defense and education or a universal 
Medicare prescription drug benefit, paying down the debt or reforming 
Social Security.
  Perhaps the brightest spot of this bill is the inclusion of the 
bipartisan Portman-Cardin pension legislation approved by the House. I 
am thankful that this bill included tax credits taken from legislation 
I introduced with my colleague. Mr. Blunt, to promote the establishment 
of retirement savings plan by small businesses. Unfortunately, lifting 
of the limits on IRA and 401(k) contributions has been slowed, reducing 
the amount that Americans can save over the next decade. The time is 
upon us to plan for the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. We 
cannot keep putting off Social Security reform or providing a 
prescription drug benefit or, for that matter, enhancing pension 
savings.
  For reasons of fiscal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the 
Conference Report to H.R. 1836.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 153, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 154, not voting 39, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 149]

                               YEAS--240

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     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
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     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
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--154

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--39

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Clayton
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Doggett
     Gillmor
     Hall (OH)
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     King (NY)
     Lipinski
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moakley
     Oberstar
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Scarborough
     Spence
     Towns
     Walsh
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1011

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 149, final passage of 
H.R. 1836, adoption of the conference report, I was unable to be 
present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 149, 
due to difficulties associated with my travel logistics, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________