[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 14, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4107-H4113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1830
JOBS AND GROWTH TAX PLAN TO PRODUCE JOBS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chocola). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
General Leave
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to
revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, every time that I walk
into this Chamber I am awed and I am overwhelmed, when you think of the
history that has taken place here in this Chamber, in this hall, and
the speeches that have also been proclaimed and stated within these
walls.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I heard some really eloquent speeches as well,
some spectacularly eloquent speeches, some of them criticizing the job
proposal that this House has passed, the job proposal plan that the
President has proposed.
I also heard, Mr. Speaker, some great examples of not letting the
facts get in the way of the rhetoric. I have seen some wonderful
examples here as to how to just disregard the facts and let us go
forward with the rhetoric and hope that you can confuse people, Mr.
Speaker.
But the American people, Mr. Speaker, are not easily confused. The
Jobs and Growth Tax Act, which is really based on the jobs and growth
plan that we passed last week, is a comprehensive approach to creating
jobs. We heard criticism after criticism after criticism of that plan;
but what you will notice is that not once, not once, was a proposal
spoken about, an alternative proposal, that created jobs. No. They
criticized the plan that creates jobs, and, in its stead, proposed
absolutely nothing. Again, the American people witnessed that here
tonight.
Yet the plan that we passed provides, for example, tax relief to
American families and immediately eliminates burdensome and unfair
taxes that provided huge obstacles to economic growth and job creation.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) worked awfully hard to get
through this House a plan that will create over 1.2 million jobs
throughout the entire country by the end of next year. This was a
specific proposal, not rhetoric. That is a specific proposal that this
House passed. It creates, as a matter of fact, 45,000 new jobs in the
State of Florida that I represent; next year, 45,000 jobs. Yet, Mr.
Speaker, we heard no other proposal; just criticism, criticism of a
plan that creates 1.2 million jobs.
This plan that we passed that our dear friends in the minority love
to criticize, and, yet, I repeat, have nothing to show other than
criticism, this plan would put $550 billion in economic stimulus and
job creation in this country.
Then I heard something that I keep hearing time and time again, and
it must be something that the Democratic Party's PR machine has told
them to repeat time and time again, again regardless of the facts. They
keep saying, oh, the plan that the House passed, the President's plan,
cuts taxes on the rich.
Let us again speak of the facts. I know that my dear friends on the
Democratic side hate when you bring up the facts. They do not like the
facts to be used. They do not want to permit the facts to confuse the
rhetoric. But I think it is important to bring up some of those facts.
The rich? Cut taxes on the rich? Twenty-three million small business
owners will benefit from tax rate cuts in order to stimulate job
growth; 23 million small business owners are going to have their taxes
cut. Those are not the rich, those small business owners. Again, the
facts, Mr. Speaker.
The tax cut, for example, on dividend income and the capital gains
tax cut will provide relief for the 50 percent of Americans who have
invested in the stock market and 70 million Americans who own homes.
Those are the facts.
Yet what we have heard tonight, all the criticism, all the critiquing
of the President's plan, of the plan we passed, with nothing else, no
proposal, no alternative proposal, is just criticism based on innuendo,
not based on the facts.
Again, the President's job and growth plan, what we passed here in
the House, will provide 1.2 million jobs next year. Those are the
facts, not the rhetoric.
The energy bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) spoke
of here last week with me on the floor of this House will provide
750,000 new jobs. But yet both those initiatives our friends from the
minority party object to; and they object to them but have no decent,
good proposal, as opposed to what we have done. This is a good plan,
because it does provide jobs.
I was wondering, I see that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Kennedy) is here; and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the
gentleman. Maybe he can try to shed some light on some of the facts,
not on just empty rhetoric, some of the facts: why it is important that
we do not just sit idly by and hope the economy gets better; why it is
important to incentivize this economy; why it is important to go
forward with the President's plan, with what this Congress passed, to
make sure the millions of Americans can find good jobs; why it is
important to not just sit back and pretend that things are okay, they
are going to get better, and the solution is maybe to raise taxes; why
it is important that we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman can shed some light as to some of
the rhetoric that has been heard before here tonight which does not
conform with the facts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I wholeheartedly agree with what the gentleman is saying.
This focus should be on jobs. Our focus as a Congress should be on
creating jobs.
A lot of what we have heard earlier today is talk about extending
unemployment, and we certainly have. Our hearts go out to those that
are unemployed. But if you talk to those that are unemployed, what they
really want is a job, and that is what we have to talk about, that is
what we have to act on, that is what we have to create.
They have not talked a lot earlier in their discussions on the floor
about what they are going to do to create jobs. As the gentleman
mentioned, they do not have a plan to say here is how we are going to
create jobs.
Our plan that we did pass last week will create, according to
estimates, 1.2 million jobs. I know a little bit about jobs. I spent 20
years in the business world creating jobs, keeping people employed; and
I know what are some of the things that can help encourage that and
what are some of the things that can hurt that. So our focus needs to
be what can we do as a government to nurture an environment that
creates jobs.
The gentleman spoke of the energy bill. That is clearly part of it.
The gentleman spoke about many of the provisions in this bill, in this
bill we passed for jobs and growth, which will indeed create jobs and
growth.
The economy has suffered. We went through a period where we had not
only a bust in the telecom bubble, but soon following that, 9/11, which
set the economy back, and the threat of terrorism and the concern with
our efforts to free
[[Page H4108]]
a people from oppression in Afghanistan and do the same thing again in
Iraq.
We are now suffering from concern over SARS and other diseases that
are threatening our economy and threatening people and threatening
lives around the world. All these put a lot of pressure on our economy,
put a lot of pressure on the ability to create jobs; and now more than
ever, our focus needs to be on the facts and how do we create those
jobs.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reclaiming my time for a second, as
the gentleman knows, I am new in Washington. This is my first year. One
of the things that has surprised me a little bit is the ability by some
Members, very eloquently, to just espouse things, yet with no facts
whatsoever, and sometimes even distorting some facts that are used.
The gentleman mentioned something that is very important. There has
to be a proposal. In other words, if we want to create jobs, which is I
think the emphasis of this, clearly of the President and the majority
of this Congress, we have to put something forward that creates jobs.
One of the ways to create jobs, and that is a bipartisan goal, we
have agreed to that, I think, one of the ways you create jobs is by
cutting taxes, making sure the people can keep more of their money.
Another way I think we can create jobs is by controlling government
spending. Yet, since I have been here, I have never heard one moment
where our friends from the other party have ever asked for controlling
government spending.
Every time I turn around, they are asking for more government, bigger
government; more bureaucracy, more money for that bureaucracy; more
taxes from the people for that bureaucracy. That is a common theme I
have been hearing in these debates.
I was wondering if the gentleman could shed some light on how does
creating a larger government, more bureaucracy, more taxes, how does
that help create more jobs for the American people.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I think that is a big issue we are dealing
with. There are two different world views. There is a world view that
says having the government spend more creates jobs, with the idea that
somehow we here in Washington know how to do that. As a businessman, I
can tell you, this is not where the jobs are created. They are created
back home by small businesses.
I would like to go back to the facts, because so often much of the
rhetoric on the other side is lambasting the job creators and
lambasting any efforts that we have to encourage those job creators to
create jobs. That is what this bill does.
If you think about what bonus depreciation does, going from 30 to 50
percent bonus depreciation, the extra ability to expense immediately
investments in equipment that drives jobs, that is critical to
providing those jobs.
Also the bill that we passed last week will increase the amount that
small businesses can deduct from $25,000 to $100,000, the amount they
can deduct in the first year. This is so vitally important. As I talk
to so many small businesses around the State, they tell me this is
something that can get me to go out and buy that piece of equipment
that will allow me to add jobs to my business.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. One of the things that I keep
hearing, and the gentleman just mentioned small businesses, which is a
big part of this economic stimulus-job creation package, it is to
provide relief for small businesses. That is where most of the jobs are
created, in small businesses.
In the State of Florida it is even more dramatic. The numbers are
staggering, the number of jobs created by small business. That is the
entire economy of the State of Florida.
But we hear when we want to cut taxes on small business owners to
help small businesses do well, to incentivize them to spend more money,
to hire more people, to create more jobs, you hear that we are cutting
taxes on the rich. Yet, when you look at the proposals from our good
friends on the minority party, the Democratic Party, everything that
they do seems to be trying to raise taxes on working Americans.
By the way, many of those working Americans are now struggling, which
is why it is important to pass this package. But yet their proposals
seem to be, and I have them here, seem to be raise taxes on the working
people, on the hardworking Americans, who are having a hard time paying
the mortgage and rent, who are having a hard time staying employed.
Some of them have actually lost their jobs. Yet they want to raise
taxes on them.
It seems in many cases just to create larger bureaucracies up here in
Washington, DC. I do not think one has to be a brilliant economist to
realize when you are further taxing people and you are creating more
bureaucracy in DC, that does absolutely nothing to help the economy.
What it does, it actually helps stagnate the economy; it hurts the
economy. It makes sure that the economy does not grow.
Again, the gentleman has been here longer than me. Is that just a
normal theme for them, that they always use these blank statements when
we are asking to or suggesting or trying to cut taxes on small business
owners, that they say those are the rich?
The small business owners in my district, the district that I
represent, it is not my district, that I represent, are not rich. They
are struggling. They are struggling to pay their employees, to pay for
their health care, to keep that business, those small businesses,
alive. To call those people rich people and say that cutting the taxes
on those people is cutting the taxes on rich people, and, at the same
time what they want to do is raise the taxes on the working people of
this country, to create a larger bureaucracy, how is that good for the
economy?
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. It is a recurring theme, as the gentleman
mentioned, that we somehow here in Washington have all the answers;
that we can create jobs in some way by just taxing people more,
bringing the government more money. And we are overhead; we are
overhead. We are a cost to all those small businesses out there. We are
the big ``headquarters in the sky'' that does nothing but send the bill
to them and say send more money; we need more money.
We do not need more money, but small businesses do. And it is true
that too often we demonize small businesses. Too often we say the
answer is to throw more penalties their way.
{time} 1845
Things like this $100,000, being able to deduct it immediately is
thought of as a tax cut for the rich, but let us think about what that
means. That means rather than having to expense over 4 or 5 or 7 or 9
or 25 years, it can be deducted immediately. As a finance guy who
worked in business and who has gone through the calculations, I can
tell my colleagues, that will change businesses' decisions as to what
they invest in.
And what could that be used for? I just started to go through my own
history. My first job was picking strawberries, and if we think about
our agricultural businesses, what they could do with $100,000. There is
the harvesting equipment. That allows them to produce more product, to
feed more people, to increase our economy.
After I had the opportunity to pick strawberries, I graduated to the
local bakery in town, Meisner's Bakery in Pequot Lakes. With that
$100,000, you could buy a new oven or a new steamer or a new area to
increase your production of doughnuts or whatever. And that is going to
add production, it is going to add jobs to a community.
After I got finished at the bakery, I had the opportunity to rent
boats at a boat marina. Somebody who is doing that can add boats to
their fleet so they can be renting more.
After that I had the opportunity to be at a gas station and pump gas,
but they also had a little retail store there with fish and bait and
all that stuff. A retail store like that could add fixtures, could
expand space and, therefore, grow its sales and add jobs.
I can go on and on and on through the jobs that I have been in, and
one can visually picture what could happen with that extra ability to
deduct that $100,000 right away rather than over a long period of time,
how that could motivate businesses to invest and how that investment
could increase jobs. Sometimes we do not hear about that
[[Page H4109]]
from the other side. We just hear about lambasting of those business
people that are taking the risks, that are investing in something that
does not have a certain future, but it is that entrepreneurial risk-
taking that creates jobs in this country, and that is what we need to
encourage.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the
things that we have to note as well is that we keep hearing that
government can give these small businesses, is going to give them
something. It is not the government's to give. That is the people's
money. What we are talking about is allowing hard-working people to
keep a little bit more of their money; in other words, for the
government to take less of their money. But when we talk about that, we
hear that, oh, it is horrible, because it is going to cost government.
We are going to be giving away these things. Excuse me? Giving away?
I think that is part of where we have a huge ideological difference,
a philosophical difference. It is not government's money to give away.
What we are saying is that government is going to take less money of
the small businessperson, of the small business. He is going to take a
little bit less money, just a little bit less money, take a little bit
less so that that person, that small business, can reinvest it in their
business.
The gentleman mentioned some great examples to create more jobs. I
know that for some people, that is a theory. That is a theory. Why do
we have to create more jobs? Let us just criticize the President. They
have done that from day one about every issue; whether it is the war to
liberate Iraq, they criticize the President. They do not criticize him
that much anymore, but they sure were criticizing because it is the
thing to do, just criticize the President.
Now they criticize this job creation plan, and they say that, well,
we are going to give these people, these small businesses, money. No.
What we are saying and what the President is saying is it is the
people's money, it is not government's money. The government should
allow those small businesses, those individuals, to keep some more of
their money so that they can use it back home, in Florida, in
Minnesota, and in Texas, in Wyoming. And they tend to do it much better
than we do, than government does, because we tend to waste a lot of
money. Allow them to keep some of their money, and that will create 1.2
million jobs in 1 year.
But some people say, well, it is only $100,000. It is only $100,000
that we are going to cut, it is only $10,000, it is only $1,000 that
businesses are going to be able to reinvest. I guess that think that
they have better plans for that money in D.C. But I am, frankly, a
little shocked.
I have been doing a little research about some of the waste up here.
Our dear friends on the Democratic side hate when we talk about waste
and fraud and abuse. But I have been doing just a little research. I
have not spent a lot of time on it because the gentleman knows I just
got here recently, but I found some very interesting things.
Just one issue, for example. Government purchase cards and travel
cards wasted approximately $97 million annually. But let me tell my
colleagues what some of those really bright things are that we should
take more of the people's money for. This is the kind of thing that we
need to tax people more for, to spend it on some of these things. This
is $97 million worth of escort services, jewelry, clothing from
Victoria's Secret, Macy's, Nordstrom, Calvin Klein; taxpayer money to
buy a dog for an individual. Taxpayers' money was spent on pornography
for some employees, on expensive luggage. There was one incident of one
dinner for $2,100 at Treasure Island Hotel and Casino.
That is why we need to raise more taxes. Take it away from the hard-
working American men and women, bring it up here to D.C. so we can
spend it and waste it on some really good things such as this: designer
leather goods from a prestigious store, Lego toys, expensive
sunglasses, beer, wine, and cigars.
There is also, do we remember the travel cards? That is a separate
issue altogether. That was used for, well, for interesting places I do
not really want to mention. Some of these things I really would rather
not talk about, including some gentlemen's clubs, some plastic surgery,
down payments on a home. So that is why we have to tax the American
people more, because Washington knows how to spend the people's money
better; oh, yes, on a down payment for a home for a member of the
bureaucracy. That is why we have to take more of their money, on
cruises. No, no, no, no. Wait a second.
The reason that some of us, the gentleman from Minnesota and others,
have been speaking about waste, fraud and abuse, because it is not a
laughing matter, because this is hard-earned money. This is money that
government takes from the American people and then misspends it.
Government does some really good things with taxpayers' money as well,
but we throw a lot of it away. And for anybody to say that government
is so efficient, so well run, so lean and mean that we have to take
more of the hard-working American people's money, people that are
having a hard time because the economy is not as good as we would like
it to be; for us to take more of their money to spend it up here as
opposed to what we want to do, which is allow them to keep more of
their money so that they can spend it on some of the issues that the
gentleman mentioned, on their families, on creating wealth within their
businesses, of creating more jobs within small businesses, I think is
absolutely ludicrous.
But these examples are not new. We have been hearing about waste,
fraud and abuse for a long time. So again, I am having a hard time. I
know that the gentleman, like me, believes that we need to incentivize
this economy, but since the gentleman has been here longer, maybe the
gentleman has heard some of the words of wisdom from the other side
stating how raising taxes on hard-working Americans, particularly when
they are having a hard time, helps create jobs. I do not buy it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. And I do not buy it either. And I agree
with the gentleman as it relates to the people out there creating jobs.
Hard-working families know a whole lot better how to spend money to
create jobs and to provide for their families than we ever will here in
Washington, and the gentleman's many examples just proved the point.
Mr. Speaker, amongst the wisest words I have heard here was during my
freshman year we had a speaker come in, a George Will, who some of my
colleagues may have had the opportunity to read his columns, and he
tried to make things understandable for us, because sometimes it is
hard to understand some of the verbiage that we hear. He said, you will
find that on most issues, that the battle of ideas is between freedom
on one side and people telling you that you need them here in
Washington to keep bringing the gravy train to you, or, said another
way, dependency, we are going to cultivate dependency. And if my
colleagues listened tonight, they heard that.
We have heard the other side say, you need us here, because without
us here, we will not be able to keep you dependent on unemployment
rolls; whereas I think what our statement is saying, yes, we will take
care of unemployment, and yes, we have extended, and we both voted for
that, and we both will again when that need is there. But that is not
our main focus. When we get up in the morning, our focus is how can we
give the economy more freedom, small businesses more freedom, families
and small businesses more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets
so they can take that freedom and they can go out and create jobs and
create a more prosperous America for all of us.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by the way, I have
been very impressed with the quality of the speeches. Sometimes the
rhetoric is really, really good. I mean, there is some great eloquence
on the floor of the House. We heard some great eloquence today bashing
the plan to create more jobs. We heard that tonight. We have heard
eloquent speeches bashing the President's plan to create more jobs. We
have heard eloquent speeches bashing and bashing and bashing. We also
heard, the gentleman will recall, very eloquent speeches from our
friends on the Democratic side bashing when we were talking about
trying to cut wasteful spending. They just hate that. They hate when we
talk about that.
[[Page H4110]]
I mentioned some examples, but I want to make sure that nobody thinks
that, well, because when we add that up, it is only $100 million. Some
people say that. We have heard that here, it is only $100 million.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Only $100 million.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Only $100 million. Ask the American
people if that is just only $100 million on some pretty sad things. But
it gets worse than that. And when we talk about these things, we get
bashed by the Democrats. When we talk about, for example, we were
mentioning facts before, and it is important to not just spew rhetoric,
but bring in some facts to the discussion.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot account for, and we need
to listen to this, the Federal Government cannot account for $17.3
billion it spent in the year 2001; $17 billion unaccounted for. Yet
some criticize us when we talk about let us have some accountability.
Let us not misspend. Let us look at ways that we can save some of this
money. Mr. Speaker, $17 billion is not peanuts. That is a lot of money
unaccounted for.
The Federal Government made $20 billion in overpayments in the year
2001; $20 billion in overpayments, on people that were not qualified or
things that should not have been funded. The Department of Housing and
Urban Development made $3.3 billion, and I repeat, billion, with a B,
billion dollars in overpayments in 2001, accounting for 10 percent of
the Department's budget; 10 percent in overpayments, in waste. Yet some
will tell us that there is not enough money up here; that we need to
raise taxes on hard-working Americans; that we should not incentivize
the economy by letting more hard-working Americans keep some of their
money, no, because there is not enough money in D.C. Oh, of course not,
when we misspend 10 percent of the Department's budget.
But some will tell us the answer is, no problem. Do not worry about
that. Let us just squeeze the American taxpayer a little bit more, a
little bit harder, because you know something? It is okay, they will
not mind, or they cannot yell loud enough, so let us squeeze them a
little bit louder, a little bit tighter.
No, no. It is time that we do not squeeze them anymore, so that we
allow them to keep more of their money so that they can spend it and
they can create jobs.
If the gentleman will allow me, I would like to mention a couple of
other examples. The Department of Agriculture was unable to account for
$5 billion in receipts and expenditures; $5 billion. Medicare
overpayments, overpayments totaled $12 billion in 2001; $12 billion.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has passed a Medicare
prescription drug plan without raising taxes. We have done it.
Actually, the House did it last year as well, but the other body
refused to do so, but now we have done it again, and we are going to
pass it again. Well, do we want to find where some of the money can
come from? There is $12 billion in overpayments. That is money that is
not going for the elderly that need it, that is not going for the
elderly that deserve it, that is not going for the elderly who have
paid into it.
{time} 1900
No, that is just waste. That is just waste. And that is unacceptable.
That is immoral. Totally immoral. So, yes, we are going to do it.
There has been a lot of rhetoric for 40 years; the other party has
been talking about it. It took the Republican majority to pass it, and
we have passed it again in the House, and we are going to do that; but
we need to make sure that this kind of waste stops, stops, because that
is our hardworking Americans who are paying for it. The food stamp
program pays approximately $1.3 billion in overpayments each year. What
can we do with that $1.3 billion for health care, for education, for
defense, to incentivize our economy? A lot.
And yet when we talk about these things, our friends on the
Democratic party get upset. They say you cannot do that; you have to
tax the American people more. Do not look at fraud, waste and abuse.
Just tax the American people more. More than $8 billion is lost in
erroneous earned income tax payments each year and again the list goes
on and on and on, and we are not talking small amounts of money. If we
were speaking about small amounts of money, that would be no excuse. We
still have to stop it, because it is not government's money. It is the
people's money, but what is even worse is we are talking about billions
of dollars in misspent, misused, lost money. And some want to tax the
American workers, tax the American family more to do more of this? I do
not understand it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I do not understand it either. And the
waste, fraud and abuse cries out for a razor-sharp focus on what can we
do to scale away those costs that are burdening our economy. And we can
get back to a sound fiscal picture only by sparking this economy with
the kind of tax-relief jobs proposal that we passed and by controlling
that spending with a razor-sharp focus, as they say, on waste, fraud
and abuse.
They know how to spend money better back home in Florida and back
home in Minnesota than we do in Washington. They do not put up with
that. They will drill to the bottom of those issues and find out what
was causing it and uncover the waste, fraud and abuse, and get it out
of the system.
But what could they do, for example, with the dividend and capital
gains reductions that we have passed? When I studied economics, they
told me it was investments that drive jobs. It is when you invest in
the economy, that is when you drive jobs. Where do those investments
come from? Those investments come from savings. And this bill
encourages savings by reducing the double taxation on dividends, and
they are excessively high compared to many other countries' tax that we
have on investment income. We should be taxing income at its source,
but when we discourage investment and have the very low investment rate
that we have here in America, we are hurting our economy. And who is
receiving most of those dividends? I think it is important to point out
it is primarily seniors that are receiving those dividends. And they
have paid taxes on that in the business. They have paid taxes all their
lives. Why are we charging them this double investment?
We have a concern here with having good fiscal responsibility. One of
the big benefits of the dividend and capital gains proposal we have
talked about is that by encouraging more businesses to be giving their
dividends back to shareholders, you will be having less cash stockpiled
in the company. That will be better for us keeping track and holding
our businesses accountable. It is also going to make the balance
between debt and equity less tilted towards debt. Right now we have
such higher tax benefits for fully deductible debt on interest on debt;
and yet on dividends coming out of a business, we are taxing them twice
unfairly. By getting that balance more in line, you are going to really
have a stronger, sounder capital structure, more equity in our
businesses so they can withstand downfalls without having to lay off
employees.
Again, our focus here is what can we do to create jobs. How can we
run our ship more efficiently here by scaling back on waste, fraud and
abuse so that we have to take less out of the pockets of small
businesses and hardworking families and let them get on with the
business of America, the business of creating jobs, expanding the
economy and taking care of our families.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Absolutely. You mention a specific
issue that, by the way, is in the bill that we passed which would
create jobs. Another thing that would create jobs that is also in the
bill that we passed, and by the way, it would also save, it would
provide relief for 92 million Americans, 92 million Americans, an
average of $1,083 in the year 2003, allowing them to keep more of their
money. That would put more than a hundred million dollars into the
economy of our country over the next 12 months, creating jobs, turning
over that economic engine.
You mentioned a little while ago that the way to get out of the
deficit, by the way, to pay for the essential service that we all want
to pay for, including what the Republican majority is doing with, for
example, the prescription drug coverage under Medicare, is to expand
the economy. That is not to raise taxes to the point where
[[Page H4111]]
people cannot pay them and you destroy business. It is to grow the
economy. One way to grow the economy is, again, by allowing the 2
million Americans, now I know, I know, some of our friends on the
Democratic side will say, those are rich folk.
You are going to cut $1,083 in the year 2003 on 92 million Americans.
Those are rich folks. I wish, by the way, there were 92 million rich
people in the United States. Those are not the facts. But that will
allow Americans to keep more of their money, to spend more of their
money, to invest more of their money, to put it into their businesses;
and that alone is a hundred million dollars into the economy that right
now is being sucked in, this huge sucking sound that goes from every
single city, town, village in our country of money coming up here to
D.C. to do with it as we know the government does with it, including
some of the things that we mentioned.
The plan that we passed also would see the tax burden eliminated
entirely on 3 million moderate-income families. Three million moderate-
income families would pay zippo, zilch, nada, zero. Those are rich
people? No. Those are working families. Those are working families.
How about the child tax credit that will be raised from $600 to
$1,000? Tell me that is not something that has to happen. Tell me that
is not something that the American people deserve. Tell me that is not
something that the American people can do better with their money than
us in D.C., with the bureaucracies, and the size of this government,
again, 23 million small businesses would, again, in H.R. 2, the bill
that we passed, House Resolution 2, by having more capital to expand on
their businesses. That is what this country needs. And I know that some
are content to think, no, we should not do anything. We should just
kind of pretend that things are okay. They will complain here on the
floor, but they will not propose anything that creates any jobs.
I am so proud to have been able to support this package that actually
will create, just create so many jobs for the hardworking people of
this country. I do not know about the area that the gentleman
represents, but in the State of Florida, the area that I represent,
people are concerned. People want jobs. People want to work. People
want to have good high-paying jobs. And they are looking for government
to do something to incentivize this economy, not to just sit back and
pretend that things are okay. I am pretty sure it has got to be the
same where you are.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. It is the same in Minnesota. And you were
right, the jobs proposal that we have passed, as we have spoken of,
focuses that help to our job providers on encouraging investment. That
is what creates jobs. And as it relates to helping out and providing
more money in the pockets of hardworking families, it focuses that in a
very appropriate way.
The gentleman spoke of the per child tax credit, and I would also add
the marriage penalty. As someone who has 23 years-plus of marriage
under his belt and four teenagers to help pay for, I want to make sure
there are not disincentives to keep you from enjoying both of those
treasures of life, marriage penalty is something we have to get rid of,
and getting rid of it now as this bill does is critical. We charge
people when they walk down the wedding aisle more for getting married.
We tax marriage. They get a little extra gift from Uncle Sam saying,
Here is your bill. On average before we passed our tax relief in 2001,
$1,400 more on average just for being married.
Families are the foundation of our society, the foundation of our
economy. Why we do that is beyond me. And accelerating this marriage
penalty relief so that it is eliminated today is something that is very
powerful in this bill. The per child tax credit, those that have
children know how expensive they are to raise; how we put a lot of
blood, sweat, and tears into them. Yes, and we need to, and there is
nothing more rewarding. But we also have to put a few dollars out for
their education, for their food, for their clothing; and we benefit
greatly as a country from the youth having this increase in the per
child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. Now, that is something that is
very important to do and a very important part of this tax relief jobs
bill that we just passed.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. You also get taxed when you die.
When you die you get taxed again on money you have already paid taxes
on, by the way, to the government. So it is one tax after another tax
after another tax. It seems some people are never satisfied. There is
never enough that we can take away from the American people; and that
has to stop, that attitude, that philosophy, that approach, that
culture. We have to change the culture from a culture of just grabbing
as much money as we can from the taxpayer and spending it whichever way
we can, regardless of the waste, of the fraud and abuse, to a culture
of responsibility, a culture of real responsibility.
Again, we misspend so much money. It is not only we misspend money
but it is the bureaucracy we create that forces the American people to
spend a ton of money. For example, the IRS, which by the way spent $8.9
billion administering the Tax Code.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. That is just the IRS, not all the expense
that businesses have had and families have had in order to fill out
some of the most complicated tax forms in the world.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The numbers are astounding.
Americans, hardworking Americans spent $135 billion complying with the
Tax Code. And yet the other side insists on raising taxes. And, again,
let me bring up some facts because I want to make sure we bring up the
facts. I have got three proposals that the other side had. I sit on the
Committee on the Budget, and we discussed these at length in the
Committee on the Budget. We also discussed them at length, some of
them, on the floor. One of them, the CBC/Progressive Caucus tax
substitute, that is the substitute to what we are doing which is a plan
to incentivize the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their
money so they can spend it, invest it, creating more jobs. This plan
raised taxes, increased taxes by $44 billion in 2004, by then $420
billion over 5 years and $875 billion over 10 years. And, by the way,
it also cuts defense spending at the same time. So they raise taxes,
but they cannot fund or did not want to fund defense; and we know how
important that is.
This was, of course, the Blue Dog budget proposal that was discussed
here on the floor. And I was here for that debate which basically has
no support to increase, to get the economy going; but it balanced the
budget by raising taxes.
What a concept. Think about it. The economy is not doing too well so
you raise taxes to balance the budget. This proposal would have raised
taxes by $124 billion in 2006 to 2011. These are their proposals. Here
they are. And then, of course, you had another one which raised taxes
by $128 billion over 10 years and had much more in government spending
as well. Let us just spend more. Let us spend more money, send more
money to the bureaucracy in D.C. But then they will say when we say,
no, we have to look at fraud and cut fraud, abuse and misspending of
money, they say, oh, but you are cutting essential services. We have
heard about the cuts in, for example, Medicare. I have heard that on
the floor of this House many, many times. We heard it tonight. We will
probably hear it later on tonight and the day after and the day after.
{time} 1915
In fact, when we look at the facts, what is in the bill, in Medicare,
it is a 7.2 percent increase in Medicare. There is no cut. It is an
increase. It is a rather substantial increase in Medicare.
Then Medicaid cuts, I have had people talk to me about Medicaid cuts.
I have gotten e-mails, how come we are cutting Medicaid, we are so
nasty and rude, how come we are cutting Medicaid. Let us look at those
cuts of Medicaid in our budget. It is a 9 percent increase in Medicaid.
There is not a cut there. It is a 9 percent increase. Washington is the
only place in the world where a 9 percent increase is said to be a cut.
Nine percent increase is a 9 percent increase. The facts are the facts.
Here it is. Yet we have heard that before, I am sure, accused of
cutting Medicaid.
Then, of course, we are cutting education. That is why we have to
raise taxes, because we are cutting education. If we do not raise
taxes, we
[[Page H4112]]
have to cut education. Oh, really? Except that it is a 6 percent
increase in our budget in education spending, a 6 percent increase.
Oh, one that I have heard time and time again, and this one is
annoying because of trying to use veterans, saying that we are cutting
veterans, funding for veterans. That is just not true. It is a 10.7
percent increase for 2003. It is a 10.7 percent increase. That is not a
cut.
They do not exist. It is not there. It is not true, but again, some
will say, do not let the facts confuse the rhetoric. Do not let the
facts confuse the issue.
The facts are that the plan that we passed, the plan that is very
similar to the President's plan, provides for jobs, creates jobs, keeps
more money, allows the American people to keep more of their money. It
is not a gift from government. It allows the American people to keep
more of their money, provides increases in spending for the essential
services like Medicaid, Medicare, education, veterans services. It does
so in a responsible fashion, and those are the facts.
Again, I assume, though, that my colleague would probably tell me
that that is nothing new, right, saying that a 10.7 percent increase is
a cut. That is something that I guess the other side is used to saying
quite a bit.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. We hear it all the time, and the gentleman
mentioned that the facts often get distorted, and they get distorted to
try to say and try to convince us in all cases that we need to spend
more on X, Y or Z, and we have the benefit of many of our constituents
coming in and speaking with us, and if they represent a category of
spending, it needs to go higher. If they represent a business, we need
to do something for their business, I have to tell my colleague, to
increase the activity in that business.
I have to tell my colleague, one of the strongest confirmations that
I have for his earlier statements about the complexity of the Tax Code
and the burden of that Tax Code upon our economy, on our families, is
that the one group that sort of stands out from all the rest is when I
speak with my fellow certified public accountants. A certified public
accountant that helps in preparing those tax returns one might think
would want the Tax Code to be more complex so they can have more
business, but they are all to a person telling me, whether I am
visiting them in their one- or two- or three-person firm in a small
town in Minnesota or otherwise, they are saying we have got to reduce
the complexity of this Tax Code.
This Tax Code reduces the trust that people have in their government.
It takes away far too many of our resources to devote to something that
does not do anything for our competitiveness as a country.
One of the areas that they often single out as being just really out
of control is the alternative minimum tax, and the alternative minimum
tax was put in many, many years ago with the intent of making sure that
we all paid taxes, and was targeting those at the very top, but they
never changed the dollar amount, and the years and the decades have
passed, and now it is being not just a burden of an additional cost to
people where it is being unfairly applied, but the complexity of it in
having to pool so many moderate to middle-income to lower-middle-income
families into it is astoundingly burdensome.
So I am also pleased that part of what we did in the relief that we
passed last week was to increase the AMT exemption so that the other
provisions were not causing more people to be dumped into this quagmire
of a mess with AMT.
We do need to invest in our priorities, and we are in our budget, as
the gentleman so eloquently pointed out, but we also need to reduce the
burdensome elements of our taxes and our tax preparation and get a
simplified form, which this AMT relief is moving us in that direction.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman, and I know that we do not have a lot of time left, and I
would like to see if I could ask my colleague to give us a bit of an
update, because one of the bills that I am really excited about is one
that he has sponsored dealing with health care.
Health care is such a crucial issue, the cost of health care. The
cost of health insurance is really getting to the point where it is
unobtainable to many American families, and we cannot survive without
health insurance. And we hear a lot of people cannot afford health
insurance, and we have what I think is a model piece of legislation.
And I know we do not have a lot of time, but if the gentleman could
just briefly let us know about that bill that my colleague has been so
generous to allow me to cosponsor and work with him. I think I would
like to hear a little bit about that.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my
colleague has helped me cosponsor my fair care legislation to help with
addressing the uninsured, and he is absolutely right. When we go out
there and talk to small businesses and employees, the availability of
insurance is critical.
What are we doing with insurance right now? We have a growing number
of uninsured that are being provided for through the emergency rooms of
our hospital, the most expensive way we can treat them. Federal law
requires that emergency rooms need to treat everybody, including the
uninsured. Where does that cost come from? That cost comes to us from
higher Federal, State and local subsidies, but also higher insurance
premiums, which drive up the uninsured pool even further, and we get in
a vicious cycle.
I am pleased the gentleman has been so supportive of our fair care
bill that gives the uninsured the same tax benefits that we that are
employed have. When one is employed, they get help from their employer.
That help that they give for their health insurance does not come to
them as taxable income. They are getting a tax benefit.
My bill would, which my colleague has nicely helped cosponsor, gives
$1,000 per child tax credit per person, $500 per dependent, up to
$3,000 per family, and this is the way where we can help that uninsured
in a way that will give them more choices and really benefit us all
through lower insurance premiums and more accessibility. But we have
done so much more for helping with that vital thing that is
constraining jobs.
The medical malpractice reform that we both supported and passed
earlier this year in the House will take away those excessive
settlements that have been driving medical professionals out of the
business and again driving up the costs of health care. We have many
other provisions to help, but this prescription drug bill that, as the
gentleman mentioned earlier, we passed in this body twice would take
away an expense that has just been so burdensome in a way that is
affordable to us, and we can do it in our budget, and it keeps seniors
from having to spend their lifetime savings for life-saving
prescriptions. But that is, again, another way that we can help keep
the costs of insurance from being driven up.
The energy bill we passed earlier and, as my colleague knows, I have
spoken on earlier is so critical to this economy because nothing hurts
or helps the economy more than the cost of energy and making sure that
we have affordable energy, that we are not dependent on foreign
sources, that we can grow more alternative sources here as well as
encouraging efficiency and conservation are provided there. That is a
critical bill, and I know I am working very hard as we are on the roads
in the transportations bills.
We met earlier today on an airport improvement plan and making sure
we are investing in that infrastructure that is so very critical to our
economy. And I am also pushing another proposal on fast lanes to free
up the ability of local and State governments and maybe private
enterprises to move forward and help put extra lanes in our interstates
that without we are congesting traffic and closing down our economy.
There is so much that we are doing, and we do have a razor-sharp
focus on jobs. What do we need to do to create jobs? That is our focus.
It is not to complain. It is not to talk about the problems in America.
It is to say America has always risen above those problems, and we have
risen above those problems and succeeded and gotten to a point of
leadership in the world not because we have taxed more and brought more
dollars to the Federal Government, but because we have relied upon and
trusted and given more
[[Page H4113]]
freedoms to hard-working entrepreneurs that are taking risks, that are
creating jobs, and letting families keep more of their hard-earned
money because they know best how to take care of themselves.
I appreciate the gentleman bringing these very important issues
before the Chamber and our fellow colleagues and look forward to
working with him to continue the type of policies that we have already
been able to successfully achieve so far in this Congress and hopefully
will have more to come.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from Minnesota for coming here today and shedding some light
on the facts; not showering with us rhetoric, but getting to the facts,
speaking about the facts. He is absolutely right. We did pass
legislation to create jobs, and so we are not complaining. We are not
just spewing rhetoric. We have results here, and that is a huge
difference between, I think, the two sides.
And I again thank the gentleman for his work on health care. I thank
him for his work on the budget and transportation. And yes, I think we
have to be very proud that we are not going to sit back and just let
things happen. We are going to do everything in our power to
incentivize this economy so more Americans can have more high-paying
jobs, because that is what really it is all about.
____________________