[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4706-H4730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2, JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION 
                              ACT OF 2003

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 253

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2004. All points of order against the conference 
     report and against its consideration are waived. The 
     conference report shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the conference 
     report to final adoption without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. The yeas and nays 
     shall be considered as ordered on the question of adoption of 
     the conference report. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not 
     apply to the conference report.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is an appropriate rule providing 
for 1 hour of debate for consideration of the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of 2003.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, taxes now claim a greater share of the median two-income 
family's budget than food, clothing, housing, and transportation 
combined. That just is not right. Families need the flexibility to 
dedicate their hard-earned resources towards their most pressing 
concerns. While some may need more money to help pay off their debts, 
others may need extra money to pay tuition for their child or to invest 
for their retirement.
  The same can be said for small business owners, the entrepreneurial 
backbone of America. They should be empowered to allocate their 
resources however they see fit, whether it be hiring more employees, 
reinvesting, or expanding their business in order to create jobs.
  The point is, people should be making decisions on how to best spend 
their hard-earned dollars, not the government, nor should government 
punish them with job-killing, unfair taxes.
  Today's legislation is not just about tax relief; it is about 
creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The fact is jobs do not 
create themselves. And we, in this Congress, have both the ability and 
responsibility to help create those jobs. Through his consistent and 
immediate attention to growth and prosperity for working Americans, the 
President has once again guided Congress to foster job creation and 
ease the outrageous tax burden on working Americans. Under his 
direction, we will be helping countless Americans achieve a greater 
parity in the Tax Code and realize the fulfillment of employment.
  No one knows the current job struggle like my constituents and fellow 
New Yorkers across the State. For my part of the State, which never 
shared in the economic boom of the 1990s, job growth remains the number 
one priority. And this type of positive impact is what this and so many 
other parts of our country need.
  On average, over 30,000 new jobs will be created in New York every 
year for the next 5 years. Instead of an unemployment check, these 
workers will get a paycheck that they want and they deserve.
  The bill recognizes that we cannot create employees if we do not work 
with employers to create jobs. For example, small businesses will have 
an option of immediately deducting up to $100,000 in expenses, a 
significant increase over the current $25,000 deductions. Because most 
small businesses pay taxes as individuals, accelerating the top rate 
reduction means lower taxes for small business owners. This means that 
millions of entrepreneurs will have more money to spend on employees, 
supplies, or expansion efforts.
  The conference report also drastically reduces the dividend tax 
burden, making stocks more valuable and increasing expected rates of 
return. By lowering the rates of dividend and capital gains, people 
will be more willing to invest because they will pay less tax on the 
returns to their investments.
  What this bill also recognizes is the need for an immediate infusion 
of direct aid to States facing dire fiscal crises. Budget shortfalls 
and sharply rising Medicaid costs have crippled local governments, 
restricted access to vital services, such as health care, that our 
constituents greatly rely on.
  By coupling State relief with tax relief and job creation, we can 
alleviate the strain on State revenues, and further stimulate the 
economy with direct aid to our States and localities that need it most.

                              {time}  2245

  Whether creating jobs, relieving the tax burden, increasing 
investment, or fostering State and local stability, this bill 
acknowledges the need for all-encompassing approaches to growing the 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, former President Ronald Reagan once said the current Tax 
Code is a daily mugging. This is not what our political science 
teachers meant by participation in government. Let us not rob the 
American people of their hard-earned money. This country was founded 
upon individuals who stretched their imaginations, fostered ingenuity, 
and broke their backs for freedom and justice. Americans throughout 
history have not toiled resiliently just to fork over all their 
earnings to the Federal Government. This was not the intent of our 
forefathers, nor should it be ours now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
as well as the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, here we are again, at quarter to eleven, the 
shades of darkness have fallen, and we have to ask ourselves a 
question, at least I do: Is the other side not particularly competent? 
Is that why we are here this late at night, as we always are on major 
pieces of legislation? Or have

[[Page H4707]]

they intentionally put us here late at night so no one will watch this 
on television, so the American public will not know what is going on?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I will complete my statement, and then my friend, the 
chairman, will have plenty of time to respond.
  Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to respond to the query that was put forth.
  Mr. FROST. I understand, but my friend will have plenty of time to 
speak.
  Mr. Speaker, it is more than a coincidence that the major pieces of 
legislation that this Congress does are always done late at night when 
not very many people are watching. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, the House will 
pass and send to the Senate the ``Leave No Millionaire Behind Tax 
Act.'' Yet at the same time around the country millions of Americans 
are looking for work.
  This country is still suffering from the second Bush recession in 
just over a decade, the third Republican recession in the past 20 
years. The Federal deficit is spiraling even higher. The public debt is 
growing. Every penny of this tax bill have will to be borrowed. But 
Republicans in Washington, from the President on down, are busy patting 
themselves on the back for successfully pulling off another rip-off of 
the Federal Treasury.
  Make no mistake, that is all this conference report is, a welfare 
package for the very wealthy and a big fat bill for future generations. 
When you borrow money, you generally have to pay it back. This 
conference report is the latest attempt to give the average American's 
Social Security payments and their Medicare payments to a small elite 
group of very wealthy individuals.
  Republicans have argued among themselves about how much this bill 
costs, but it hardly matters because they are basically making up 
numbers at this point. After all, the Senate Republicans attached a 
number to their tax bill last week and then had to admit it was $70 
billion too low. And this week House the majority leader, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), was in the newspapers bragging about how easy 
it is to fudge the numbers to make their tax plan look less expensive 
than it really is.
  They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax bill, but they will not 
extend unemployment benefits to every American who continues to look 
for work with no success. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax 
cut, but they kick 1.4 million veterans to the curb and out of the VA 
health system. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax cut, but 
they cannot hide a record $400 billion deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush became President, some 2.7 million 
Americans have lost their jobs. Unemployment is the highest it has been 
since the last Bush administration, and only Herbert Hoover lost more 
jobs than George W. Bush has. Of course, President Bush still has a 
year and a half to go to top the Great Depression President in this 
contest.
  Mr. Speaker, the stock market is down. Republicans have driven 
America's deficit so high that the Bush administration's own Treasury 
Department has twice asked to raise the debt limit so they can borrow 
more money. Not only does the administration need to borrow more money, 
they want to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, the largest increase in 
the history of the debt limit. This is not a record to be proud of, Mr. 
Speaker. This is not a record to run for reelection on, Mr. Speaker. It 
is a record of shame.
  After all, 2 years ago, the Republican majority in the House did not 
sell their economic package as a budget buster. But they were wrong. 
And they are wrong today. The ``Leave No Millionaires Behind Act'' will 
not create jobs or stimulate the economy, any more than Part I did 2 
years ago. But it will drive this country deeper into debt, raising the 
debt tax on all Americans to pay for more tax breaks for the richest 
few. The true cost of this particular bill is closer to a trillion 
dollars than to any fake numbers Republicans trot out today.
  That trillion dollars is about what the administration and the 
Republican leadership want us to raise the public debt by so they will 
not have to face up to the failed economic policies before the next 
election. The Republican leadership wants to force that record-setting 
debt limit increase through the Congress, along with this tax bill, 
while they skip town and leave millions of Americans who cannot find 
work in the lurch. This is reprehensible behavior, Mr. Speaker, but 
certainly not behavior that surprises Democrats one little bit.
  We have a responsibility to govern with the needs of the present and 
the future in mind. This tax bill thinks of neither the present nor the 
future in a responsible manner. What the President and the Republican 
leadership are advocating is a failed economic paradigm that will 
borrow against the future to pay a few millionaires today, and the 
Republican Party does not have a clue how they are going to pay this 
money back and keep this government solvent.
  That is why we have to defeat this rule and this conference report. 
Until someone makes President Bush and the Republicans stop ruining the 
economy, they will keep raiding ordinary taxpayers to pay for more tax 
breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy. This is just wrong, Mr. 
Speaker. You know it and I know it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my memory serves that at the time, had we not done the 
tax cuts that we passed in 2001, we might have been in a deeper 
recession, a slower economy. And, quite frankly, that was part of the 
stimulus that has moved us to a shallow recession. In moving forward 
with this tonight, my hope is the economic stimulus will continue to 
advance.
  Quite frankly, I think the Republican agenda, led by our President, 
has done the job, and I am hoping that we can continue moving on that 
agenda. I will be happy to take that record to the voters of this land 
and let them make a decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I 
rise to say that this has been a great day for us. We have been able to 
pass out, in a bipartisan way, with an overwhelming vote, a spectacular 
defense authorization bill. We have been able to deal with one of the 
most pressing needs out there by extending unemployment benefits to 
those who are really hurting. And now we are dealing with what truly is 
the number one priority for us economically, and that is we are going 
to be putting into place a measure which is designed to create jobs and 
increase economic growth in this country.
  I am looking at the clock. It is now 6 minutes before 11 p.m. Now, I 
know my friend from Texas has described this as the dead of night. But 
I have to say that it is 6 minutes before 8 p.m. in California, and I 
suspect that there may even be a broader audience following the debate 
at this hour across the Nation than there might be at noon following a 
debate that takes place here in the House of Representatives.
  I also have to say that I know there are Members on both sides of the 
aisle who are anxious for us to complete our work and get this done so 
that we can create jobs for the American people, which is what this 
measure is going to do.
  Now, I am very proud to be a Republican, and by virtue of being a 
Republican, I was born to cut taxes. And I am proud, I am proud of the 
fact that we are putting this measure into place. The ``Leave No 
Millionaires Behind Act'' was a great line that I heard. I thought that 
was very creative. But if we are using it on the model of ``No Child 
Left Behind,'' I guess it should be broadly bipartisan. And, frankly, 
this is a measure which cuts taxes for virtually everyone who pays 
taxes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, my friend says it cuts taxes for almost 
everybody. The last tax proposal the gentleman brought up here gave as 
much in tax breaks to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent, those people 
who are millionaires, as to the bottom 89 percent

[[Page H4708]]

of the people. Does my friend think that is fair?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for 
his question. And what I will say is that, frankly, as we look at the 
numbers, 1 percent of the American people provide 37 percent of the tax 
revenues that are paid in this country, and 5 percent of the American 
taxpayers provide over 52 percent of the tax revenues.
  But what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again, is 
that this measure will cut taxes for virtually every American who pays 
taxes. And I am so excited about the fact that it cuts taxes not only 
for those job creators by dramatically increasing expensing for small 
businesses, by bringing about the kind of increased depreciation which 
is very important and necessary, but also I am enthused about cutting 
the top rate on the capital gains tax.
  I am very privileged to have worked for years and years and years 
here. In fact, I have a bipartisan bicameral Zero Capital Gains Tax 
Caucus. And guess what? This measure creates a zero capital gains, and 
not for those who are in the highest income tax brackets, not for those 
who are out there creating huge numbers of jobs, but this measure will, 
in the year 2008, establish a zero capital gains tax rate for whom? For 
those who are in the 10 percent tax bracket and those who are in the 15 
percent tax bracket. And, Mr. Speaker, it also provides a zero tax in 
the year 2008 for those who have dividend income. And there are many 
Americans who fall in that category.
  So we are achieving, with passage of this measure, a zero capital 
gains rate for those who are at the lowest end of the economic 
spectrum. And, yes, we are, in fact, cutting it for those in the higher 
end as well. We are cutting it from 20 percent to 15 percent.
  We also know, as we look at the broad cross-section of the American 
people who are going to be benefitted by this expanding and making 
permanent the marriage tax penalty, that that relief is very, very 
important. Also expanding the child credit up to $1,000, another very 
important provision, will be helpful to middle-income wage earners in 
this country. So while I hear this measure described by my friend from 
Texas as only benefiting millionaires, that is an absolutely 
preposterous description of this very important legislation.
  I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud of the fact 
that we have stepped forward, acknowledging that there are real 
challenges that our States are facing. My State of California has, 
tragically, a $38.2 billion deficit. And what is it that we do in this 
measure? We step up to the plate and provide $20 billion in assistance 
for those States that have come to us and talked about the very 
important needs that they face.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we have done the right thing. We 
are going to lay the groundwork to provide a tax-defined effort to 
create jobs and growth in this country. This measure deserves strong 
bipartisan support. The President of the United States stood here at 
the Capitol this morning and said he looks forward to signing this 
bill.
  While it is not exactly what we wanted from the beginning, we have 
said that we are excited about the fact that the argument has been over 
what the size of the tax cut will be, because we know that when our 
friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority the debate 
was so often over what the size of the tax increase would be.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the lines about the desire to keep 
these dollars in the pockets of the American people because they have 
earned them. We all know that is the case; but we also have to realize 
that these proposals which have come forward from the other side of the 
aisle to increase taxes, which is the proposal that we had last week 
that came from that side, would do nothing to create jobs and encourage 
economic growth.
  In fact, as my friend from New York has so eloquently said, it would 
have exacerbated the economic challenges that we face. The downturn 
began in the last two quarters of the year 2000. That was before 
President Bush was elected President of the United States. Since that 
time this Nation has faced all three of the factors that the President 
outlined in his campaign that indicated that he possibly would have to 
lead into deficit spending: war, recession, national emergency.
  No one needs to have September 11 redefined for them. We all lived 
through that right here in the Capitol; and tragically, many of us lost 
friends on that day. We also have just gone through a war liberating 
the people of Iraq, and we know it has been very costly.
  We also know, as we have looked at this deficit, the real problem is 
the fact that we have seen a slow economy. How is it that we are going 
to generate the revenues to deal with these very important priorities 
that we have? It is to generate a flow of revenues that we need.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious as a Member of the body and 
as a voter, when does it become President Bush's economy? You said this 
started back with Bill Clinton.
  Mr. DREIER. That is a very good question. I think what I have 
basically said was this downturn began in the last two quarters of 
2000. I did not say whose economy this is or is not. I would say we are 
all in this together as the American people. We all together stood 
outside the Capitol as Members of Congress following the tragedy of 
September 11. We all have been faced with the war with Iraq, and we 
have all been faced with a downturn that began in the last two quarters 
of 2000, and we are struggling to emerge. We are struggling to get this 
economy back on track.
  That is why the measure that we passed in 2001 which the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds) was talking about did play a role in 
mitigating the economic downturn. Virtually every economist indicated 
had we not passed that measure, the problems would have been worse than 
they are today. I believe that passage of this measure will go a long 
way towards creating the kind of revenue flow that we need. As I was 
saying, every single time we have cut the top rate on capital gains, we 
have seen an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
  We saw it when John F. Kennedy did it and when Ronald Reagan did it. 
We doubled the flow of revenues to the Treasury during the 1980s when 
Ronald Reagan brought about that reduction. In fact, we saw a 500 
percent increase in the flow of revenues when the top rate on capital 
gains was reduced from 28 to 20 percent in 1981.
  Unfortunately, in the 1986 tax bill, we saw that rate go back up. 
That 500 percent increase in the flow of revenues that came by 
unleashing that potential that was there, unfortunately we saw a 
diminution of it once we increased that rate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are going to observe a dramatic 
increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury once we put 
into place this measure that cuts for most Americans the rate from 20 
to 15 percent, and for those in the 10 to 15 percent bracket, reduces 
it to a great big zero.
  When I think about those at the lower end of the spectrum, I think 
about those individuals who are starting their businesses, maybe have a 
home that has appreciated, they want to be able to have the chance to 
create jobs and get onto that first rung of the economic ladder.
  This measure is designed to create the opportunity for people to do 
just that. This is a very good start. It is a good piece of 
legislation. I am very proud of the work that has been done by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and 
Means, our colleagues in the other body, and of course President Bush 
in providing stellar leadership for this, as well as Speaker Hastert 
who has constantly pushed in the direction of trying to reduce that 
burden.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), who has a very interesting description of the bill.
  I have a table here, table 5.1, ``Conference Agreement on Jobs and 
Growth

[[Page H4709]]

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.'' This table has some very 
interesting information in it. An American who makes a million dollars 
or more would get $93,530 of tax cuts on the average. If you make 
between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, you get $15 a month. If you make 
between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, you get a little bit less than $30 
a month. Let me just comment, the gentleman is trying to say this is a 
wonderful thing for people in the lower income brackets.
  I suggest to Members that the great spread here of $93,530 for the 
millionaires and $15 a month for the fellow or woman making between 
$20,000 and $30,000 and less than $30 for the family of between $30,000 
and $40,000, I am not sure what the gentleman is trying to say here.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, does he 
propose that that American who is earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a 
year, does he propose that they receive a $93,000 tax cut? Is that what 
the gentleman is proposing?
  Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, I am just proposing that we not try 
and tell them they are getting a really good deal here, that they are 
getting a really big tax cut, because the people who are getting the 
really big tax cut are the folks who are the millionaires, and the 
average folks out there are just getting a little bit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the 
distinguished chairman that last quarter that he talked about in 2000, 
the tax measure had not been passed at that time, actually did not pass 
until June of 2001.
  I would also like to say to the chairman who said that he is proud to 
be a Republican, he was born to cut taxes, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) said. Well, I am proud to be a Democrat, and I 
was born to help those who cannot help themselves.
  When we talk about people who pay taxes receiving benefits, there are 
people in this country who want to pay taxes, but cannot get a job.
  Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues realize that this body will spend a 
meager 2 hours debating this tax cut? That is the House will dish out 
more than $2.4 billion to America's wealthiest for every minute it has 
debated this irresponsible proposal. Let me repeat myself for those who 
did not hear me the first time: $2.4 billion per minute of debate.
  Mark Twain said there are two things you should never watch being 
made: sausage and legislation. The development of the Republican tax 
cut plan exemplifies the similarities between the nastiness and 
ramdomness of sausage-making and law-making. Those on the other side of 
the aisle have dismembered competing packages into a speculative $318 
billion collage. The tax cut conference report is incomprehensible, 
politically motivated, and fiscally irresponsible. Outside of these 
hallowed halls is a visitors' center that is being built. Right now it 
is a big old hole, and what the Republicans are proposing is a $1 
trillion hole that is a great metaphor for that big old hole right 
outside.
  This ugly tax sausage is the product of the President and the 
Republican majority's troubling tax cut fixation. The tax cut 
conference report is a collection of various misplaced, gruesome, and 
dishonest provisions. The Frankenstein result is an offensive tax 
proposal with no legs to stand on, no eyes to see beyond the present, 
no voice of truth, and no heart with compassion for America's neediest.
  For President Bush and the Republican majority, tax cuts are a one-
size-fits-all solution. Last year's obese, obtuse, and downright 
obnoxious tax cut was, according to the majority, correct for the then-
existing surplus.
  This year while the economy is ailing, the President, House majority, 
and Senate majority all have professed that their own version of a tax 
cut plan will solve the current economic problems. Now we are being 
asked to subscribe to the untruthful claim that this fifth tax cut 
version more mangled and distorted with gimmicks than the previous 
four, will restart the economy. I ask that Members do not support this 
rule and underlying principle of the bigger the wallet, the bigger the 
benefit.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are getting to the heart of it. The heart of it is 
that the left is filing in here to talk about we need bigger government 
and more spending. We need more of that central Federal Government.
  And the debate will happen after this rule is passed of those who 
want to see a tax cut, those who want to put that money back in the 
American people's pocket. And then we will begin to look at some of the 
facts in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, a married couple with two children, an income of $40,000 
will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act 
of $1,133 in 2003. That is a decline of 96 percent.
  In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of 
$1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. And 68 million women will 
see their taxes decline on average by $1,338; 45 million married 
couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786; 34 million families 
with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549; 6 million 
single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558; 12 
million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401; 23 
million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209; 3 
million individuals and families will have their income tax liability 
completely eliminated by this act.
  I will repeat that again. Mr. Speaker, 3 million individuals and 
families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by 
this act. Half of the tax relief package in 2003 is directed to the 
child tax credit, expanding a 10 percent bracket eliminating the 
marriage penalty, accelerating the marginal rate cuts, and ensuring 
that middle-class families do not face AMT. Ten million seniors will 
receive some type of dividend income, will be able to make their golden 
years more secure by keeping more of what their dividend income is.
  When I have this vote cast for this rule and then when I vote on the 
underlying legislation, I am happy to take those facts back to my 
district and stand before my constituents. Do Americans want more 
Federal Government and bureaucrats creating programs, or do they want 
that money in their pocket for them to make that decision?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend for yielding. I appreciate that.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. For a point of a question.
  Mr. SANDERS. Here is my question. The Wall Street Journal poll today 
showed massive opposition to this tax proposal and that more than half 
of the American people, 55 percent, said they would prefer the 
government to spend more money on health care coverage. The people want 
health care. They want Social Security.
  Can my friend respond to that?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I also saw a poll that says that the 
American people want a tax cut. And, quite frankly, as the President 
traveled the country in the week that we were on recess, he raised the 
polling numbers for that tax cut by 10 percent.
  Mr. SANDERS. But he is still losing. The polls are very clear. The 
people want health care and Social Security.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I have been listening to the gentleman from New York and, of course, 
he offers a false choice. He says, do you want tax cuts or do you want 
bigger government? The people that I talk to do not want a government 
that puts them in debt. They do not want their children and 
grandchildren to be paying, having to bail out the country for this tax 
cut that is being passed this year because of the size of the debt that 
this is causing. No, they do not necessarily want bigger government, 
but they do not want that debt hanging over their children and 
grandchildren for several generations.

[[Page H4710]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder if our good friend from New 
York, when he tells his constituents about their benefits, will tell 
them that the child tax credit will expire in 2004, that the 10 percent 
bracket expansion will expire in 2004, that the AMT exemption and that 
the marriage penalty negation provision will expire in a year. We give 
with one hand and take away almost immediately with the next. The sun 
rises and the sun sets.
  Let me dispel, first of all, one myth about this tax bill, the myth 
that the President is putting out that this is an itty-bitty tax bill. 
$350 billion by itself would not be itty-bitty, particularly when you 
have a deficit as we do. But this is not a $350 billion tax bill. If 
you assume, as we must, that these sunsets are a sham, and why should 
we not, because the architects of this bill are all saying, they will 
be extended, we just put them in there to shoehorn this thing into the 
budget. If you assume that, then this is what this total tax cut will 
be, not $350 billion but, in the next 10 years, $1 trillion. That is 
the result. And since the budget is now in deficit, all of this amount, 
all $1 trillion, will go to the bottom line and will swell the deficit. 
That means we will have a deficit this year, a record deficit of $425 
billion and the deficit will hover in that range, ratcheted at that 
range, of 3 to $400 billion for as far out as we forecast.
  But we do not stop here. Because Republicans have told us, proudly, 
that they are going to make tax cuts an annual event. If you look in 
their budget, you will see there are more unreconciled tax cuts still 
on the back burner yet to be brought forward. If you look in the 
President's budget, you will see that there are a lot of tax cuts left 
on the cutting room floor waiting there for next round.
  Here are three known tax cuts that are yet to come off the agenda.
  First of all, we all know the tax cuts passed in 2001 have to be made 
permanent, will be made permanent by the majority if it stays the 
majority in this House. That will cost 6 to $650 billion in revenues.
  Second, there is another 2 to $300 billion of various tax cuts lying 
on the cutting room floor waiting for the next round.
  Third, there is the alternative minimum tax. We all know that 
politically it has to be fixed in the next 10 years or else 25 million 
Americans are going to pay much higher taxes than they now pay. They 
will pay the alternative minimum tax. The cost of fixing it is 
reasonably 650 to $680 billion.
  If you add all of these tax cuts together and make a few modest 
adjustments for the likely cost of defense and homeland security and 
Medicare/prescription drugs, here are the results. I have got a piece 
of paper. I am going to leave it here on the desk. We have calculated 
them on this sheet of paper. If anybody takes exception with them, come 
down here and refute it.
  Here are the results per our reckoning of what is going to happen to 
the budget.
  First, from 2004 until 2013, deficits will total, get this, deficits 
will total $3.959 trillion. Without Social Security, deficits will 
total $6.527 trillion. Debt held by the public will increase from $3.5 
trillion to $7.9 trillion. Total statutory debt will go up to $14 
trillion.
  You can overlook and dispute a lot of these facts, but there are two 
facts you cannot dispute. They will not go away.
  First of all, 77 million baby boomers are marching to their 
retirement, and they are going to double the number of beneficiaries on 
Social Security and Medicare, and those programs will not sustain their 
benefits in their current situation.
  Secondly, what you sow, our children and their children are going to 
reap. They will have to support the underfunded Social Security 
program, the underfunded Medicare program, and they will have to bear 
the burden of $14 trillion in statutory debt that you are incurring as 
you move down this path tonight. That is the course you choose. That is 
the moral decision you make tonight if you vote for these tax cuts.
  If you do it in the name of creating jobs, I do not think this is 
going to create that many jobs, with one exception, I will grant you. 
It is going to create a lot of jobs for tax lawyers and accountants. 
This bill will be a bonanza for those who specialize in tax avoidance; 
and the real cost, believe me, is going to be beyond calculation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

[[Page H4711]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22MY03.003



[[Page H4712]]

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I stated a number of facts of how many millions of Americans benefit 
from this plan. I realize it was my party that started the graphs and 
bringing those very scientific presentations before us. I respect 
listening to the gentleman as he brought some of those today, but there 
are two important messages that I know I have been taught and trained 
by my constituents when I go home each week that is drilled into my 
graph of my mind and my views here.
  One is: Keep and create jobs. That is what this bill does.
  The other is: Tax cut now. That is what we are going to have the 
opportunity to vote on.
  There is going to be a great debate after this rule on the Thomas tax 
bill that he will present, but the reality is, at the end of the day, 
we are going to pass that legislation and we are going to help people 
go back to work.
  We have also done some important things with the unemployment 
insurance today. We are moving forward. It is a good Bush agenda. It is 
an agenda that the American people want, and they are going to have it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a fraud. It will do devastating harm to 
this country. It is an embarrassment that the Republican leadership 
brings it up, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, point number one. This bill is grossly unfair. My 
Republican friends, it is not the millionaires and billionaires who are 
struggling. It is the middle class. It is working families who are 
struggling. Yet your bill gives $93,000 a year in tax breaks to the 
millionaires, but 36 percent of the American people get nothing, and 53 
percent of the households would receive a tax cut of under $100. So the 
people who need the help get nothing; the millionaires get the lion's 
share.
  Number two. When you give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
breaks, you endanger the middle class. This will lead to drastic 
cutbacks in education, in Medicare, in Medicaid, in Head Start, in the 
programs that working families depend upon. Shame. Cutting back on 
education and Head Start to give tax breaks to billionaires.
  Number three. What a legacy to leave to our children and 
grandchildren. The national debt now is almost $6 trillion, huge debt 
payments every single year. Your tax breaks for the rich will drive the 
national debt up by several trillion dollars. What a gift to give to 
our grandchildren.
  Fourth point. You talk about creating jobs. That is what you told us 
2 years ago when you brought forth your tax breaks for the rich. You 
told America it was going to create jobs. In the last 2 years, we have 
lost 2 million jobs after your tax breaks for the rich. This proposal 
will do nothing more. If you want to create decent-paying jobs, build 
affordable housing. Protect workers right now who will lose their jobs 
at the State and city levels. Tax breaks for the rich do not create 
jobs.
  Lastly, and maybe most importantly, the American people are seeing 
through this fraud. The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll says today nearly 
two-thirds, 64 percent, of the people who were polled said there were 
better ways to boost the economy than tax cuts. Only 29 percent said 
tax cuts were the answer. These guys say, big government, terrible, 
terrible.
  What you are really saying is you do not want the elderly to have 
prescription drugs. You do not want the kids to have an education. That 
is what you mean when you rant and rave against the government.
  But here is what the people say. Fifty-five percent said they would 
prefer the government to spend more money on providing health care 
coverage, compared to 36 percent who said no.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is not a new debate for me. I came from the New York 
legislature. I listened to liberals every day tell me how government 
was going to solve all of New Yorkers' problems. I will not go through 
all those facts of the millions and millions of Americans that benefit 
from this bill as I cited earlier, but I want to remind my colleagues 
of one simple fact: A married couple with two children and an income of 
$40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 by $1,133 in 2003. It is a decline of 
96 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, that is 
sunset almost immediately. They may get that for a year or two, and 
then it is sunset.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I do not have enough time, but I just observed that the 
gentleman says, oh, we are going to do this thousand dollars, but they 
take it away in the next year or two.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are back at the rubber-
stamp Congress. Bring the bill out, rubber-stamp it and go on home. The 
American people have to understand, these guys are bringing out $1 
trillion worth of tax cuts and say that you are going to get 1 million 
jobs out of that. That is $1 million for every job you are going to 
get. The bill was dropped on the desk out here at 9:20. So we have had 
just about 2 hours to look at how they are spending $1 trillion.
  The gentleman from New York stands up here and very confidently says, 
da-da-da-da, we're going to get a thousand for this and a thousand for 
that and all this kind of stuff. Not a soul on this floor knows whether 
that is right or wrong. Nobody has had any time to look at this bill. 
You do not want anybody to have any time to look at this bill, because 
if they did they would find out just how fraudulent it is.
  The theory behind it, that is, give the money to the rich and they 
will go out and invest. The people at the bottom buy most of the stuff 
that the people at the top make. If the people at the bottom have no 
money and no job, you could have given a payroll tax holiday and given 
the money to the people on the bottom. They would spend every nickel of 
it.
  But no. You are going to give it to the top, and then you are going 
to pray, please, Lord, have them invest and create a new job for some 
poor person in my district. The million that you left on the table in 
the last bill, in the bill on unemployment insurance, when you would 
not take care of the people who were unemployed, you would not give 
them any money there, you would not give them any money with a tax 
break, you are going to give them $325 if they make 30,000 bucks. That 
is a fraud. It will not work, and the American people know it. That is 
why the Wall Street poll looks the way it looks. You try to fool them. 
You can fool them once in a while, but after a while it really does not 
work.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, history is a harsh judge. In years to come, 
our children will be called to judge what happened here tonight, May 
22, 2003. When they learn that you have put $1 trillion of debt on 
their young children, something they do not understand tonight, their 
first instinct will be to forgive you. That will be their first 
instinct. But they will not forgive you for putting $1 trillion on our 
children's backs because that is unforgivable.

                              {time}  2330

  It is unforgivable on a moral basis. This is not an economic issue. 
These children are going to be dug into a hole deeper than the hole out 
in front of the Capitol. It is unforgivable because they know you are 
handing out crumbs as you deliver your tax breaks to the wealthy. It is 
unforgivable, and our children are forgiving people, but this they will 
not forgive.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from

[[Page H4713]]

Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), my good friend and classmate.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill and I think about the people 
back in Kentucky and what they want, I think of three things 
particularly they want: One, they want jobs; two, they want healthcare; 
and, three, they want education.
  The people on the other side believe that they can hand out all of 
those things through government. But let me tell the Members what this 
bill does. This bill provides the resources for those individuals to 
make sure that they can get a job, to make sure there is a job 
available. Ninety-seven percent of the educational dollars come from 
the State revenue. The way we provide increased funding for education 
is to create more jobs, more revenue by having more jobs in the State. 
The way we create healthcare is to provide more jobs in employer-based 
healthcare.
  We have also provided $20 billion for the States. States are facing 
some difficult times, and this bill addresses that. It addresses the 
Medicaid problem which we have in Kentucky. This addresses the problem 
of other revenue shortages we have.
  They are still following the old mantra, and that is that we can 
spend ourselves into prosperity. These Keynesian economics have proven 
to fail. I remember when I was in the military when President Carter 
was in office. We had a terrible problem of funding the Department of 
Defense, and I remember when Ronald Reagan came in and instituted some 
of the principles that JFK had which was reducing capital gains. We saw 
prosperity then. We were able to provide jobs, education and defense 
money.
  Pass this rule and this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 7\3/4\ minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, since when did creating the largest deficit 
in American history become a conservative value? The same House 
leadership that has led us in just 2 years from the largest surplus in 
American history to the largest deficit in American history now proudly 
digs that hole deeper tonight.
  The dirty little secret of that bill is that every single dollar of 
this tax cut is paid by borrowing, borrowing from our children's future 
rather than investing in it, borrowing from the Social Security Trust 
Fund rather than strengthening it.
  This is a growth bill all right. It will grow our national debt by 
trillions. It will grow taxes for future generations who will have to 
pay interest costs on that new huge debt. It will grow the cost of 
doing business for our family businesses and farmers, for buying a home 
or a car when interest rates are pushed up by your historic deficits. 
If our values in Congress are reflected by our priorities, what does it 
say when the Republicans on the House Committee on the Budget voted 
just 2 months ago to cut veterans' benefits by $28 billion, Medicare by 
$262 billion, and Medicaid for poor children by $110 billion? Whoops, 
tonight they say we can afford a $350 billion tax cut. Is that what 
compassionate conservatism is all about?
  In a few hours I will go to sleep knowing that Republican campaign 
operatives are already happily preparing their attack press releases 
for those of us who will oppose this irresponsible bill, but, quite 
frankly, I really do not care. Because when my 5- and 7-year-old sons 
wake up in the morning, I can look them in the eyes knowing that I did 
not vote tonight to mortgage their futures.
  Congress did it in 1981, and it repeated the mistake in 2001. 
Tonight, our Republican leaders once again make the mistake by offering 
the false promise of huge increases in defense spending, balanced 
budgets, and massive tax cuts. It did not work then. It is bad policy 
now. This is a bad bill for our children and their future.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I cannot speak for the gentleman's constituency as a whole, but I 
know there is one constituent down there who wants a tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Is the gentleman talking about the multimillionaire who lives in 
Crawford, Texas? I think that is who he was talking about. I do recall 
that the net worth of the resident in Crawford, Texas, is somewhere 
around $15 to $20 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to oppose a tax cut if one 
holds public office. It does not take a lot of courage to vote for a 
tax cut. That is something that everybody who seeks public office likes 
to do, and it is no fun to oppose a tax cut. But who in the world do 
you all think is going to pay for the ships that are in the Persian 
Gulf tonight? Who is going to pay for veterans' benefits for people who 
come back with one leg or one arm off? Who is going to pay to educate 
the children?
  We have a $6.4 trillion deficit. You are raising the debt of this 
country $980 billion. You borrowed every dime for the Persian Gulf War, 
and nobody wants to pay for anything.
  It is not easy to oppose a tax cut. But I will say one thing. It does 
not take a whole lot of courage to vote for it because you can go home 
and get patted on the back tonight. But we are digging a hole that is 
going to haunt this country this terms of future interest payments.
  Who is going to pay the bill? All these young people around here, 
they are the ones that are getting the bill because they are going to 
pay interest on every dime that is in this bill tonight.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are nearing the end of our hour debate on the rule, and we have 
heard a number of different viewpoints. But I want to remind the 
colleagues as they look at the rule that gives us an opportunity to 
move forward on a tax cut and also a $20 billion stimulus to our States 
and localities. The child credit increases our child credit to $1,000 
for 2003 and 2004. Families will receive a child credit check this year 
for up to $400 per child. It accelerates the expansion of the 10 
percent bracket for 2003. The marriage penalty relief begins in 2003, 
individual rate cuts where we accelerate the 2006 individual rate cuts 
scheduled to 2003. The individual increase of AMT exemptions where that 
will be increased by an amount of $4,500 for single persons and $9,000 
for joint filers.
  But I look at jobs and small businesses. I have come up through the 
elected route of legislative bodies from county to county to State, our 
Federal Government. All of my working adult life I have been a small 
businessman. When I go back home to those Chambers of Commerce and, 
yes, it will not be Waco, Texas, or Crawford, Texas. It is going to be 
Clarence, New York, or Amherst or Batavia, Greece. I am going to talk 
about the fact that in small business that they have the opportunity to 
expense at $100,000 versus $25,000. Not because I thought so, but 
because they told me, as small businessmen and women, that is what they 
needed. That is what they needed to first retain their jobs, that is 
what they needed to grow jobs.
  And, by gosh, the Congress heard them, the President heard them, and 
there is a new law of the land that this Congress will enact tonight. 
That small business expensing increases the amount that they can 
expense from $25,000 to $100,000.
  Some of you are going to go home to the Chambers of Commerce, and I 
hope, as they get a chance to look at that, you can answer the 
question: ``You are right. I have heard your call across the America, 
and I am going to do that $100,000 expensing in the vote I cast here 
tonight.''
  And in dividends and capital gains, I hear all this class warfare on 
the rich. Where I come from and in that real estate business I owned 
for 25 years, I knew a lot of working men and women that built a little 
capital gains in that second property they owned or the double that 
they rented out up the street,

[[Page H4714]]

and they just want an opportunity to have that money come back to them 
versus the government gobbling it up for more government programs to 
give you a solution of how to spend the money versus sending it back to 
the American people.
  This debate is, as we pass the rule and moving on to the debate, we 
will hear a lot from the left. We will hear a lot from those who cast 
that 1993 vote to have the largest tax increase in America's history 
defend it then and then defend it tonight. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not 
care how we cut it. The American people want to create jobs and jobs 
growth, and they know tax cuts are the route to get there.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York to 
answer a question.
  Is or is not the $350 billion tax cut that you have raved about all 
night going to be paid for by borrowed money? Yes or no?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay for it by giving it 
back to the American people. Will there be deficits? There are 
deficits.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have heard that 
rhetoric all night. That dog will not hunt. That is borrowed money. 
Right now you are asking the Senate to approve a $984 billion debt 
ceiling increase. This tax cut tonight is paid for by borrowed money, 
and if you say you are going to grow your way out of it, why do your 
own economists, why does your own budget, why does your own rhetoric 
behind your words tonight not back up what you say?

                              {time}  2345

  What you are reading to us time and time again is not factual. It is 
borrowed money. We are increasing the debt. Since you have taken over 
this House, you have increased our Nation's debt by 54 percent. You 
will increase it by 167 percent by 2013, following the game plan you 
are talking about tonight.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believed when I voted for a $726 billion tax decrease, 
for tax cuts, that we would have moved our economy even faster. I 
believed it when I did $550 billion. I am supporting $350 billion with 
the other things we are doing today for an economic stimulus package 
because I believe it will create jobs, and those jobs and earning power 
will more than keep our country running, if we do not let the big 
spenders in Congress spend our money.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this job-killer bill will lead to a 
continuation of the Bush recession. We are told we need to end the 
double taxation of corporate income, but one-third of corporate income 
earned by U.S. corporations is not even subject to corporate tax 
because of the loopholes in that tax. But, of course, their new 
provision applies to foreign corporations. Their income is not even 
taxed once.
  We are told this is going to encourage investment in new issues of 
corporate stock. But it is a temporary provision, so who is going to 
buy corporate stock, just to find the taxes go up on the dividends? But 
if it does encourage investment, it will encourage investment of 
American capital in foreign corporations issuing stock. Those foreign 
corporations are paying 12 cents an hour to their employees and 
stealing our jobs.
  We are told the low zero percent rate or 5 percent rate will apply to 
working families. But working families, if they own stock at all, own 
it in their 401(k) plans that are unaffected by this bill. In fact, 
when the dividend income is paid out, it is subject to a high rate of 
tax. The big beneficiaries of that zero percent rate will be rich kids 
with trust funds earning $10,000 or $20,000 of dividend income and 
paying zero percent tax.
  The corporate tax rate, once you move the corporation to the Bahamas, 
zero percent.
  Individual income taxes on dividends from the Bahamas corporation, 15 
percent.
  Individual income tax when the stock is held by a trust for rich 
kids, zero percent.
  Knowing that working families are paying about 30 percent tax, FICA 
and income tax, on their wages--priceless.
  There are some things campaign contributions just can't buy. For 
everything else, there is RepubliCard. Accepted at the finest country 
clubs in the Bahamas.
  And you will want to get the Deficit Express Card, now that the 
Senate has increased the credit limit by another $981 billion. The 
Deficit Express Card: Do not leave the House without it.
  Mr. Speaker, this job-killer bill will lead to a continuation of the 
Bush recession.
  We are told we need to end the double taxation of corporate income, 
but one-third of corporate income earned by U.S. corporations is not 
even subject to corporate tax because of the loopholes in that tax. 
But, of course, their new provision applies to foreign corporations. 
Their income is not even taxed once.
  We are told this is going to encourage investment in newly issued 
corporate stock. But the dividend exclusion provision is a temporary 
provision, so who is going to buy corporate stock, just to find the 
taxes go up on the dividends? But if it does encourage investment, it 
will encourage investment of American capital in foreign corporations 
issuing stock. Those foreign corporations are paying 12 cents an hour 
to their employees and stealing American jobs.
  We are told the low zero percent rate or 5 percent rate on dividend 
income will apply to working families. But working families, if they 
own stock at all, own it in their 401(k) plans, and those plans are 
unaffected by this bill. In fact, even if we pass this bill, when the 
dividend income is paid out of a 401(k) it will be subject to a high 
rate of tax. The big beneficiaries of the 5 percent or zero percent 
rate on dividend, will be rich kids with trust funds earning $10,000 or 
$20,000 of dividend income and paying virtually no tax.
  The corporate tax rate, once you move the corporation to the Bahamas, 
zero percent.
  Individual income taxes on dividends from the Bahamas corporation, 15 
percent.
  Individual income tax when the stock is held by a trust for rich 
kids, zero percent.
  Knowing that working families are paying about 30 percent tax, FICA 
and income tax, on their wages--Priceless.
  There are some things campaign contributions just can't buy. For 
everything else, there is Republicard. Accepted at the finest country 
clubs in the Bahamas.
  And you will want to get the Deficit Express Card, now that the 
Senate has increased the credit limit by another $981 billion. The 
Deficit Express Card: Do not leave the House without it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider 
H.R. 2156, a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) that would require the administration and the Congress to do 
something about the budget disaster their economic policies are 
creating.
  The Rangel bill attempts to avert the train wreck Republican economic 
policies are steering us towards. His bill would permit a temporary 
debt limit increase of $375 billion, on the condition that the 
administration and Congress come up with a serious plan to balance the 
budget by the year 2008. The Rangel bill would give the Republicans the 
opportunity to show some real leadership on economic issues.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question will not keep the House from considering the 
conference agreement. What a ``no'' vote will do is allow the House to 
consider the Rangel balanced budget proposal as a separate bill. 
However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House 
from taking up this responsible proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, the debt tax is not a tax we can repeal or sunset. This 
vote is the only opportunity the House will have to show some real 
economic leadership and consider the Rangel balanced budget plan. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 2156 be 
printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my two posters are really simple, as I said before: 
Create and Keep Jobs and Tax Cuts Now.

[[Page H4715]]

  I want to say that this is not a partisan thing. It is either you 
believe that bigger government and more government spending is how we 
solve our problems in America, or you believe it is the people's money 
and you give it back to them. It is important to really note that in 
the bipartisan aspect of reality, either you believe one or the other. 
As President Kennedy said, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are 
too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to 
raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates now.
  Mr. Speaker, if we move ahead on this rule and we move ahead on the 
underlying legislation, we are going to do just that; and that is what 
America wants, that is what they deserve. And I think in every poll in 
America that has been cited in every different direction here, the 
bottom line is the people, and I go home every week and I know, want to 
create jobs, and they are going to do it by our cutting taxes, and that 
is what we are going to do.
  Mr. Speaker, let us have a tax cut.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 253, Rule for Considering the Conference 
                          Report on H. Res. 2

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec.  . Immediately after disposition of the conference 
     report accompanying H.R. 2, it shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order to consider in the House 
     the bill (H.R. 2156) to provide for a temporary increase in 
     the public debt limit. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.''

                               H.R. 2156

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

     SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

       (a) Temporary Increase in Debt Limit.--During the debt 
     limit increase period, the public debt limit set forth in 
     subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, shall be temporarily increased by $375,000,000,000.
       (b) Balanced Budget Requirement.--Not later than August 31, 
     2003, the President shall submit a 10-year plan to the 
     Congress that will bring the Federal unified budget into 
     balance by fiscal year 2008 and, thereafter, make 
     uninterrupted progress in reducing the use of Social Security 
     trust fund surpluses to finance a deficit in the non-Social-
     Security budget.
       (c) Debt Limit Increase Period.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``debt limit increase period'' means the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     ending on--
       (1) August 31, 2003, in the case that the President fails 
     to comply with subsection (b), or
       (2) September 30, 2003, in the case that the President 
     complies with subsection (b).

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 205, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Combest
     Cox
     Emerson
     Gillmor
     Peterson (PA)
     Stearns


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes to go on this vote.

                              {time}  0007

  Messrs. CARDOZA, STUPAK, and OBERSTAR, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mrs. CAPPS 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

[[Page H4716]]

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 224 I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2004, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate, I do want to thank the 
staffs, the majority staff, the minority staff, and the institutional 
staffs for something that has to happen before the Members can stand 
before the Speaker and the House in the Chamber and the American people 
and debate measures in front of us; that is, do an enormous amount of 
paperwork, double-checking to make sure that what is the desire of the 
House and Senate actually is produced in the document.
  It happens on every bill that comes up. It especially happens on a 
very difficult and complex conference report, and I do want to 
acknowledge the tremendous service that our staffs perform for us on a 
daily basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that, as is the wont of legislative 
bodies, one of the easier ways to gain enough votes to pass a measure 
is to tend to listen to what people believe are either their needs or 
wants, collect that in an amalgam, and move forward.
  It is my real pleasure to tell the Members of the House that if they 
have read the text, they will search in vain for any particular 
provision that is attributed to any particular Member of either body. 
In the vernacular, this is a clean bill.
  I say that because it is very difficult to get people to look from 
the individual to the collective. That is, when we are talking about 
reducing something like people's taxes, it is oftentimes very, very 
difficult to look to the larger, more fundamental societal needs.

                              {time}  0015

  And I know we will have a very vigorous and healthy debate on this 
issue, and everyone will use numbers on both sides. All I request is 
primarily out of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and 
listening to the debate that went on on the rule, one individual would 
stand up and say this was less filling because it only was going to 
last for 3 years and then it was going to disappear. Only to be 
followed by another speaker who said this really tastes great because 
it is going to cost a trillion dollars, and it is going to last an 
entire decade.
  Now, really, I do not care whether you feel it is less filling and it 
is only going to last 3 years or it tastes great and it is going to 
last for a decade; but for those of us who also want to participate, 
you ought to pick one way or the other. When you are arguing on both 
sides of the same argument, it is a little difficult to really shed 
light for the American people what this is all about.
  If someone is going to watch this debate and they have a child under 
17, there is one irrefutable fact. In calendar year 2003, $14 billion 
is going to be sent to those Americans with children under 17. They are 
going to be sent checks. They are going to be sent by the middle of 
July and by August. They will have that money in their hands. If they 
have children, one single aspect of this aspect of this bill, and we 
will go on and debate a number of other aspects, this bill puts money 
in Americans' hands immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this, I hope, is going to be an evening and a day that 
we will all remember as legislators. It is true that the majority tries 
desperately hard to bring these bills up in the middle of the night so 
that sunshine will never see what it is.
  It is also true, it is also true that conferences do not mean what 
they used to mean. It means after a dozen Republicans get together in 
some room somewhere and decide what they want to do, they then come 
around and pass out a paper and ask you to sign it.
  So I have been accustomed to that on the Committee on Ways and Means. 
But guess what, a lot of Democrats on this side have been saying forget 
all of this $726 billion and $550 billion and $300 billion. This is all 
a game they are playing, and they said that this bill was so full of 
gimmicks, that the Republicans were trying to fool the American people 
because we said that this was really a trillion dollar tax cut. And my 
friends over there started booing and saying this was so unfair and 
that we were just distorting the numbers.
  Well, there is one person in this House that when he says something, 
people do not point their finger at him. They say the man makes a lot 
of sense. He is a straight shooter, and he is respected by both sides 
of the aisle.
  Now, I do not normally read statements, but since it involves the 
Speaker of this great House, I thought it might start off the debate on 
a high level rather than wait for just the heavy people to come down at 
the end of debate and start talking about how we should salute the flag 
and do the right thing. And this is a bill that we have worked on and 
we have done it within the budget.
  Now, it says here that House Speaker Hastert told the Congress Daily 
Thursday that the final package incorporates key features of the House-
passed bill and positions Congress to pass much greater tax relief in 
the near future. The $350 billion number takes us through the next 2 
years basically, Hastert said. Hastert, meaning the Speaker of this 
august body. But it also could end up being a trillion dollar tax bill 
because the stuff, that is what the chairman was working with, because 
the stuff is extendable.
  That is the fight we are going to have, and it is not a bad fight to 
have. This goes on and says, Congressional Journal, Hastert said the 
final package is front loaded and will boost the economy in the short 
term but it includes nearly all of the content of the House's original 
bill. Now, I do not know how far in debt you guys want to take us, but 
listen, because this is important stuff. This is history-making stuff.
  Now, this is what the Speaker said about this bill. That at the end 
of the day it is not 350, it is not 550, it is not 726. It is a 
trillion. But guess what? It gets better, to show you just how deep 
they would want to get us in the hole. I never knew they hated Social 
Security and Medicare that badly. But at the so-called conference, 
there was a period of time that I was the only Democrat there on the 
House side beside the minority leader. The chairman came in later. And 
so there was opening statements made before the conference report was 
just passed around to sign. And our distinguished majority leader said, 
while we are doing this bill and you have done a lot of good work on it 
and praised the Republican leadership and the House and Senate, he 
said, before this year is over we will be coming back to pick up the 
rest of it to make certain we get another trillion.
  Now, I mention these names because the only thing that they did not 
mention was that they were going to borrow the money in order to give 
the rich these tax cuts, and they want to stick the rest of society 
with paying the interest on the money that they are borrowing at the 
expense of the Social Security system. I am so happy and pleased that 
at the end of this day that we do not have to point fingers and say 
that it is gimmicks that you are doing or you are trying to hoodwink 
the people because if the Speaker said it, and you applauded it, so 
therefore I do not have any apprehensions; and if the majority leader 
came back and said, you are coming back to raid us again and

[[Page H4717]]

you applaud that, well, thank God for your honesty in what you are 
doing.
  And one day somebody is going to ask, when this deficit just grew, 
when the programs were collapsing, when people were just paying more 
interest on the debt than all of the programs that we have together, 
all of the discretionary programs, they may ask, and just what were you 
doing when this happened, when you shifted the responsibility for 
paying taxes to the working people that do not have the exclusions that 
you provided today?
  So to the Republican leadership, thank you for making our day. I 
thank the Speaker for being so honest and saying what these people have 
done; and to the leader, come back again for the next trillion dollars 
and maybe some day soon the American people can see what you are doing 
to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, what I really heard in that quote, which I did not hear 
after it was said, was the Speaker said, And we are really going to 
have to fight for it because that is exactly what occurs.
  We want to help Americans by letting them keep their own money and we 
are going to have to fight you to do it, because you want to hang on to 
their money just as hard as you can.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  The question we have to ask ourselves after we heard that very 
interesting dissertation is where is this money that he is talking 
about? And that is what I thought I heard.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair would ask Members to afford courtesy to the Member who is 
speaking. If the Members want order, the way to keep order is for 
Members in the back of the Chamber and staff to take seats so we can 
have order. So the Chair would ask Members and staff in the back of the 
Chamber to take seats or go to the cloakroom.
  The Chair would also ask Members to afford courtesy to their 
colleagues, so that while they are speaking, they be given an 
opportunity to finish their remarks.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) may proceed.
  Mr. NUSSLE. The question is, where is the money? The money is in the 
pockets of the people that earn it. The government earns no money. Tax 
cuts do not cost the government. And that is the argument you are going 
to hear tonight. It is that if you believe when you reduce taxes 
somehow that costs government, then you believe that you have to 
borrow.
  But the interesting thing about what we believe on the majority side 
is that the money comes from the people that earn it, and we are 
leaving it in their pockets. And the only reason we would need to 
borrow money is for excess spending in Washington, D.C. So if you want 
to continue to borrow and if you want to continue to spend and if you 
want to continue to waste the taxpayers' dollars, then continue to 
consider the arguments of the minority.
  But if you want to grow the economy, if you know that the economy 
starts with people working in America earning a living and paying a 
little bit, sometimes too much of it to Washington, D.C., if you 
believe that, and if you know that based on that, getting the economy 
going is the most important thing we can do, not only for our short-
term budget and our long-term budget but getting the economy going is 
the most important thing we can do to the long-term health of Medicare, 
Social Security and our country, let us pass this bill tonight, let us 
realize whose money this is in the first place. It is the American 
people's money. Let us leave it in their pockets.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), an outstanding, hard-working 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 just wanted to suggest that people talked 
about belief, and I guess if I were appointed President I would think I 
had a message from God. If I was not too bright, I might think I was 
God. But before I would ask you to pray to me, I would hope that you 
would think I knew your name.
  Now, our Republican leaders and our President do know a few names 
related to this tax bill and they are called beneficiaries. I have here 
a list from Citizens for Tax Justice, who compiled estimates based on 
our most recent financial disclosures: the name Snow for an income of 
$6 million-plus; Rumsfeld, $14 million-plus; Evans, $4.4 million; 
Powell for $10.7 million; Whitman for $3.1 million; Zoellick for 
$900,000; Chaney for $4.5 million; Ashcroft for $3.1 million; and the 
list goes on.
  There are 20 top administration officials with $52,391,000 estimated 
income. They are the beneficiaries of this bill.
  In this Chamber there is a list: Northup, $3,168,000; Petri with 
$897,000; Taylor with $1,378,000; Boehner with $769,000; Portman with 
$883,000; Sensenbrenner with $419,000; Shaw with $843,000; Leach with 
$958,000; Dreier with $772,000. A total of 36 of us in here with $27.5 
million in income.
  Those are the beneficiaries and this Republican god knows your name; 
but unfortunately he does not know one name among the 12 million 
children who will not have health care because they cannot afford 
health insurance.
  You cannot name any of the 8 million seniors who will be denied 
health care because you are wasting the money on the rich and not 
providing a prescription drug benefit for the seniors. You cannot name 
them. You cannot name one of the 8 million jobless in this country. You 
cannot. You know the rich. You know the beneficiaries. You know the 
contributors who last night paid you $18 million to give the rich this 
break; and you cannot name one of the poor people without health care 
or without a job in your district or in this country. Shame on you. 
That is immoral.
  You ought not to vote for this bill. You ought to vote it down and do 
something to help the millions of people in this country who count. 
Vote ``no'' on the bill.

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have a very limited playing deck. I 
am surprised this early in the debate they have already played the 
class warfare card.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing tonight are 
two different philosophies, two different emotions. Over here on this 
side of the aisle, we are hearing the emotions of fear, envy, and hate. 
Over here we are hearing the emotions of hope, growth, and prosperity. 
That is what this is about.
  Their philosophy is, you cannot send more than enough to Washington 
because we can spend it better than you can. That is what we are 
hearing on this side of the aisle. What we believe is that you can 
better spend your money yourself. That is what works in this country. 
That is what freedom is all about.
  What we are doing in this tax bill, and many people say this is such 
a huge tax cut, what we are doing in this tax bill is letting Americans 
keep more of their hard-earned money. We are cutting income tax rates 
across the board. We are cutting taxes on investment and businesses for 
job creation.
  When we look at what has happened in this economy, when we look at 
the recession we are coming out of, when we look at all those things 
that hit this economy, the stock market, all the shenanigans at the 
corporate level, at the 9/11 problems, the terrorist attacks, we need 
growth in this economy. We need jobs in this economy. And when we see 
that investment in this economy has been declining for 8 consecutive 
years, we need to fix that. That is exactly what this tax bill does.
  If anyone thinks that this tax cut is too big, this tax cut is a 1 
percent tax cut. We are cutting taxes 1 percent of revenues. Out of a 
$28 trillion budget that we are going to spend over the next 10 years, 
we are simply cutting taxes $350 billion to try to move an economy that 
during this decade will kick off, at a standstill, $140 trillion in

[[Page H4718]]

output. We are trying to move it from a standstill to growing and 
giving our people jobs.
  That is what this tax bill is all about, and it is rooted in the 
philosophy that people ought to be able to keep more of what they earn 
so they can be free to spend it as they see fit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the House Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, when the President sent his budget up this 
year, OMB sent with it a message in which they said that the surplus of 
$5.6 trillion, which they projected just 2 years ago, was a mistake; 
that now, from 2002 through 2011, they revised downward that surplus 
from $5.6 trillion to $2.4 trillion. They made an egregious mistake.
  We warned our colleagues then not to bet the budget on a blue sky 
estimate, but they did not take our warning. Now you can blame that on 
9/11, you can blame that on this sluggish economy, you can blame it on 
lots of things, but tonight the buck stops here. The blame rests right 
there in the well of this House and these meters where you push your 
card. Because tonight, when you vote for a trillion dollars in tax 
relief, it goes straight to the bottom line. There is nothing to offset 
it. It creates a deficit this year which will be a record deficit in 
the fiscal history of this country, $425 billion, and the deficit stays 
ratcheted in that range for as far out as we forecast.
  Those are the consequences of the policy choices you make tonight. 
You cannot blame it on 9/11. You cannot blame it on the economy. It 
will be attributed to what you do tonight, unless some economic miracle 
happens as a result.
  Here is a chart in which we have calculated this tax cut, the tax 
cuts to come, other likely actions to be taken, Medicare, prescription 
drugs, a bit more for defense; and we think it is a fair and honest and 
even conservative statement. I will leave it here for anybody to 
refute, but this is what we see as a consequence of what you are doing 
tonight.
  We foresee deficits of $3.959 trillion over the next 10 years. Back 
out Social Security, and those deficits come to $6.527 trillion, a 
consequence of what you are doing tonight. The debt of this country 
today, held by the public, is at about $3.5 trillion, $3.6 trillion. 
This will increase it to $7.9/11 trillion. The total statutory debt 
will go up to $14 trillion.
  That is the course you choose to take tonight if you vote for this 
tax cut. You cannot blame it on the economy. You cannot blame it on 9/
11. You can only blame it on yourself.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, what is this all about? What this is all 
about is 1.2 million new jobs. Economists tell us that this plan will 
create 1.2 million new jobs over the next 18 months. How? By putting 
extra money in the pocketbooks of workers and giving incentives to 
invest in the creation of new jobs.
  If you pay taxes, you benefit from this plan. We lower rates for 
everybody. We double the child tax credit, if you have children. We 
eliminate the marriage penalty, all this year, benefiting every 
taxpayer. Think about what an extra thousand dollars will mean for the 
average family in Illinois and in our congressional districts across 
this country.
  We also create jobs by encouraging investment. The bonus 
depreciation, for example, allows companies to deduct an extra 50 
percent to recover their costs of purchasing an asset, a company car. 
We create jobs in manufacturing to encourage investment in new company 
cars and machine tools and bulldozers. We create jobs in the technology 
sector by encouraging greater investment in computers and 
telecommunications equipment. We create construction jobs by 
encouraging business to rehab commercial buildings, whether office 
buildings or shopping centers. And we also encourage business to invest 
in security, making private sector buildings safer for workers and 
visitors and customers, by again encouraging investment in security-
related equipment such as surveillance equipment or computers or other 
types of equipment to make private sector buildings more secure.
  The bottom line, my colleagues, and what this is all about, is 
creating 1.2 million jobs. We have a choice tonight. Do we vote to get 
this economy moving again or do we do the old-fashioned thing and just 
spend more money here in Washington? Let us create jobs, let us give 
American workers the opportunity to go back to work, and let us raise 
take-home pay and encourage investment and the creation of jobs.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues talk about jobs. They are doing 
a job on the American people tonight. That is what they are doing. That 
is what they are doing.
  My colleagues are borrowing from my children's generation for a tax 
cut that will not benefit them primarily. My colleagues are borrowing 
from my grandchildren's generation for a tax cut. Where is it going? 
Mainly to the very wealthy in this society. And they get away from this 
by averaging. Okay, for the person with a million bucks, $93,000; 
someone with $45,000, $50,000, 211 bucks this year. When we add those 
together, the average tax cut for those two people is 46,000 bucks. The 
trouble is one is getting $95,000 and one is getting $200.
  Alchemy does not work outside of Washington, D.C., and you alchemists 
are not going to prevail ultimately in the District of Columbia and 
this Congress. You have performed what some may say is a miracle. You 
have united the Democrats in this institution. And the reason you have 
done it is not because of political reasons on our part, because you 
are robbing future generations for a tax cut for the very wealthy, and 
we are going to stand together to say to the President, to you, no, no, 
no, no, and we are going to do it in 45 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I said they had very few cards in the deck. We may see several come 
up during the debate, but they just played the class warfare card once 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a valued member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding me this time, and I thank my colleagues on the left for their 
warm reception tonight. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, maybe so far left they 
will come back to the right, but they will never be correct.
  It is an interesting situation, Mr. Speaker. One is tempted to ask, 
who is jobbing whom? Because with a fanciful flight of rhetoric, mixed 
with an equal portion of scold, my good friend from Michigan fails to 
capture the essence of what is at stake here, and it is a lesson that 
is essentially nonpartisan. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one of our leading 
news weeklies, on its cover, asserted just the other day ``They Don't 
``make Democrats Like They Used to.'' And that is true.
  Forty years ago, Jack Kennedy said a rising tide lifts all boats. He 
said by reducing marginal tax rates, you actually increase revenues to 
the government because you get the economy working and you put people 
to work. Ronald Reagan proved that again 20 years ago. And, indeed, 
just a short time ago, in 2001, we cushioned the horrible blow of a 
recession that started and was compounded by the attacks of 9/11. Yet 
much more remains to be done.
  While some subject us to the poison of class warfare, we embrace the 
promise of economic opportunity, because we believe a rising tide does 
lift all boats. And even at this hour, with the disappointment and 
frustration born of a long and strange trip by our friends in the 
minority, we still extend our hand.
  Join us in this opportunity. Increase jobs and economic growth. And 
even if you believe in the power of government, there will be more 
revenues eventually to the government, and we will succeed. Vote 
``yes'' on jobs and growth. Vote ``yes'' on tax relief. Join us in this 
great enterprise for the American people.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North

[[Page H4719]]

Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  My colleague recently asked, what has it all about? I suggest what it 
is all about is the Senate action tonight or tomorrow morning to 
increase the borrowing authority of this country to $984 billion. So 
many words, so many figures, but really the truth of the action is 
measured by the increase requested in the borrowing authority of this 
country.
  If this is going to produce the kind of wonderful effects they 
suggest, why do they need to authorize the Treasury to borrow an 
additional trillion dollars? The reality is that we are going to fund 
this on the debt.
  I do not know of a family I represent that plans for their retirement 
by blowing everything they have got, running up the debt on their 
credit cards, with the hope that their children will bail them out. 
That is exactly the action we take tonight as we pass this tax cut, not 
paid for in any way but funded on the debt.
  The truth is the Senate action. An additional trillion dollars of 
borrowing authority. We should not put this on our kids. We should 
reject this package.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the remaining time on 
either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, common sense tells us the best way 
to balance the budget and pay down the debt is to get people back to 
work. Everyone knows when you are unemployed, you are not paying your 
Federal taxes, you are not paying any Social Security, you are not 
paying into Medicare, you are not helping States balance their budgets 
either. The best way to balance a budget and pay down our debt is to 
get people back to work.
  This jobs bill creates more than a million new jobs in America at a 
time we desperately need them. Every State is going to see new job 
creation. In our State, we will create, over the next 2 years, 42,000 
new jobs each year.

                              {time}  0045

  That is equivalent of building two new Pentagons in our State and 
filling it with new Texas workers every year. That is real jobs.
  Our belief in the President's jobs bill is if we help people afford 
the cost of raising children, if we stop penalizing people for being 
married so they have more money to go to the mall, more money to buy 
new tires, it is good for the economy. We believe if you help small 
businesses buy that new piece of equipment and hire that new worker, 
and say yes to that new sales force, it is good for the economy. We are 
convinced if we help people rebuild their retirement nest egg, to keep 
more of what they are saving for, that is good for the economy.
  We do not believe that spending more is the answer. We do not think 
it helps the economy to buy more $300 hammers, to spend millions of 
dollars helping more salmon swim upstream, and we do not believe that 
you need to create the hundredth new program to duplicate the 99 that 
are already in existence.
  We believe creating jobs, getting people back to work is going to 
balance this budget, pay down this deficit and get this economy going. 
America creates jobs; Washington gets in the way of it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are, one more time, rubber-
stamping whatever the President says he wants.
  They come out here with a 43-page bill and 302 pages of explanations, 
and there is not a soul in here who knows what is in it. Let me tell 
Members what is here. You are spending a trillion dollars, which is 
almost exactly what is estimated as the shortfall in Social Security 
and Medicare. You are going to come back after this break, and you are 
going to privatize Medicare. We know what you are going to do.
  What is nice for the American people about this rubber-stamp Congress 
out of White House, the junta gets its orders, they bring it to the 
Committee on Ways and Means or Committee on Rules, and zoom, out it 
comes. The American people are getting a clear, unadulterated picture 
of what the Republicans are all about. Every single Member comes from a 
State where they are cutting their State budget. They are cutting the 
living daylights out of their budget. If you are from Texas, it is 
275,000 kids who will not have health care. In my State, they threw 
60,000 people off of health care programs. Every State in the Union is 
doing that.
  The estimated cost of that, $100 billion. That is what States are 
cutting out of their budget. No, you cannot give that money to them. 
You give them $20 billion, and I know you are going to stand up and say 
$20 billion is better than nothing. Yes, it is better than nothing, but 
it is not going to fix the problem.
  When some kid is sick in the State of Washington, and they now have 
waiting lists in Medicaid, and you are a mother with your kid in the 
waiting room, maybe you will get into the hospital and maybe you will 
not, then you have to ask yourself, is this the country that you and I 
believe in? Is this the common good? I say it is not. You really ought 
to be ashamed of what you are doing because what you are doing is 
sticking it to the kids of this country. The President says Leave No 
Child Behind. My God, not only in education are you leaving them 
behind, you are leaving them behind in the hospitals and the 
environment and everywhere else in this society. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very responsible member of the Washington 
delegation and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to give my speech on tax 
relief or Medicare, but I am going to choose tax relief tonight. I 
certainly do hope that the gentleman from Washington realizes that this 
bill is practically identical to the one that was in his committee, the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and my committee, that we passed last 
week; and he should know this bill very well. Certainly we do on this 
side of the aisle.
  Earlier this week, Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic 
Committee on which I serve. He pointed out that taxing capital 
discourages investment, so when we reduce taxes on dividends and 
capital gains, we are encouraging saving, and we are reducing the cost 
of capital for companies, and we are also producing and promoting 
economic growth.
  One of the most important issues facing our country today is the need 
to stimulate economic growth to create jobs. The best way we achieve 
this goal is to pass a jobs and growth package, one that leaves money 
in the pockets of individuals and families and encourages businesses to 
invest in business.
  This package will quickly lower everybody's tax rates. It will send 
rebate checks to millions of parents with children, and it will assist 
seniors who depend on dividend income to supplement their Social 
Security benefits. This bill goes a long way towards promoting capital 
investment by allowing small businesses to deduct the cost of major 
purchases. It increases productivity, increases demand in our economy, 
and it stimulates production. In all, we expect to create over 1 
million new jobs by the end of next year.
  While we work to stimulate our economy, we also need to help those 
still seeking jobs. Unemployment in the State of Washington is above 
the national average. Unfortunately, in fact, we are consistently in 
the top three States with the highest unemployment, and I am very happy 
today we were able to pass legislation to extend unemployment benefits 
so that people will have more time to get the training and the 
financial assistance they need to find jobs. It is time to pass this 
jobs

[[Page H4720]]

and growth package. It helps workers, families, low-income and middle-
income taxpayers. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, what the responsible gentlewoman from 
Washington failed to say is that this bill does nothing to return $500 
million to the people of her own State of Washington by reinstating 
sales tax deductibility.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Here we are on the brink of a Memorial Day recess debating the jobs 
and growth tax bill of 2003. Let us memorialize that at a time when 
unemployment is at its all time high, we are giving tax relief to the 
wealthiest of all Americans. Let us memorialize that this tax cut will 
not allow young men and women who need Head Start to go to school.
  Let us memorialize that using the chairman's terms, we are using a 
clean bill. The bill that will clean the clocks of the poor to enrich 
the wealthy. Let us memorialize that the same jobs promise, the same 
stimulus promise, the same economy boost promise made in 2001 has yet 
to materialize. Let us memorialize that in 2003 it will not come 
either.
  The chairman talked about sending $14 billion in checks to Americans 
with children under 17. Let us memorialize that the checks sent to 
senior citizens who need a prescription drug benefit will be marked 
insufficient funds. Let us memorialize that the people who are on 
unemployment whose unemployment will not be extended because they have 
run out of benefits will get an NSF check. Let us memorialize that the 
people of America who have no health care will get an NSF check. Let us 
memorialize that tax cuts do hurt government. Let us memorialize that 
we will create a deficit.
  Someone said earlier that there was fear, anger and hate on this side 
of the floor. There is a fear that seniors and workers will continue to 
be disappointed. There is anger and hate that we, the people of this 
House who could do more, are not doing more.
  We talk about growth. There is growth for those who already have it, 
hope for those who believe that government is not a safety net, and 
prosperity for those who already prosper. Let us memorialize that this 
tax bill is not benefiting those who need it most.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the treatment of variable 
annuity contracts under the bill. Sellers of variable annuity contracts 
have expressed concerns about the effect of the dividend and capital 
gain tax rate reductions on the market for variable annuities. Is the 
chairman willing to continue to examine this area?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, the goal of this 
bill, and other bills we will pursue in the future, is to promote 
economic growth. Increasing retirement savings will promote economic 
growth by contributing to our Nation's capital stock. Of course we will 
monitor the way in which annuity sellers adjust to the new, more 
efficient financial product market conditions that H.R. 2 will create. 
As we proceed, we can determine whether adjustments are justified.
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee has talked 
about us talking about class warfare. Warren Buffett talked about it 
just a couple of years ago, America's second richest person, and he 
said that his class was winning. It wins again tonight, not average 
Americans.
  One of the Republicans came, as they so often do, to quote John 
Kennedy. I voted for John Kennedy for President, the first President I 
ever had the opportunity to vote for. Republicans almost to a person 
opposed him. He said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but 
what you can do for your country.''
  That was a call to contribute to the welfare of our society. It was a 
call not to the greedy, but to the great. It was a call to those who 
understood the value as the President said of lifting up all people 
when he said if we cannot save the many who are poor, we will never 
save the few who are rich.
  The gentleman spoke the truth. This is a trillion dollar bill. Some 
Members of the other body said they would not vote for a bill over $350 
billion, and so the other side of the aisle has constructed a sham, a 
ruse, a trick.
  As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said, the sadness is that 
our children will pay that bill because you will not cut spending, you 
will not cut spending to comply with this tax bill, and you know it. In 
1981 I was on this floor, and Republicans claimed if they passed their 
economic program, we would balance the budget by October 1, 1983. And I 
was on this floor in 1990 when you railed against your own President, 
President Bush, who contributed to creating the surplus that was to 
come some 6 years later. And I was on this floor in 1993 when Dick 
Armey and John Kasich, the predecessor to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), claimed that if we enacted the 1993 bill, the economy would go 
to the Dumpster, unemployment would rise, and the deficit would go 
through the ceiling. He was wrong on every count.
  And I was on this floor in 2001, just 2 years ago, when so many of 
you stood on this floor and said if we pass this bill, we will create 
jobs. And you have said it today, and you are wrong.

                              {time}  0100

  In 1981, in 1990, in 1993, and in 2001, not any one of those times 
were you correct in your predictions. And you cost my three daughters a 
lot of money and my five grandchildren a lot of money because the tax 
you are putting on them is the debt tax that they will have to pay and 
they will not get a nickel of defense, not a nickel of education, not a 
nickel of health care while they are paying the interest that you put 
upon their heads.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in case there are 
any students actually out there in the audience. I believe, if anyone 
wants to check an almanac, the election of 1960 resulted in the 
election of President Kennedy with less than 50 percent of the vote and 
there was some concern about whether or not a recount would reduce 
that. The argument that somehow there was a significant wave of votes 
simply is not accurate any more than most of the structures.
  Mr. HOYER. You do recall that he got more votes, however, than Mr. 
Nixon. Unlike Mr. Bush, who got less votes than Mr. Gore.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), I yield myself 10 seconds. I am just 
concerned that if people are really worried about not having enough 
taxes, I understand you can voluntarily write a check to the Treasury 
and at least you will feel real good about making sure that more of 
your money stays in Washington.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland, the previous speaker, as I think has been the case with the 
debate generally this evening, was respectful and made some points that 
he thinks are legitimate. They are in most cases, I think, factual. I 
would remind him that in 1995 when Republicans took over this Chamber 
and we cut taxes and we were running deficits, his side of the aisle 
made several charges that turned out to be false as well; and, in fact, 
we did cut taxes, balance the budget, and run a surplus for several 
years. So there have been a lot of statements made on both sides over 
the years that have turned out to be inaccurate when history judged 
them.
  I believe Democrats and Republicans in this House want to do what is 
best for the country. We want this country to be a better place for our 
children and our grandchildren. The reason we have two different 
political parties in this country, thank goodness, is that we can have 
a debate and we can fight it out, choose a path and then be held 
responsible. We are willing to be held responsible. We believe that the 
answer

[[Page H4721]]

to the long-term problems of this country, the really tough ones, 
Medicare, Social Security, part of the answer is strong economic 
growth. If we do not have strong economic growth in this country for a 
long time, those problems are going to be not only intractable; they 
are going to be impossible.
  So this bill we bring before the House tonight, and we hope you will 
pass tonight, is one that we think will do the best job to give this 
country the best chance to have strong economic growth for the long 
term, short term and long term. This jobs bill, this growth bill gives 
us the best chance to solve the long-term problems of this country. We 
ought to vote for it. We ought to support it and hope it works.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the head of the Democratic Steering 
Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this giveaway to the wealthiest taxpayers 
will not create jobs, nor will it reduce the highest rate of 
unemployment in a decade. It will not provide our stagnant economy with 
any stimulus. For the taxpayer, it will not reduce their tax liability. 
In fact, State taxes and property taxes are increasing because of this 
reckless plan.
  Today, States are in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis in 60 years 
trying to close a budget shortfall of $100 billion. States have been 
forced to not only increase taxes but release prisoners, shut down 
libraries, and cut back health benefits. In my State of Connecticut, 
Governor John Rowland, a Republican, has already approved an increase 
in the State's income tax rate. Passage of this tax cut means cutting 
education by $9 billion to give a tax cut to those who earn over 
$375,000. It means cutting Social Security to pay for a tax cut for 
those who earn over $375,000. Under this plan, households with incomes 
of over $1 million receive an average tax cut of $93,000. What you 
would do is you would starve this government of the revenue that it 
needs to carry its commitments out to the American people. It is 
insidious, it is wrong, shameful, reckless, and irresponsible.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, now another view from the State of 
Connecticut. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
giving me this opportunity to support what I think is a very strong tax 
bill that will stimulate the economy, provide the jobs we need in 
Connecticut, but most importantly address the crisis that manufacturing 
is facing in Connecticut. We have never on this floor passed such 
extraordinary bonuses for investment in capital equipment. As chairman 
of the oversight subcommittee my first term in the majority on the 
oversight subcommittee on the Committee on Ways and Means, I held a 
hearing and small businesses said, if you could just increase the 
amount we could expense, if you would increase it to $50,000, you would 
see us take off. If you could increase it to $100,000, you would see 
what would happen. This bill does that for small businesses. This bill 
allows the expensing of 50 percent of capital investment for all other 
companies. This bill goes to the heart of what it takes to create jobs. 
And that is why this bill is about restoring opportunity to people in 
Connecticut who are unemployed.
  I am very proud of my Governor who just vetoed the second tax bill in 
6 months passed by the Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 
Connecticut. You cannot tax your way out of recession. You have to help 
people change their lives.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Dear Dad:
  My day began when a guy who was taking a thousand-dollar contribution 
from an alleged Chinese spy decided that I could not offer an amendment 
to keep American military bases open. Later on this same guy who took a 
thousand-dollar contribution from an alleged Chinese spy said it was a 
swell idea to sell supercomputers to the Chinese.
  It got more bizarre. The fellows who run this House and the Senate 
and the White House suddenly said I was the reason that we were 
spending too much money. Gee, I thought it was their President who 
submitted the first $2 trillion budget in American history and they 
passed it. Their President submitted the first $2.1 trillion budget in 
American history.
  But, Dad, it got more bizarre by the hour, because as the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) told me I did not have good cards, I guess 
he did not want to see this one. Because 2 years ago, and 2 weeks ago, 
he told me he could cut taxes and balance the budget.
  Mr. Thomas, you got an $817 billion credibility gap. That is as much 
debt as this Nation incurred in the first 180 years, and you are 
telling me now the way to prosperity is to stick my kids with more 
borrowing and more debt. You were wrong then. You are wrong now.
  I love you, Dad.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, just to make sure everyone knows the record 
of the Republican Congress since we took over in 1995, the entire 
accumulation of debt in this country is due to debt that we owe the 
Social Security system and the Medicare system and other trust funds. 
The publicly held debt has actually gone down since Republicans took 
control of this House in January of 1995.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman 
from Louisiana. It certainly did go down because they stole the money 
out of the Social Security trust fund in order to make it go down. So 
he scores there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think that what we on our side of 
the aisle want tonight is just a little honesty. And we believe that 
instead of saying you are giving the American people something, you 
need to be honest with them and let them know that whatever you are 
giving them, you are borrowing the money from them in the future that 
they have got to pay back. If you are going to be honest, you ought to 
come down here and sign this credit application, because you really 
need a pretty big loan to grant this tax cut. And I am not sure there 
are too many bankers in this country that would give this loan, because 
if you look at our credit history, we owe $6.4 trillion; we know we are 
going to owe, by your budget, $12 trillion in 10 years. That means, if 
you can imagine, we are going to pay $650 billion in interest 10 years 
from now just to service that debt that you are creating. And do you 
know what? That is more money than we are going to be spending on the 
entire Department of Defense. Your budget says we are going to spend 
about $500 billion on defense 10 years from now, but we are going to 
spend $650 billion in interest on the debt.
  The truth of the matter is you need to come down here and put your 
name on the line and see if you can get this loan; and when you walk 
out of this building tonight, look at that big hole out there just at 
the bottom of the steps because that is the deficit hole that you are 
digging deeper tonight.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of my 
colleagues listened to Warren Buffett last night. The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned it. He talked about the fact that this 
bill is going to give him $310 million of additional revenue. It is 
going to bring his effective tax rate down to 3 percent. But he looked 
at his secretary and he realizes that her effective tax rate is still 
going to be 30 percent. He says, yeah, this is class warfare and my 
class is winning. But it is wrong. I am going to win, whatever happens. 
I want the people of America to be as productive as possible. And to be 
productive, they need to be well educated. They need to have decent 
health care. They need to be able to provide for their families. And 
they cannot be saddled by trillions of dollars of debt.
  He is opposed to this because he knows it is wrong for America and he 
knows it is not fair. We offered something that was fair. We offered 
something that was fiscally responsible.

[[Page H4722]]

That is what America wants. But America is not going to get it because 
here it is at 1 a.m. in the morning talking about a tax cut of hundreds 
of billions of dollars, $1 trillion over the next decade. That is not 
the way to treat the people that elected us.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am interested to know that Warren Buffett 
has become the icon of the Democrat Party. I hope he will use all that 
money that he is going to get from this tax bill to invest. I was just 
informed that he just started a new business in Texas, a retail store, 
where he is going to employ 100 people. That is what we want him to do 
with the money. That is the idea. This is all about jobs and savings 
and investment.
  We have heard a lot of conversation tonight about how it is going to 
grow the deficit. When I was first elected after 40 years of Democrat 
control, our deficit was about 4.7 percent of our budget. This year 
even if we take the figures of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), which I think are pessimistic because he does not see the 
growth that comes out of this bill, it will be about 3 percent of our 
budget. Every economist will tell you, right, left or center, what is 
important is what is it as a percentage of our economy, how much of our 
economy is represented by deficit.
  How do we get out of that? Let us go back to the gentleman from 
Maryland's history. I was not here when John Kennedy was elected. I did 
not know him. I was here in 1997 when this House courageously passed 
the balanced budget agreement. I did see John Kasich down there on the 
floor talking about the need to keep our spending under control. You 
know what he did? He said, we are going to try to get to a balanced 
budget, if we can, by the year 2002.

                              {time}  0115

  We all applauded because we were spending too much money, and we 
needed to get our budget under control. Just restrain spending. What 
happened? Two years later, by 1999, we did not have a deficit. The next 
year we had a surplus. Why did it happen? It happened because the 
economy grew, because we had more savings and more investment, and that 
is what is lacking right now.
  If we ask the economists, Alan Greenspan, and say did the 2001 tax 
cuts help? It made us have the most shallow recession in history rather 
than a deep recession. If we ask people what is going to happen when we 
provide more capital to small business to expand plant and equipment 
and create more jobs, they are going to say it is not only going to 
create over 1.2 million jobs within the next year, it is going to 
create more revenue for the Federal Government.
  We are not cutting our budget, Mr. Speaker. Our budget is going to be 
about 4 percent. What we are doing is we are creating growth in this 
bill. What we are doing is in this bill we are creating jobs and growth 
and opportunity, increasing consumer demand, increasing business 
investment. We can differ on what this bill is going to create in terms 
of the numbers of jobs, but I have not heard one economist say it is 
not going to create jobs. And that is what we are going to do in this 
bill, 1.2 million jobs. It is all about jobs. It is all about growth. 
It is not about Warren Buffett. It is about the small business people 
out there who are going to creating those jobs that are going to make 
America a better country.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the 
gentleman that Warren Buffett said that money can be better spent when 
it is kept in corporations, not with individuals. Corporations can 
build jobs faster, and they will. That is why this dividend tax cut 
does not work.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, even the most favorable assessments 
conclude that few jobs are going to be produced by this tax cut. This 
President could become the first President in 64 years to preside over 
a net loss of jobs during a single term in office. The President's 
party staked its future on smaller government, balanced budgets, and 
fiscal responsibility. This administration refuses to understand that 
Americans will not invest in this economy because we lack confidence in 
corporate America. Democrats have spoken forcefully on the issue of 
corporate greed and corporate welfare, corporate corruption, which 
resulted in the stealing of American working retirement funds.
  When the President proposed his budget in 2001, the administration 
actually claimed that there was a danger that the Government would pay 
off the debt held by the public too quickly. We have selective memory. 
That is the problem on the opposition side. And we cannot pass this 
tonight because there will be a scourge on our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I really do wish some Members, and we do not often do this, although 
we vote on it every day, would read the Congressional Record, 
especially the day that we debated the tax bill in this House for the 
first time. Because included in that Congressional Record was a 
historic first. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed 
this tax bill, and they said it was going to create jobs, more than 
900,000 jobs over the next several years. Read it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, since everybody liked to quote President 
Kennedy, I would like to quote President Reagan: ``Facts are a stubborn 
thing.''
  After the 2001 tax cut, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 
million Americans have lost their healthcare, $1 trillion worth of 
corporate assets have been foreclosed on, and 2 million Americans have 
walked out of the middle class into poverty. Facts are stubborn things.
  We can produce economic growth if we reduce the deficit, open up 
markets to American-made products and invest in education and 
healthcare. That is what we proved collectively in the 1990s, both the 
government, the private sector and the American people. They invested 
in their economic future. They invested in their children. We gave 
college education grants and tax credits so they can do that. That is 
an approach that is proven time and again.
  Rather than change course and invest in our future, we are putting 
our foot on the accelerator pedal to get the same results that we have 
produced to date: 2.5 million Americans without work. And on June 6 a 
new unemployment number will come out, and we will get 3 million people 
without work. That will be the net result. Facts are stubborn things.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I never have met Mr. Buffett. But if he is going to get 
$358 million out of this tax bill, I hope he will sign the check on the 
back, give me a call, and I will go pick it up and bring it back and 
give it to Mr. Snow at Treasury. That will maybe please him and please 
a lot of other folks.
  Let me tell the Members about a young couple in Georgia, making about 
$40,000 a year, three children. The wife does not work. She is raising 
the children. She called today and said, Momma, I heard on the radio 
that we are going to get a refund check on the child tax credit. Is 
that true? We sure could use it.
  It is true. But not only is that true, but the bottom line of her 
husband's paycheck will be better because of the repeal of the marriage 
penalty, because of the reduction in the marginal rate, and they are 
going to enjoy those few extra dollars that they earn whether Mr. 
Buffett enjoys his or not, but I bet he will invest it. He will not 
send it back.
  There are millions of families like that across this country that are 
going to benefit from this tax bill, this growth and jobs bill. And it 
is a jobs bill. It is a workers' bill. Because we are changing 
provisions of the tax law that will make us more competitive with 
foreign nations, and our workforce in this country competes with the

[[Page H4723]]

workforce in those nations. This is going to benefit millions of people 
who get up every day and go to work. They work hard to provide for 
their families. They work hard to provide to the community and to 
contribute to their church. They pay their taxes. They play by the 
rules, millions of families like that just like the girl that called 
today and said, Momma, is it true? We sure could use the money. And my 
wife says, yes, it is.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is a whole lot to this bill I did not see, but if that wife is 
going to benefit from the marriage penalty and she is not working, this 
is an exciting tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from New York, the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  For the history of this Congress, may I remind you that in the spring 
of 2001, because of President William Jefferson Clinton, we had a $5.6 
trillion surplus that you have busted. I rise to oppose the job bust 
tax program of 2003.
  Many of you think I may not know that you say that you have a $350 
billion tax cut. That is because it is smoke and mirrors. There is a 50 
percent increase in the loss of jobs in the United States. You only 
create two jobs per $1 million. If you did the Democratic plan and 
invested in transportation, it would be 13 jobs; invested in rail, it 
would be 15 jobs; invested in healthcare, 26 jobs; public education, 28 
jobs; and other, 27 jobs, first responders, police.
  All you are doing is taking the money and putting it in the pockets 
of the rich folks so they can run to the vacation spots of the world.
  I want to create jobs. Vote against the bust job program of 2003.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are suffering right now. 
Unemployment is up 50 percent, with millions of jobs being lost in our 
``jobless recovery.'' Even the new 6 percent unemployment figure is a 
gross underestimate of the problem, since it does not include the 
millions of people who have been out of work for long periods of time, 
or who have given up on finding work until the situation improves.
  Coupled to the unemployment is the fact that every year 75 million 
Americans find themselves without health insurance for some part of 
that year. That is a disgrace.
  Our States have billions of dollars of budget shortfalls. We have 
states that are firing teachers while politicians in D.C. are on stage 
talking about ``leaving no child behind.''
  We have states that are cutting kids out of SCHIP programs to provide 
mental health care, dental care, all kinds of medical treatment to 
children. In my District in Houston, mental health clinics are shutting 
down. What kind of compassionate conservatism is that?
  We have about 200,000 young soldiers fighting for this nation in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, who will soon be Veterans. And we are cutting Veterans 
benefits.
  There are 40 million people suffering with HIV/AIDS in Africa and we 
have offered them $15 billion, which is a good start but is just a 
fraction of what they need.
  We have made commitments to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to get 
them on the road to stability and prosperity, and that will cost money.
  And what is the Republican answer to all of these pressing needs? A 
massive tax cut, skewed toward the richest in America.
  During the Presidential Campaign, then Governor Bush proclaimed that 
the economy was perfect, the Dow and NASDAQ were off the charts, 
unemployment was low, and growth good, and we were generating surplus 
revenues. Therefore, he said it was the perfect time for a $1.6 
trillion dollar tax cut. Then once he was elected, President Bush 
informed us that the markets were crashing, we were entering a 
recession, and therefore it was the perfect time for a $1.6 trillion 
dollar tax cut.
  Regardless of the question, the answer is the same. That frightens 
me. One journalist I heard last week suggested that if an asteroid were 
about to strike the planet, the Republicans would suggest tax cuts.
  Last month, we were told by the President's press secretary Ari 
Fleischer that tax cuts for the rich were the way to support the 
troops. This week, they are the way to create jobs. This argument does 
not hold water. Let's look at the numbers on this chart. Of course 
these are last week's numbers, since only one or two Members in this 
Chamber have actually had a chance to see the bill that we are now 
being forced to vote on. According to the President himself, a $550 
billion tax cut would produce 1 million jobs. That is $550,000 per job! 
What kinds of jobs are these? That translates to only 2 jobs for every 
$1 million dollars of federal investment. And that is a terrible 
return.

  On the other hand, $1 million invested in state/local health care 
programs supports 26 jobs, instead of just 2. In public education, $1 
million creates 28 jobs. In other state and local programs such as 
homeland security, police, fire--1 million dollars can produce 27 jobs. 
These programs thus create more than 10 times as many jobs as the 
Republican plan. I keep hearing from my Republican colleagues that we 
have to give rich people money, because poor people don't give people 
jobs.
  This is exactly wrong. When you give money to people who really need 
it, they spend it. They buy food, and clothes, and health care, cars, 
even homes if they are lucky. Who do they buy those things from? 
Businesses of all sorts. And those businesses grow, and that makes 
jobs. Why wait for a trickle down, when we can shoot a geyser up and 
stimulate this economy?
  And in addition to the jobs, these programs improve quality of life, 
they make our neighborhoods safer, they help our children grow up 
happy, and healthy, and well-educated.
  Instead, here we are in the wee hours of the night watching our 
colleagues across the aisle rubber-stamping another poorly-thought-out 
plan from the President. As usual, it does not help the people who need 
it. As with the last tax cut, economists predict that it will not 
stimulate growth.
  This tax-cut focuses almost all of the benefits on the rich, which 
didn't work last time. More than half of the cuts go to the richest 5 
percent of Americans. The lower 60 percent of Americans get a more 8.1 
percent of the benefits. The people who need it, and who will spend it, 
get almost nothing.
  And what makes it worse is the gimmicks. The Republicans used smoke 
and mirrors to make this tax cut look cheaper than it really is. It is 
really almost the same as the $550 billion cut from last week. They did 
it by making their tax cuts expire in a few years. Of course they 
assume that the tax cuts will be extended, because if you cut taxes on 
dividends and then raise them again, a lot of people might dump their 
stocks before taxes come back to normal and that would hurt the 
markets. As many economists have noted, uncertainty about the future of 
taxes is worse than taxes, so this is a dangerous strategy. Adding 
insult to injury, they make the tax cuts on dividends--the ones that 
help the rich--expire in 6 years, but they make the child care credits, 
marriage penalty relief, and relief for low-income taxpayers--which 
help the middle class and working poor--expire in 2 years.
  Again, their priorities are all wrong. And the Republicans found no 
room for smart provisions that would have helped those truly suffering. 
For example, I offered an amendment to protect honest workers losing 
their jobs due to dishonest corporations. The amendment would have 
helped thousands in Houston whose lives were ravaged by the Enron 
scandal, by exempting from taxes funds paid in severance packages from 
corporations going into bankruptcy due to corporate malfeasance or 
criminal activity. People who are blind-sided like that deserve a 
break, but the Republicans chose to deny them.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this bill. Let's put federal money 
to work for all of the American people--in schools, in health care, in 
homeland security, in paying down the debt. Let's not give the rich a 
lavish gift on the credit of our children and grand-children. Let's 
make a plan that will really stimulate confidence and growth, and jobs 
for the American people. First, let us vote this bill down. We can wait 
a week to do this right.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I do so try to explain to some folks here apparently that currently 
in the Tax Code, if we have two people in the 15-percent bracket, their 
combined tax obligation, and they are both single, is less than two 
people in the same tax bracket that are married. There is no 
requirement under current law that they both work. One cannot work and 
one can work. But when they are married, they are filing a joint 
return. In filing a joint return, they actually pay more in taxes than 
they do with two single returns.
  And I make this statement with some shock and awe that the ranking 
member of the tax writing committee apparently does not understand 
that.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is really great if someone can get in the 15-percent bracket and 
not have a job. The IRS is really working overtime.
  But I know you are not really trying to take care of these people. 
Basically, this is a Republican plan that came

[[Page H4724]]

long before the gentleman became chairman of the committee. It has 
very, very little to do with taxes. It is just the Republican belief 
that the Federal Government should not be in the business of providing 
service to American citizens, that they should just take care of 
national defense and to provide the wealth and protection for the 
investors. And for those people who are less fortunate, they should 
rely on local and State governments. For that reason, we find this 
enormous increase in taxes for working people that work in our cities 
and work in our States.
  We also find our charitable organizations in deep trouble as the 
Federal Government will be providing less assistance to them in 
Medicaid and Medicare. And even our heroic veterans who come home will 
find that the benefits will be sharply reduced for them. Leave No Child 
Behind? Take a look at the budget and see how many people are left 
behind.
  We know that some of these programs have been described as ``third 
rails.'' We do not want to touch them. Leave Social Security alone. But 
at the end of the day, when we see that you borrowed all of the money 
that you can and that our great Nation is now paying interest on the 
debt that you have caused not only tonight but you promise that you 
will come back again and again and again and we will find ourselves in 
more debt, we will be okay, those of us in this Chamber. But what about 
our children and our children's children? Do we not owe it to them to 
at least provide the same type of America that our fathers and 
grandfathers provided for us?
  What happened with the surplus that we have? How did we have such a 
tremendous swing from $5 trillion there with our hopes and our dreams 
where we could do something? What do you leave us with now? A deficit 
as far as we can see, programs that we will never be able to initiate? 
And what will you say? The money is just not there?
  You say that this tax bill is going to create jobs. Why do we not 
pull the Record about what you said the last time you came with a $1 
trillion tax bill and find out where are the jobs that you promised 
then?

                              {time}  0130

  We know there is a philosophical difference between Republicans and 
Democrats. We believe the people should be served, and not just the 
investor class.
  Is it class warfare? You bet your life. But you declared it against 
the working people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from 
New York has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this has been a real interesting debate. It 
certainly laid out clearly the differences between the two parties, and 
I appreciate that. I think it is good for America, to lay out the 
differences between the two parties.
  But one of the things I noticed in the debate is the differences in 
interpretation of history. Let me just start by saying, the gentleman 
from Maryland laid out the history all the way back from Jack Kennedy's 
time. I would just as soon do it in my time in the legislative body.
  The gentleman talked about the fact that Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 
1981 and the deficits went through the roof. The problem was there was 
a Democrat Senate, a Democrat House, and they spent $2 for every $1 cut 
in taxes; and the deficits went through the roof.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman understands that 
when President Reagan became President, under the Constitution the 
purse strings are controlled by the House of Representatives, and the 
Democrats were in control of the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, following this history, I 
did not hear all the claims of the born-again deficit hawks about 
deficits during those periods of time. They just wanted to keep 
spending money.
  Then, I have to admit, I voted against President Bush's tax increase. 
Do you know what happened after Bush's tax increase? We had a recession 
that cost him his election.
  I can always remember who won that election and came in, never 
talking about balancing the budget, who was not a born-again deficit 
hawk like those we have seen tonight. It was a President that wanted to 
keep spending it. So he passed another tax increase in 1993. Now, that 
one I voted against too. I am very proud of that.
  The problem was for this side of the aisle, as the American people 
did not like all the spending in 1993 and 1994, they did not like the 
vision laid out for the American people, so they gave the Republicans 
the responsibility of being in the majority in the House of 
Representatives.
  The born-again deficit hawks say that the 1993 increase gave them 
surpluses. I do not remember it that way. What I remember was we came 
in and we told the American people in the Contract with America that we 
would balance the budget. We did. We had the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997. None of you born-again deficit hawks voted for that, if I 
remember, or some did. I take that back, some of you did. The vast 
majority of you did not, and told us that there would be just horrible 
things; we will not be able to spend any more, crying, tears coming 
down your faces, We cannot spend anymore; we cannot spend any more.
  Yet we balanced the budget and deficits were going down, and the debt 
went down, because we paid off over $1 trillion on the debt on our 
children.
  Now, for the first time in my legislative career, when George W. Bush 
took over, revenues to the government actually turned down. Revenues 
had been going up ever since I have been in the legislative body. But 
for the first time the revenues actually turned down, which created the 
problem that we face.
  Now, if you would have worked with us, you new budget deficit hawks, 
and made permanent that tax cut in 2001, maybe we would not be losing 
the jobs that you quote that we are losing, and if those tax cuts would 
have been implemented immediately, rather than stretching them out, we 
would have had a better economy than we find now. So we have to come 
back to the well.
  What is really interesting to me is the ranking member was very 
concerned about the fact that there is a conspiracy out there, that 
this is not the only tax cut that there is going to be this year.
  There is no conspiracy. We are very, very proud of the fact that this 
House of Representatives has passed tax cuts every year we have been in 
the majority. Every year. And do you know what? In 8\1/2\ years there 
has not been a Federal increase in taxes in this country. That is even 
more meaningful. And do you know what? This year, this ain't the end of 
it. We are going to have some more, because our budget says we can do 
$1.3 trillion in tax relief for the American people, and you bet we are 
coming back with more tax cuts.
  So there has been a lot of talk in this Chamber about this bill and 
what it would do to the government. In fact, one Member of the other 
side of the aisle said cutting taxes hurts the government. I heard her 
say that, cutting taxes hurts the government.
  But the American people want to know what this bill will do for them, 
because we are here for them. And do you know what? We have an answer 
to that. The jobs and growth package will create more than 1 million 
new jobs. It is not as large as some of us wanted; but I remind you, it 
is just the first step.
  At any rate, the proof is in the policy, not the price tag. As many 
of you know, I used to be a small businessman; and I know, as you do, 
that tax relief for small business means expansion, and to most small 
businesses, that means one thing, hiring new people.
  The accelerated rate reductions will increase the purchasing and 
hiring power of millions of small businesses this year. Add the 
expensing and depreciation reforms, and you are looking at the 
circulation of billions of dollars, this year; and these billions of 
dollars will be in the hands of small business men and women 
responsible for creating over 70 percent of all new jobs.
  Now, the $500 increase in the child tax credit invested over the 
course of 18 years could actually enable a high

[[Page H4725]]

school senior to look at colleges instead of want-ads. The dividend and 
capital gains reforms will help steady the stock market and encourage 
new investment at the very moment that working Americans will start 
taking home, start taking home, more of what they earn.
  Economist Lawrence Kudlow said this today about this package. He said 
it would contribute mightily to the rebuilding of capital and wealth 
that was decimated in the nearly 3-year stock market plunge, 3 long 
years.
  In that time, the American people have faced unprecedented 
challenges; but they have persevered, and now they are poised to fuel 
an unprecedented recovery. Interest rates and inflation remain low, 
anxiety about the war in Iraq have been eased and consumer confidence 
is on the rise. All the American people need right now is the 
opportunity that they deserve, not the government, that they deserve. 
They deserve that opportunity to get this economy going again.
  So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Pass this jobs and 
growth package and give Americans that chance.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this jobs bill 
and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Earlier today, we voted to extend unemployment compensation once 
again. I favored that legislation because I think that was the right 
thing to do. But it was not the only thing to do. We also must pass 
this jobs bill. Because most unemployed Americans don't want another 
unemployment check. They want a payroll check. They want a job. Some of 
my Democratic colleagues will oppose this jobs bill and support even 
more unemployment compensation. They will oppose this bill because it 
increases the deficit as they demand that we spend trillions of dollars 
in bigger government. This misguided philosophy will lead us only to 
bigger government, bigger deficits and no jobs. When will you learn 
that it is the private sector that creates jobs in this country? That 
cutting taxes on investment will lead to more investors and more jobs? 
That putting more money in the hands of the people means putting more 
people back to work? When I was a high school teacher, I used to teach 
these simple lessons. Now, it is time to apply these lessons to the 
task at hand.
  This bill doesn't go far enough, but it is a strong start. It cuts 
investment taxes by more than half, so that investors are not penalized 
for their efforts. It increases small business expensing and increases 
bonus depreciation, so that small businesses can hire more workers. It 
accelerates earlier tax cuts so that real money will go to middle class 
taxpayers. This helps families pay for home improvements, college 
education, or anything else then want.
  These tax cuts are front-loaded so the economy will get the biggest 
bang for the buck. Some of them are phased out in a couple of years in 
order to fit into the $350 billion budget requirement. We will have 
plenty of time to discover if these tax cuts are popular enough to 
extend. My guess is they will be, but Democrats who want to raise 
revenues to pay for bigger government will have their chance to make 
their case. I look forward to that debate. But for now, we have a job 
to do. And that job is to create jobs. Vote for this bill. Vote to put 
the American people back to work.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, when facing a 2003 budget deficit that 
will likely exceed a record $400 billion, Congress should be looking 
for ways to cut red ink. Instead the Republican leadership is cutting 
taxes by $350 billion and adding more to our debt. Neutral observers 
agree this tax cut package will do little to stimulate our sagging 
national economy and do little to help the 139,800 unemployed 
Oregonians. This tax cut package and the new budget is leading us 
towards a $1 trillion deficit over the next 10 years.
  My constituents are clear about their priorities as witnessed by a 
difficult decision to raise taxes that will provide the necessary local 
revenues to help fund education, social services and safety programs. 
Oregon understands that targeted infrastructure investments can put 
people to work tomorrow and better our communities. Oregon's crumbling 
bridges, which jeopardize the economy and safety, will cost over $4 
billion to repair but would provide 190,000 jobs and $25 billion in 
economic activity. The Federal Government should be helping States and 
communities address these types of needs with targeted investments and 
programs.
  The budget gimmicks, sunsets, and deficits created by this bill 
prevent me from supporting it. I will continue to fight for a sample 
course of fiscal responsibility and domestic security that can be 
achieved by taking common sense actions. We should not mortgage the 
future by playing fast and loose with the truth today and the economy 
tomorrow.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I have tried to review the 
provisions of this conference report, so far as that has been possible 
in the very brief time available. I did so in the hope that I would 
find it enough of an improvement over the bill the House passed by the 
House earlier this month that I would be able to support it.
  Regrettably, however, I have decided that it does not meet that test.
  I do think the conference report is better than the House-passed bill 
in several respects. I am especially glad to note that, unlike the 
House bill, it provides for giving Colorado and the other States some 
much-needed assistance with meeting Medicaid costs and paying for other 
services. And it also includes some other things I support, including 
the refundable increase in the child credit and the elimination of the 
``marriage penalty'' aspects of the income tax.
  However, these good features of the conference report are outweighed 
by its major shortcomings.
  For one thing, the aid to the states comes with a price--a number of 
States will lose some State revenue as a result of the depreciation and 
small business expensing provisions, due to linkages between federal 
and state tax codes. In fact, according to one estimate I have seen, if 
those provisions are extended and remain in effect through 2013, States 
will lose an estimated $15 billion over the decade as a result of the 
provisions.
  Further, even the child-credit provisions could be better. The 
conference report evidently drops a Senate provision that was targeted 
on working families with children with incomes in the $10,000 to 
$30,000 range. This jettisoned Senate provision would have benefited 
11.9 million low-income children and their families--one of every six 
children in the Nation. As it is, data compiled by the Urban Institute-
Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center show that while under the 
Senate bill 18 percent of married and head-of-household filers with 
children would have received no tax cut in 2003, under the conference 
report that will rise to 29 percent. To put it another way, married 
filers with two children and incomes between $10,500 and $21,325 will 
receive no tax cut under the conference agreement--although all such 
households would have received a tax cut under the Senate bill.
  And, like the House-passed bill, the conference report will do little 
to increase jobs in the near future.
  The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center estimates 
that 36 percent of all U.S. households would receive no tax cut 
whatsoever in 2003 under the conference agreement, and 53 percent of 
households would receive a tax cut of $100 or less. They also say the 
average tax cut in 2003 for households in the middle of the income 
spectrum, i.e., the middle fifth of Households, would be $217. Based on 
this, it seems clear that the conference report, being so focused on 
high-income filers, is likely to be limited effectiveness in boosting 
the economy in the near term. That's because high-income households are 
likely to spend a smaller share of their tax cuts than households of 
more modest means--and only if tax cuts are spent will they boost the 
economy in the near term.

  On the other hand, it seems beyond dispute that the conference report 
will lead to a very large increase in the federal deficit and thus to a 
very large, long-term increase in the national debt.
  So, like the House-passed bill, it does too little to address the 
real needs of the economy and the country, and it does too much to make 
our budgetary problems worse.
  Just as they did when the House debated its bill, its supporters are 
reciting from the White House's cue cards that say it will create jobs. 
They know that is what the American people want to hear--because we 
need to begin to make up for the millions of jobs that have disappeared 
over the last two years.
  But I am not persuaded, because no analysis I have seen--whether by 
the Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan, or any other expert--supports the claim that enacting this 
conference report will help put very many people back to work anytime 
soon.
  On the other hand, there is no doubt about how the bill will affect 
the Federal budget--it will throw it further out of balance and lead to 
much deeper deficits.
  Like the House-passed bill, the conference report includes many 
gimmicks that cloak its true cost. Every provision in the bill but one 
is designed to expire between the end of 2004 and the end of 2008. More 
provisions expire at earlier points in time than under either the House 
or Senate bills. If the provisions scheduled to terminate in a few 
years are extended--and I am confident that the bill's supporters will 
be pushing for that--its total cost will be much greater that the 
amounts its supporters have claimed.
  In fact, according to one estimate I have seen, if the bill's 
provisions (except the one providing relief through the Alternative 
Minimum Tax) ultimately are extended, the cost

[[Page H4726]]

through 2013 will be $810 billion to $1.06 trillion, depending on how 
one measures the cost of extending the bill's business depreciation tax 
cut.
  But even if I were to suspend my disbelief and take it at face value, 
I would think the cost of the conference report--in terms of the 
deficit and the debt--exceeded its benefits.
  As I said when the House first considered this tax bill, I think we 
need to take deficits seriously--as Chairman Greenspan reminded us 
again earlier this week, and as was earlier spelled out by Peter G. 
Peterson, President of the Concord Coalition, to the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  As Mr. Peterson put it, ``A future of mounting deficits is a cause 
for grave concern. Mounting deficits can slow and even halt the steady 
growth in material living standards that has always nourished the 
American Dream. When such deficits are incurred in order to fund a 
rising transfer from young to old, they also constitute an injustice 
against future generations . . . This policy, after all, constitutes an 
explicit decision by today's adults to collectively shift the current 
cost of government from themselves to their children and 
grandchildren.''
  In other words, by leading to deeper deficits and bigger debts, this 
bill would do just what President Bush, in his State of the Union 
address, said we should not do--instead of meeting today's challenges, 
it would simply create new problems for our children.
  I don't think that is sound policy--especially when a better 
alternative is available. That is why I objected to the Republican 
leadership's refusal to allow the House to consider the alternative 
developed by Representative Rangel.
  That alternative included very meaningful tax cuts. It included an 
increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child, an immediate 
expansion of the 10-percent tax-rate bracket to levels that under the 
2001 tax will would be reached in 2008, and immediate elimination of 
the ``marriage penalty'' aspect of the income tax. It also included 
investment tax credits for small businesses, such as business expensing 
up to $75,000 and bonus depreciation. Those cuts would immediately put 
money into the pockets of middle-income Americans, who are the people 
most likely to spend it promptly, boosting consumer demand and thus 
helping set the stage for an increase business investment needed to 
meet that demand.
  The alternative also had other important provisions to respond to the 
immediate needs of our country and the American people, including a 
provision to create a permanent, revenue-neutral corporate tax 
deduction to encourage American manufacturing companies to expand their 
operations, as well as a new tax incentive to provide a tax credit of 
up to $2,400 to businesses that hire people who now are unemployed.
  And, just as important as everything else, the alternative was 
fiscally responsible--fully paid for over 10 years. So, it would have 
added as many as a million new jobs without adding anything to the 
deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I still don't know why the Republican leadership refused 
to let the House even consider that alternative. Instead, they insisted 
on pushing through a bill that I could not support. And, unfortunately, 
this conference report, while better, is not enough better to deserve 
enactment. So, I must vote ``no.''
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, tax cut initiatives must meet two tests: 
appropriateness and fairness.
  On appropriateness grounds, the question is whether the country can 
afford $400 billion a year deficits over the next decade, $600 billion 
a year if Social Security is removed from the equation.
  On fairness grounds, the question is whether the $93,000, which will 
be saved by an individual with a million dollars of income, is credible 
when the savings for a middle income carpenter is likely to be 
substantially less than 1 percent of this amount.
  While tax cuts, of course, benefit those who pay taxes, higher income 
individuals particularly, the approach the House is advancing today may 
be the most regressive in American history.
  For the past century the American consensus has been that our tax 
system should have graduation. The well-to-do should pay a somewhat 
higher rate than the less well-to-do.
  This tax cut reverses this consensus. The middle class will pay more 
than the poor, but the rich will pay at a lower rate than the middle 
class and in some cases the working poor.
  This is not fair. Indeed, it is unconscionable. Wealth divisions in 
America will be accentuated by this tax approach and the burden of 
supporting government will be so shifted that according to Warren 
Buffet, it will amount to class welfare for high income Americans.
  There are in this bill certain attractive features. But on balance 
and on the whole, the case for it is thoroughly uncompelling. It may be 
good politics, but it is dubious economics.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my opposition 
to this Conference Agreement.
  This country needs jobs. Since Inauguration Day in January, 2001, 
more than 2.7 million people in this country have lost their jobs. 
Though we took the important step today in this House to extend 
unemployment benefits for those still unable to find work, the most 
important piece of legislation we will pass today, the duplicitously 
named Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act, is one that will do 
nothing to help them get another job. It will do nothing to stimulate 
the economy. It will do nothing to cause the large corporations in this 
country to create jobs. It will do nothing to convince the small 
businessman to add a position or two to his payroll.
  The only thing this bill will do is put this nation further in debt 
and create bitter fiscal hardships for future generations. I suppose if 
there is a bright side to this bill it is that it increases the debt by 
only $350 billion, whereas the President initially wanted to add 
another $726 billion in deficit spending.
  But, don't be fooled. This $350 billion still comes at the cost of 
the Social Security Trust Fund. It still comes at the cost of missing 
another opportunity to help elder Americans buy their prescription 
drugs. It still comes at the cost of falling down schools and the 
falling down dreams of the working single mother trying to find a way 
to put her children through college.
  The President has once again found a way to take care of the people 
who need taking care of the least. He has promoted a tax bill that 
makes the wealthy wealthier, while doing nothing for the working men 
and women of America. And, while the working class is left further 
behind, the people who are unable to find work, the unemployed, are 
completely abandoned.
  Difficult economic times require bold and innovative solutions. This 
bill is only bold in its unfairness, and only innovative in its 
injustice.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided legislation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 2, the Jobs and Economic Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. 
This bill is a responsible effort to address the economic needs and 
concerns of all Americans. This bill is a dramatic improvement over the 
tax legislation previousl considered by the House, which I opposed. It 
is more targeted to help American workers and families now and it is 
lower in cost and more fiscally responsible.
  This bill will provide $330 billion in tax relief to American 
taxpayers and $20 billion in fiscal aid to the States. More than 
272,000 households in Delaware will receive tax relief and hundreds of 
millions of dollars will be pumped into the Delaware economy to create 
jobs. To complement this effort, at my urging, Congress has also just 
voted to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks 
bringing another $16.5 million to our State and much needed relief to 
Delawareans looking for work.
  The final agreement is a fair compromise that reduced the overall 
cost of the legislation to a level that is fiscally responsible. This 
final tax relief legislation meets the key tests that I urged the House 
and Senate to achieve.
  First, I urged that this tax relief be better targeted to provide an 
immediate boost to the economy. The final compromise will provide 
immediate relief to working Americans to put more money in their 
pockets now to help strengthen the economy this year. As soon as this 
legislation is enacted, American workers will have fewer taxes withheld 
from their paychecks, giving 88,000 Delaware households more money for 
the daily needs of their families. In addition, this bill will increase 
the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 giving 77,000 Delaware 
families with dependent children a rebate check this summer of up to 
$400 per child. This additional disposable income spent by families 
will in turn help our businesses, communities and the economy this 
year.
  The legislation will provide tax relief to all working Americans. It 
speeds the reduction in tax rates for all Americans to give them more 
income as soon as possible. By expanding the 10 percent tax bracket 
immediately, this legislation will benefit 212,000 Delaware households, 
including low and moderate income workers by taxing the first $14,000 
of income for couples and $7,000 for single people at a lower 10 
percent rate. In addition, it accelerates relief from the marriage 
penalty tax to 105,000 Delaware marriaged couples.
  The bill will help small businesses by immediately increasing the 
amount they can deduct for new equipment and other expenses. That will 
encourage business owners to buy equipment now and make other 
investments that will build their businesses and create new jobs.
  The tax relief provisions in this revised legislation are geared to 
have the most immediate impact in the next 2 years. I had urged that 
these changes be made to help boost the economy now without adding 
unnecessary long-term costs to our government.
  Second, the final bill also recognizes that there are other pressing 
needs in our Nation

[[Page H4727]]

that must be addressed in addition to tax relief. This compromise will 
provide our states with financial assistance that will support programs 
to help individuals in need. Most states, including my home State of 
Delaware, are experiencing difficult budgetary times that has caused 
them to limit spending on important programs. This legislation will 
provide $20 billion in aid to the States over the next 2 years. This 
aid includes $10 billion for essential government services, of which 
Delaware is estimated to receive $50 million, and $10 billion 
specifically for Medicaid, the federal-state partnership to provide 
important medical care to low-income individuals. Delaware's share of 
the Medicaid funds could be as high as $28 million. This $78 million in 
aid to Delaware was not included in the original House-passed bill and 
I am pleased it was added in this final version.
  Third, I had urged that the original proposal to eliminate the double 
taxation of dividends be modified to have a greater immediate economic 
stimulus and to limit the impact of this tax cut on the federal budget 
deficit. This issue has been addressed. I opposed the original proposal 
to eliminate the taxation of dividends because I did not believe we 
could afford the original $395 billion cost of that single proposal at 
this time. This compromise would not eliminate the tax on dividends, 
but it would reduce the rates on capital gains and dividends through 
2008. This will provide an incentive for investment, at a much lower 
cost than the original proposal. With new investment in business 
ventures, new jobs will be created.
  Finally, I am pleased that the cost this final legislation has been 
significantly reduced from earlier proposals and represents a more 
fiscally responsible effort to provide tax relief to create jobs and 
strengthen our economy. This was a top priority for me because I am a 
strong advocate of balancing the federal budget, and I believe that any 
effort to stimulate the economy must be weighed against other needs and 
the importance of returning the federal budget to balance. I opposed 
the original House Budget Resolution which called for $750 billion in 
tax relief because I did not believe it was affordable at a time when 
we have critical new national security requirements and other needs. 
That budget plan called for a $750 billion tax cut as well as unfair 
and unsustainable reductions in important programs like health care, 
education and the environment. I opposed those and was pleased that the 
final budget plan did not include those cuts. I also opposed the first 
tax relief bill passed by the House because its cost of $550 billion 
was still too great for our current budget limits. In response to the 
concerns expressed by me and others in the Senate and House, a fair 
compromise has been reached that will provide $330 billion in tax 
relief to all working Americans, as well as $20 billion in direct aid 
to the States.
  Some of the tax relief in this bill is temporary, to stimulate the 
economy now and reduce the long-term cost of the legislation. Those 
provisions are part of the compromise and are certainly not a perfect 
solution. Some argue that if future Congresses extend these provisions, 
the long-term costs of the tax relief to the government are far higher. 
The sunsets act as a budget trigger that will force Congress to revisit 
these issues with new information and debate the best course of action 
on whether to extend the tax cuts beyond the years contained in this 
bill.
  Earlier this month, I called on Congress to put together a bill that 
would provide tax relief now to individual Americans, families and 
small businesses in a fiscally responsible manner. I stressed that a 
package could be assembled that did not exceed $350 billion. Those 
tests have been met. As I stated, effective governing requires careful 
decisions and painful compromises. All of us involved in the debate 
have had to make compromises. That effort has produced a bill that will 
return more of their hard-earned money to working Americans, create 
jobs for unemployed Americans, and help our state governments meet the 
budget challenges they are facing. I am proud to have worked hard to 
ensure that this bill fairly addresses the need to provide tax and 
financial relief now, while recognizing that we must not jeopardize our 
efforts to maintain fiscal responsibility in our government in the 
future. This bill is a fair effort to meet those tests and I support 
its passage to help all Americans and our nation.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, our economy is on the ropes, 
with unemployment rising, investments eroding, and families feeling 
increasingly insecure about their futures. We have serious problems. 
But they will not be solved by wrong remedies.
  I will vote against this bill tonight for two reasons: First, it is 
bad tax policy and questionable politics. And second, it is reckless 
and irresponsible fiscal policy, and we can't afford it.
  Basic principles of tax policy include certainty and fairness.
  This bill isn't certain. It undermines rational tax planning or 
responsible budgeting. It shoehorns a size ten tax cut into a size 
three budget. That may be impressive acrobatics, with enough twists and 
turns to rival a pretzel. But it's bad policy, as even the sponsors 
candidly acknowledge.
  To fit under the budget caps, the bill has more sunsets than a 
Florida vacation: now you see the tax break; now you don't. Here for 
two years; gone tomorrow. Every provision but one in the bill expires 
between 2004 and 2008, sinking beneath the horizon.
  Taxpayers are confused now by our Tax Code. This adds complexity. 
Indeed, it's complexity on stilts. How can taxpayers plan with 
disappearing provisions? They can't. That's an antigrowth policy.
  One thing is certain, however. The bill invites tax shelters. It's a 
bonanza for them. The Senate's curb on tax shelter abuses by 
corporations vanished in the conference. And loophole hunters will 
surely shift income from wages to capital gains when possible to take 
advantage of lower rates.
  Nor is the bill fair. Look at the numbers. Over half of the tax cuts 
go to the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers. Almost two-thirds goes 
to the top 10 percent. But the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers get only 
8 percent of the tax cuts, averaging less than $100 a year over the 
next 4 years.
  An Urban-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center analysis shows that 
36 percent of all U.S. households would receive no tax cut at all in 
2003 under the conference bill, and 53 percent of households would 
receive a tax cut of $100 or less.
  For households in the middle of the income spectrum--the middle fifth 
of households--the average tax cut in 2003 would be $217. But taxpayers 
with incomes about $1 million a year would average over $90,000. That's 
not fair.
  Someone once said that you need to set a banquet table for the rich 
to get a few crumbs for the poor. This isn't even a few crumbs.
  The child credit increases from $600 to $1,000 in the bill. But the 
refundable part of the child tax credit, targeted to working families 
with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000, isn't accelerated. Twelve 
million low-income children and their families--one of every six 
children in the Nation--were dropped by the conferees.
  Fair? Here's what the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said: 
``The final agreement is, in fact, tilted against lower-income working 
families with children. The conference agreement accelerates all of the 
child tax credit and marriage penalty relief provisions of the 2001 
tax-cut legislation that benefit middle- and upper-income families, 
while failing to accelerate either of the child tax credit and marriage 
penalty relief provisions enacted in 2001 that are targeted on low- and 
moderate-income working families. The consequence is that low-income 
working families--the very group most likely to spend rather than save 
any tax-cut dollars they receive--are largely left out of the 
legislation.''
  There was also case to be made for eliminating the double taxation of 
dividends--also good tax policy, if we could afford it. But this bill 
skipped that, too.
  So it is bad tax policy, lacking fairness or certainty, and missing 
the reforms and balance so essential to good legislation.
  And I will vote against this bill also because it's irresponsible 
fiscal policy.
  I think America knows we're borrowing money to pay for this, that it 
deepens our budget deficit, that it risks our future. And the polls 
reflect that. So America understands.
  But our citizens may not realize how reckless this tax cut really is. 
President Bush proposed a $726 billion tax cut over 10 years. We 
couldn't afford that since our surpluses have evaporated. But this bill 
will cost far, far more. It's a Trojan Horse of hidden costs.
  This bill is advertised as costing $350 billion, less than half of 
Mr. Bush's cuts. But if the bill's provisions, except the Alternative 
Minimum Tax brief relief, are extended, as all observers seem to 
expect, the cost through 2013 will be $807 billion to $1.06 trillion. 
And we clearly can't afford that--deficits as far as the eye can see, 
as we hand the bill to our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, the goals originally set for this bill are noble, and 
needed: jobs, growth, tax relief. Unfortunately, the result in this 
conference bill fall short. There are measures we could have passed 
that would have provided the right balance and the right help. But this 
isn't one of them. Instead, it is the height of fiscal folly.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, this bill is bad tax policy, bad fiscal policy, 
unfair, and unwise. It helps those who don't need help. It hurts those 
who do. And we can't afford it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished 
friend and colleague from New York, the Ranking Member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, for giving me this opportunity to define the 
congressional intent of the temporary fiscal relief fund for American 
Samoa.

[[Page H4728]]

  Congressman Rangel, based on our discussions and as a result of our 
bi-partisan efforts, it is my understanding that American Samoa will 
receive a temporary payment of approximately $5 million in fiscal year 
2003 and $5 million in fiscal year 2004 under the provisions of the 
Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003 to improve education, 
health care services, transportation, law enforcement and for 
maintaining other essential government services.
  Based on my discussions with the gentleman from New York and 
distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee, it is also my 
understanding that in the case of American Samoa it is the intent of 
Congress that these temporary funds should be used for the following 
purposes and in the following way. For fiscal year 2003, $1 million 
shall be used for feasibility studies for harbor renovations at Tau and 
Anuu, $1.5 for village water renovation projects in Leone, Olosega/
Sili, and Tau, $1 million for the LBJ Medical Center to train nurses 
and doctors, and $1.5 million to improve high school libraries. For 
fiscal year 2004, $5 million shall be used to purchase a ferry to 
transport passengers and cargo between the islands of Manua and 
Tutuila.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York and I also want to thank 
the Chairman, the gentleman from California, for offering me this time 
to clarify the intended use of American Samoa's temporary fiscal relief 
funds.
  Again, I appreciate and thank the gentleman from New York and the 
gentleman from California for supporting my request to include the 
intent of the Collins amendment in the conference report which was 
helpful in providing flex aid to the States and Territories. I am also 
appreciative to you both for clarifying the intended use of American 
Samoa's funds.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
Republican tax bill that will add a trillion dollars to the national 
debt, raise interest rates and will do nothing to create jobs, build 
schools, expand health care or jump-start our Nation's economy. The 
American people deserve better. The Democratic plan will responsibly 
create one million jobs and provide for a strong economic recovery and 
a prosperous America.
  Let me state that I strongly support some provisions of this bill. 
The child tax credit increase to $1,000 has been a priority of mine, 
and the marriage penalty relief, expanding the lowest tax bracket and 
some of the small business incentives are good public policy. But, 
although I strongly support these provisions, they cannot overcome the 
fundamental flaws of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, too many people in my home state are hurting. More than 
129,000 North Carolina workers have lost their jobs in the past 2 
years. The Raleigh News and Observer reported this morning that as many 
as 60 percent of North Carolina families do not make enough money to 
meet even basic living standards. The story cites a report titled, 
``Working Hard Is Still Not Enough'' that describes an economy split 
between well-paid, well-educated workers on the one hand, and low-paid, 
low-skilled workers on the other. We need a responsible plan to jump-
start the economy now, create new jobs and provide for prosperity for 
hard-working Americans.
  One of my first votes as a Member of this House was to put the 
federal government on the path to a balanced budget. I am very proud 
that the fiscal discipline we demonstrated in my first term helped to 
balance the budget for the first time in generation and contributed to 
the economic strength of the 1990s that included 22 million new jobs 
created and the greatest migration of American families from poverty to 
the middle class in our nation's history. Unfortunately, the record of 
the last several years has been a dramatic movement in the wrong 
direction. We've lost nearly 3 million jobs since the beginning of 
2001, and a million people have fallen out of the middle class and into 
poverty. We can do better, and the American people deserve better than 
that sorry record.
  I have joined my Democratic colleagues in support of a better plan. 
The fiscally responsible Rebuilding America Through Jobs Act will 
provide real help to those who have lost their jobs, help families 
weather this economic storm and jump-start the economy to create new 
jobs and generate greater prosperity for all Americans.
  Specifically, the Democratic bill will continue and expand extended 
unemployment benefits for nine months, providing 26 weeks of federal 
benefits for dislocated workers. It expands the work opportunity tax 
credit to give up to a $2,400 credit to employs for hiring long-term 
unemployed workers. It increases the child tax credit and expands the 
number of families receiving the credit. It accelerates the marriage 
penalty relief and the widening of the 10 percent tax rate bracket to 
allow more taxpayers to pay at the lower rate.
  The Democratic bill provides $18 billion in assistance to the states 
for Medicaid and provides $26 billion for homeland security, 
transportation infrastructure and education. It expands to $75,000 for 
2 years the amount of new investments small businesses can deduct from 
their taxes, allows all firms an accelerated bonus depreciation of 50 
percent for 12 months and reduces the corporate tax rate by 3.5 
percentage points. And the Democratic bill maintains fiscal 
responsibility by suspending future tax cuts for the wealthiest few in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, with the national debt spiraling out of control, the 
first step Congress should take is to stop the hemorrhaging. Today the 
national debt stands at $6.4 trillion, and this Republican tax bill 
will immediately add $350 billion to that debt. That $350 billion could 
be used to hire 32,369 teachers in my state or provide health care to 
921,620 North Carolina children. Today's Charlotte Observer called the 
tax bill ``as Texans might say, all hat and no cattle.''
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, as leaders of our national government, our job 
is to honor the values of the American people by being responsible 
stewards of our society, nurturing our children and building a stronger 
America. This bill fails on all counts. It is a massively irresponsible 
giveaway of the public treasury. It leaves our children and 
grandchildren a crushing national debt that condemns them to endless 
struggle. And it handcuffs our ability to address national priorities 
like providing national security, protecting the homeland, building 
quality schools, providing health care for our families and creating 
jobs for American workers.
  America deserves better. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
bill.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, 
the so-called Jobs Growth Tax Act. This legislation embraces President 
Bush's failed economic policies that have damaged the economy. This 
legislation is in fact a job killing package put forth by the 
Republican job killing machine that has already cost our country over 2 
million jobs and $7 trillion.
  When President Bush first came to office to promote his $1.2 trillion 
tax cut he promised that it would create jobs and help strengthen our 
economy. Now 2 years later, it is clear that the President has failed 
to deliver on his promises. The numbers prove that his economic 
policies have completely failed our country.
  Since President Bush came to office we have lost 2.7 million private 
sector jobs. Illinois has lost over 109,000 jobs since Bush took 
office--93,000 from the Chicago area. Nationwide, the number of people 
who have been out of work for 6 months or more has tripled under the 
President's leadership.
  Our State and local governments are paying the price for the 
President's failures. States budget shortfalls are expected to reach as 
high as $80 billion in 2004. In Illinois the figure is $5 billion, it 
may actually be higher. State and local governments have been forced to 
raise sales and property taxes to keep their schools open and to pay 
for the most basic of services. Working families and seniors are forced 
to pay more in taxes to pay for Republican tax cuts.
  When President Bush took office we had a $5.6 trillion 10-year 
surplus. We now have a $2 trillion deficit over the same period of 
time. According to CBO, the President's tax cut not the war on 
terrorism accounts for the growth in deficit.
  Corporate greed and conflicts of interest have hurt our economy. 
Approximately $4.6 trillion in stock market wealth has evaporated since 
President Bush took office. Many workers and retirees have lost all 
their savings. Meanwhile, politically connected CEO's have escaped with 
billions. Corporate fraud and greed have undermined confidence in our 
financial markets.
  Given all of these facts, it should come as no surprise that consumer 
confidence is at its lowest level in a decade. It should also come as 
no surprise that the chairman of SEC, Secretary of the Treasury, and 
director of the OMB have all stepped down.
  So how do the President and Republican leaders in Congress respond to 
this crisis? By proposing more of the same failed policies that put us 
in this predicament in the first place. It is often said that insanity 
is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a 
different result.
  History has proven time and time again that the Republican tax plan 
will do nothing to help those who really need it and it will fail to 
give the economy the immediate boost it needs. The proposal to lower 
taxes on dividends will only generate nine cents of stimulus for every 
dollar spent. This is a sham growth package. It will cost us in dollars 
and in jobs.
  Over 400 economists oppose cutting taxes on dividends, including many 
Nobel laureates. Republicans and Democrats alike have criticized the 
proposal to lower taxes on dividends. Former Federal Reserve Chairman 
Volker and former Treasury Secretaries Peter G. Peterson and Robert 
Rubin have called the

[[Page H4729]]

proposal to reduce taxes in dividends, ``ill-logical'' and ``not useful 
for short-term fiscal stimulus . . . nor would (the tax cuts) spur 
long-term economic growth.''
  Meanwhile this legislation fails to embrace policies that will 
stimulate the economy. For example, extending unemployment produces at 
least $1.73 of spending for every dollar spent. But this plan provides 
no aid for the unemployed who have exhausted their benefits. In 
contrast, the Democratic alternative, which the Republican majority did 
not allow us to debate a few weeks ago an alternative that would 
include $27 billion for extending unemployment. Our plan would create 1 
million jobs over 10 years without increasing debt.
  This conference report does little to help working families. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, 53 percent of taxpayers would get 
less than $100. This legislation provides only $20 billion for the 
States over the next 2 years. When this bill was passed a few weeks 
ago, House Democrats wanted to provide $44 billion in State aid for 
health care, education, infrastructure improvements and homeland 
security. Once again, we were denied an opportunity to vote on our 
plan, and the American people will pay the price.
  The Republican plan does nothing to close corporate loopholes. 
Corporate taxes are only 1.3 percent of GDP. This is the lowest they 
have been since the early 1980s. Last year, less than half of actual 
total corporate profits were subject to corporate income tax. CSX, 
under Treasury Secretary Snow's leadership, paid no Federal income 
taxes on its $934 million in profits; instead it got a tax rebate of 
$164 million. And Secretary Snow will benefit from this legislation to 
the tune of $100,000.
  This conference report is yet another reckless plan to cut taxes for 
the rich and do nothing for the rest. It is class warfare with the Bush 
class waging war against the middle class.
  This ill-conceived plan will place more of a burden on working 
families who are struggling to make ends meet to pay for housing, 
prescription drugs, and other necessities. I agree with my Republican 
colleague, Steve LaTourette, who recently said, ``Nobody in my district 
is screaming for tax cuts, they are screaming for a prescription drug 
benefit.'' In the 9th Congressional District my constituents will tell 
you they want jobs and prescription drug coverage any day over tax cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans.
  I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
that you cannot have it both ways. By spending money on tax cuts for 
the wealthiest 1 percent of earners and tax dodging corporations we 
will raise the debt and have less money to pay for prescription drugs, 
veterans' health, and keeping Social Security solvent.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote against this conference report and 
to instead support the Democratic plan to create jobs and spur economic 
growth. Democrats want to help our economy by putting money in the 
hands of people that will spend it. I urge all my colleagues to oppose 
this conference report.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to H.R. 2, 
the conference report that gives a tax cut to people earning over 
$300,000 per year, and robs the Federal Treasury of needed revenue to 
fund health care, education, and unemployment opportunities for 
millions of Americans.
  The conference report does nothing to significantly improve the 
financial plight of destitute and dispirited unemployed and 
underemployed workers. Over 2.7 million jobs have been lost over the 
past 2 years, and H.R. 2 will not provide relief to them. The 
conference report is still terribly skewed towards the wealthy. The 
measure before us contains a useful provision that increases the child 
credit from $600 to $1,000. The increase is premised on the flawed 
notion that a tax credit is equivalent to disposable income. The bottom 
line is, unemployed and poor people need employment and disposable 
income, not the expansion of a tax credit.
  I also want to emphasize that States around the country, and in 
particular, Michigan, will still have to confront the reality of 
escalating budget deficits and fewer dollars from the Federal 
Government to fund needed services.
  As we debate the issues before us, I must emphasize that I do not 
subscribe to supply-side economic theory, and apparently, neither does 
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has criticized the 
efficacy and timing of the tax cut that is about to be enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to be outraged that the majority persists in 
engaging in backroom negotiations devoid of input from Democratic 
conferees. Democrats have been marginalized at every juncture in the 
conference process. I remain resolute in my refusal to yield. I also 
want to advise my colleagues and the American public of a critical 
point--Republicans are making grandiose promises that will never be 
realized. In the near future, we will all witness the folly of H.R. 2, 
and experience the inevitable economic pain that will befall our Nation 
in the aftermath of this massive and ill-advised tax cut. For these 
reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 200, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               YEAS--231

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell

[[Page H4730]]


     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Combest
     Emerson

                              {time}  0156

  Mrs. CUBIN changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________