[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 98 (Monday, July 24, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5664-H5669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEBATING REPUBLICAN TAX POLICY IN A CIVIL MANNER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for joining me
here this evening in an important discussion that I think should
interest all Members. I am going to talk a little bit about how we got
started on this.
[[Page H5665]]
I am a member of the Rules Committee, and on the Rules Committee we
have a Subcommittee on Civility. The chairman asked me to chair the
Subcommittee on Civility, and I have some frustrations because now it
is just the two of us on the Subcommittee for Civility. But we share a
common goal here, and I think that tonight we are going to do sort of a
demonstration project.
We are here this evening to highlight a major problem facing the
House of Representatives, and that is the continuing lack of civility
during floor debate. The blame does not lie with one party or the
other; rather, it is incumbent upon all of our Members to maintain an
appropriate level of civility and decorum during debate.
The manner in which we address our colleagues on the floor is not
only recorded in the Congressional Record, but is also broadcast
through C-SPAN to millions of Americans across the Nation each day, and
probably around the world. The advent of C-SPAN was a great public
service, allowing the public to view the floor proceedings in Congress
from their homes, both the good and the bad.
It is healthy for Members to come to the floor and debate the issues
facing our Nation, but it must be done in a manner that is respectful
of our fellow Members, the people we are elected to serve, and the
distinguished body we are proud to serve. I can tell you when I speak
to my constituents across the Second District of West Virginia on a
variety of topics of concern to all West Virginians, I am always
guaranteed one line of applause, and that is when I apologize for the
lack of civility in the House of Representatives.
So, tonight, Mr. Cleaver and I will have a good, spirited debate on
the tax policies put in place. I firmly believe that the tax policies
have spurred the economic growth that we are experiencing and will
continue to lead towards a robust economy.
Mr. Cleaver and I do not agree on this tax policy, but we can agree
that it is an important debate to have and one that can be conducted in
a civil manner. So we are going to highlight our differences of opinion
on tax policy and then have a general discussion on improved civility
in the House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I now yield to my friend from Kansas City for his
opening remarks and any other remarks.
Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments of
my colleague and friend, Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia. When
I was elected, I sought to find those who were interested in and
concerned about the uncivil manner in which the Members of the House
communicated with one another and, of course, there were not a lot of
people walking around with signs saying I would like to work on
civility.
But I did read in some booklet that Shelley Moore Capito was one of
those individuals interested in this issue of civility. So finding
someone who shared my feelings that the people's House could and should
do a lot better, we began to discuss what we felt would be an
appropriate way to deal with this subject.
{time} 2100
The truth of the matter is, that Mrs. Capito and I disagree on the
issue of the tax cut, and we will debate that issue passionately in
just a few minutes. But perhaps it would be important for me to say
before we actually get into that subject that we have different
backgrounds. We have different political affiliations. Our districts
are vastly different. But we do passionately agree that there is a need
to promote civility in the halls of Congress.
There are many, many days that I leave this House disgusted, not so
much about a vote, as I am over what was said prior to the vote. I have
heard all kinds of things fall from the lips of otherwise good and
decent men, who were elected to represent a constituency here in this
body. I have unfortunately heard, even at times religion used to hurl
an attack at another member.
I agree with Mrs. Capito, it is not one party, the insults have
fallen from the lips of people on both sides of the aisle,
unfortunately. But I would like to just end my opening comments, Madam
Speaker, by saying that some suggest that we are in a culture war.
If you accept the notion that we are somehow at war, then I think it
is easy to accept the fact that whenever there is war, there is always
collateral damage, and collateral deaths. And in the sense that we are
having a cultural war, I would suggest that the collateral deaths or
the damage is being done to the United States of America.
I am not sure that there are a lot of mothers and fathers watching
this session tonight who, on a regular basis, summon their children to
the television set to say to them, look, we want you to watch Congress
in action and they will teach you how to get along with people when you
disagree. I do not think that happens very often in this country and it
is sad.
I yield to the gentlewoman
Mrs. CAPITO. Well, for some additional comments on that, before we
move to our policy debate, I think you make excellent points. I want to
congratulate you for your initiative on this matter. But I also know
this is not a new initiative for you. When you were a Mayor of Kansas
City, it was something that you were very dedicated to, a lot of
coalition building, a lot of talking across the aisle or talking with
maybe unnatural partners that you would not naturally see could be your
allies.
And I think that, you know, we know and I know that when we go to our
committees and when we go home or when we are in different arenas with
our follow Members, Republican or Democrat, we can get a lot done when
we are not on screen, or when we are not a talking head on a 60-second
campaign or television ad.
I think that the American public has sort of lost faith that maybe we
can accomplish things. We know that things get done. I think that what
we are running the risk of, and you mentioned collateral damage, what
we run the risk of is losing the ear of the American public.
Not only are they not bringing their children to the television to
listen to what we are talking about, they are turning us off, because
they cannot find the truth in what we are saying. Because we
overexaggerate or we try to disparage people's character or lose
respect in our arguments.
I think if we lose the attention of the American public, we run the
risk of an apathetic country that no longer cares or has faith in their
leadership to be able to cut through and cut to the chase and lead. So
I think we are not alone in the Congress. There is a Center Aisle
Caucus that was put together with Republicans and Democrats together to
try to solve this problem.
But I am really pleased that tonight we are going to launch into this
debate and see what we can demonstrate and what we can learn. If you
will, we are going to go, kind of go free-wheeling. So should I go
ahead and start?
Mr. CLEAVER. Please. Seniority. I think it would be good if we had,
you know, we do not get in much free-wheeling debate on the House
floor. So if you feel you want to move in on something, go ahead, and I
will let you interrupt, and you can let me interrupt and we will go
like that.
Let's talk about tax policy. In the United States Congress, since I
have been here, we have passed two very meaningful tax bills. We have
passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act in 2005, and we also passed
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act.
We have to look at where we were, in my opinion. Where we were was we
were post 9/11, we had a corporate scandal, we were in the beginnings
or in the middle of a recession in our economy, and we were having
difficulty pulling ourselves out for a lot of different reasons.
With the leadership of the President, we followed through in Congress
to pass those two tax relief Acts. I think I would like to go to the
numbers and talk about some of the things that I think are significant
in terms of the numbers and how it has influenced Americans.
I always like to personalize everything to my State, so I have some
State numbers as well. For instance, this year, who will gain tax
relief? 111 million taxpayers will see their taxes decline by an
average of $1,877. Significant numbers.
Five million total individuals and families will see income tax
liabilities
[[Page H5666]]
completely eliminated, because we moved the tax, the lowest tax
bracket, down to 10 percent.
Forty-four million families with children will receive an average tax
cut of $2,493. That is because we have moved down significantly the
child tax credit. Fourteen million elderly individuals will receive an
average of $2,000, and 25 million small business owners will save an
average of $3,641.
So those are the numbers in terms of what could possibly be saving,
average savings through the tax relief. But I think we need to look at
where we are right now. We have an economy that is moving in excess of
3.5 percent in gross national product.
We have created, over the last several years, 1.85 million jobs over
the last 12 months alone, and 5.4 million since August of 1993. What I
think this translates to is more small business owners having more
money to create jobs, to buy more equipment, which creates more jobs.
I think we also have individuals who have more discretion over their
own dollars. They can say what they want to buy, when they want to buy
it because they have fewer Federal taxes to pay. I think that empowers
them to consume more goods, which then translates to more business to
more jobs.
So I see it as an engine that is moving in the right direction. I
believe that the tax relief package and the tax cuts that we passed are
a large part of that.
Mr. CLEAVER. If the gentlewoman will yield. First of all, I agree
with your numbers. The job gain during this administration from 2003 to
the present does bring the total jobs to 5.4 million. My disagreement
with the numbers is that the numbers do not include 2.7 million jobs
lost prior to the growth period.
And so if you subtract the 2.7 million jobs that were lost, you
actually will have a 2.7 million jobs increase instead of 5.4 million.
And I have my own chart. And I do not quarrel with your numbers. But I
have taken the numbers in a different direction.
In 2005 dollars, income in 2005 dollars, this chart reflects the tax
savings for Americans. And if an individual earned between $10,000 and
$20,000 annually, their tax savings will be $2.
$20,000 to $30,000, $9. $16 if you are between $30,000 and $40,000.
If you earned $75,000 to $100,000 your tax savings is $403. And it goes
on up, $500,000 to a million your tax would be $4,499.
And the point I want to make here is that the people who earn the
most get a huge tax cut, and people who do not earn much at all end up
at the bottom in terms of the tax cuts. And so all of America cannot
celebrate the tax cuts because all Americans are not getting a tax cut
that will have any kind of impact in their day-to-day lives.
Mrs. CAPITO. I think the question I would ask you on your chart would
be if those folks in the $10,000 to $20,000, and I do not know the
answer to this, but I surmise that they really do not pay, by the time
they get their deductions, by the time they get their child tax credit,
by the time they get their marriage penalty erased, by the time the
bracket is moved down, the actual amount that they pay in that income
tax brackets is probably very small.
While I admit to you a $2 average tax lowering is diminimus. I mean
it is nonexistent for anybody. But my question would be, what is their
actual tax burden at that level? And would you be advocating giving a
tax break to somebody who does not actually pay the tax? We already
have the earned income tax credit, where we try to take some of those
things into consideration.
Mr. CLEAVER. I would not support giving any additional tax cuts to
people who are already paying virtually no taxes. The earned income tax
credit, I think, adequately, appropriately and significantly deals with
the people who are at the very lowest end of the income level in this
country. And they are paying virtually no taxes.
However, I do think that the tax cuts are inevitably going to be
disproportionate because of the disproportionate income. But the
problem that I am having with that, in addition to the fact that they
are not as equitable as I think we could design them, we are the only
Nation in the history of the planet that I can find out that actually
moved for a tax cut during a time of war.
Generally during a time of war, we ask the people of the Nation,
particularly our Nation, to make sacrifices. And so we are making
significant spending a part of our day-to-day living in this country
with a conflict going in Afghanistan, a conflict going in Iraq, and who
knows what will happen with all of the troubles now in the Palestinian
territories as well as in Lebanon.
So I think that we missed a rare but a very, very key opportunity to
challenge the people of our country to make sacrifices during this
particular time. And one of the sacrifices I think we should have
pushed on the American public is that we cannot have tax cuts at a time
of war.
Because we are borrowing all of the money. Most Americans probably do
not realize this, we are borrowing all of the money we are spending to
fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When people in the country read that we are considering supplemental
budgets, they probably do not realize that when we say we are just
approving a supplemental budget, it means that we are going out to sell
our paper, we are going to out the market the full faith and credit of
the United States. We are borrowing money from the U.K., from China,
from Japan, and particularly, the Pacific rim countries that are
exploding with growth.
Mrs. CAPITO. Well, I think that the way to pay for a war, the war on
terror, it is tremendously expensive. We have had many votes on this.
I think we both agree that in order to stand behind our troops and
arm our troops and give them the best technology, we want to make sure
that we have the dollars in the Federal kitty to be able to do that. I
believe that the tax and growth policies that we have put in place,
that we need to have the firm and strong engine of the American economy
running on all cylinders.
Because if we do not have businesses producing, if we do not have
people employed, then we are not going to have the tax collections that
we need to sustain what is a tremendously expensive time in our
country's history.
{time} 2115
But I would like to say, with the tax relief packages that we passed,
the two major ones that we passed, we have had a surge in tax revenues.
Just this year alone, tax revenues are running 11.1 percent over last
year and a 14.6 percent increase over 2005.
So what does that tell me? That tells me that with more discretionary
income for the individual, and we also have a higher per capita salary,
rates are going up, with more discretionary interest for small
businesses. I live in a State where the main economic engine is small
business, so hiring that one more person is very significant in a small
State like ours, a rural State. Because of the tax relief and the job
growth policies that we have put into place, our engine, our economic
engine is roaring in terms of employment, in terms of discretionary, in
terms of consumer spending. And I think that is reflected in the
numbers of our tax collections being higher and higher.
My State of West Virginia, State tax collections are up over $100
million. I happen to live in an energy-rich State, so because of the
energy situation, I do have to put my plug in for coal, because of our
coal, we are enjoying a good economic stand.
Mr. CLEAVER. I expected that.
Mrs. CAPITO. So I think that the effect of these policies has been
for us to be able to have higher tax collections to be able to afford
and to be able to cut the growth of the deficit. We were projected that
the deficit was supposed to grow by, originally projected to grow $423
billion. That is not good. That is not good. But the good news is it is
only expected to grow $296 billion, which is $127 billion less than it
was originally projected because of the higher tax.
Mr. CLEAVER. If the gentlewoman would yield, and I want to talk about
the increase in tax revenues, but I want to make sure before we leave
this subject, this particular area, that one-tenth of 1 percent of
Americans, this one-tenth of 1 percent who earn $1 million per year or
more will receive 43 percent of the tax cut, while everyday Americans,
men and women who earn $50,000 or less, will get 2 percent of the tax
break. They will receive a $10 yearly tax cut, or enough to buy barely
$3 worth of gasoline. And so the people in
[[Page H5667]]
the lower end, as I said earlier, are hurt.
But with regard to the tax revenues that are surprising Democrats and
Republicans alike, I would like to just quote Bruce Bartlett, who was
an economist with President Reagan and also with the first President
Bush. And he said, ``I do not see how President Bush's tax cuts can be
given any credit for the booming economy. All we have seen is the
upturn we get after every recession. In other words,'' he says,
``without any tax cut at all, we would be pretty much in the same place
economically.'' And then Bernanke, the new Fed chief, said, ``I think
it is unusual for a tax cut to completely offset revenue loss.'' And I
agree certainly with former Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan who said
that tax cuts should be made in the context of a PAYGO resolution,
which I support very strongly, and I know there are Republicans who
support the PAYGO resolution as well.
And for people who are watching us, what Alan Greenspan is saying is
that, yes, tax cuts can be healthy, but the government must become a
disciplined body and that they must pay as they go, that we cannot
afford to just become ravenous in our spending to the point where we
push our country into a very, very dangerous place economically. We are
$8.4 trillion in debt, and we have raised the debt ceiling repeatedly
to the point now where it is over $9 trillion. And the problem with
that constant raising of the debt ceiling is that we are borrowing our
children and our grandchildren into significant trouble down the road.
And $1 trillion is very interesting. Most people have difficulty with
1 trillion, and I do, too. However, $1 trillion would equal essentially
if a person spent $1 million a day from the time they were born until
they were 75 years old, $1 trillion. We are $8.4 trillion in debt. And
with that kind of debt, we can ill afford to subtract dollars out of
the Federal budget that would generally be coming from tax dollars
while we are taking money out, not only with the debt, but with the
interest payments, which I will speak to a bit later.
Mrs. CAPITO. Well, I think you have hit on an excellent topic in that
the deficit is troubling to all of us. I certainly don't want to pass
on to my children and grandchildren a heavy and burdensome deficit. And
we found ourselves in a position with the recession, with corporate
scandals, with the war on terror, with an attack on our Nation where we
had to respond, we have had to beef up our defense, beef up our
intelligence, beef up our armaments and at a very, very expensive cost.
Not even to mention our homeland security costs, something that
unfortunately I wasn't here but I am not sure I would have been any
wiser.
That is one thing I don't like about our debate in Congress, we all
have great hindsight. We can predict what we would have done, but it is
hard to say at the time that we would have been right. But I think we
let our homeland security reach a point where we just weren't paying
attention, and so we have put billions of dollars, and rightfully so,
into not only protecting our localities to helping with our first
responders. We found that was a real weakness on 9/11. We are now
talking about border security and border protection, which is something
that is tremendously important to all of us.
So there is no question that the strains and binds on our budget have
been very, very difficult. And what we haven't done, along with the tax
and growth policies, is we haven't reined in our spending as well as we
should on certain areas where we can be much wiser with the Federal
dollar.
But we cannot find ourselves in the situation where we are in now,
where we have found this year with the larger tax collections of 11
percent higher that has been able to already demonstrate just this
first 6 months that we are now able to say that our deficit growth is
going to be $126 billion less than it was projected to be simply
because we have more tax, a tax revenue that has been spurred by the
economic growth that has been spurred, in my opinion, by the tax cuts
and reconciliation packages that we passed.
And I would just like to read one thing to remind myself and
everybody else, and this is a little off the subject, but if you will
allow me, all the individual taxes that we all pay, we pay State sales
tax, a lot of us do in West Virginia, we do, 5 percent on food, 6
percent on everything else; State income tax, local property tax,
Federal income tax, capital gains tax, dividends tax, State corporate
tax, Social Security payroll tax, FICA tax, gasoline tax, gambling tax,
cigarette tax, cell phone tax, telephone tax, Federal State tax, State
tax, municipal fees.
I mean, we are taxed not to death, but we are getting there. And I
think the best thing that we can control here in Congress is our
Federal income tax and the income tax that we assess on our small
businesses. That is why I think Americans are always very mindful of
their Federal taxes on April 15, but I think that come these past April
15s, with the tax relief, families with children, married couples,
families in the lower-income brackets who have been moved either off
the rolls or down to the 10 percent bracket have all seen, along with
those who make more money on your chart, more than the $1 million, have
been able to see more money in their pockets so they can have more
discretion and more responsibility over their own personal money, and
they don't send that money here to Washington where we spend it or, as
you said, overspend it.
Mr. CLEAVER. I agree with you that we are taxed heavily in this
country, all the way from these Chambers, this Chamber all the way to
city halls around the country. But I do believe in tax cuts, and I
think that we would be wise or certainly we would have been wise to
have some tax credits to the corporations who engage in a certain
amount of research and development. I think if the tax credits can be
linked to research and development, then we know that those dollars are
going to recirculate, they are going to come back into the budget.
I also think that we ought to give tax credits, that the one we had
has expired, for parents who are sending their children to college,
they ought to get tax credits. We are going to be locked into a very,
very tough competitive battle with India, with China, with Japan, and
even with Taiwan; and so we have got to educate as many children as
possible, and we have got to make it easy for parents to pay for that
college.
But the reason we won't be able to do that, and this is another thing
that should cause us to reconsider the tax cuts, is the interest
payments on the debt. Now, the interest payments are obligatory, and it
is right now the third largest expenditure in the United States Federal
budget; and that is very, very dangerous. We can cut Veterans Affairs,
we can cut homeland security, we can cut education; but we can't cut
net interest because the interest on the debt is obligatory. And it
doesn't matter what else happens economically in this country. We have
got to pay at least the interest on the debt because the Chinese, the
European market will not have an understanding that we are not paying
this interest.
And I also think that is extremely dangerous, because we are
borrowing money from countries that in all likelihood we are going to
have some difficulty with. We are even borrowing money, $50 billion so
far, from OPEC.
And how does this fit in with the tax cut? Well, the problem is that
we are continuing to borrow money, taking money out of the budget with
the tax cut, and the interest is rising. And the interest payments do
in fact have a very, very direct impact on taxes. And we would
obviously be able to lower taxes if we were able to lower the interest
rate.
We have become a debtor nation, and that is not healthy. We owe
everybody around the world, and in fact we will end up borrowing $36
million during this 1-hour debate, $36 million during this one hour of
debate. And when we are borrowing that kind of money and then giving
tax cuts that will not come into the Federal coffers, it seems to me we
are working against ourselves.
Mrs. CAPITO. I guess my question to you would be, in looking at your
chart, as just a point of clarification for me, the hand chart, the red
is the interest payment. Is that correct?
Mr. CLEAVER. Yes.
Mrs. CAPITO. Your solution that you are advocating would be to raise
the taxes from where they are right now to pay and meet this
obligation. Is that basically correct?
[[Page H5668]]
Mr. CLEAVER. No. I think we eliminate the tax cuts, which would allow
us to begin to retire our debt. And if we just eliminate the tax cuts,
and I will have to fumble through my papers to find out the exact
amount of money that we would bring back into the Treasury, but it
would be so significant that it could essentially put us in good stead
with regard not only to our debt but the interest we are paying, or not
only the interest but the debt we have.
{time} 2130
Mrs. CAPITO. Okay. To draw a contrast here in our two positions, you
would be for eliminating the tax cuts.
Mr. CLEAVER. Yes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would be for keeping the tax cuts in place, letting
them grow for their maturation. I think a lot of them do not kick in
for full force until 2010, because the trend that I am seeing is this
11.1 percent more collections, more people working, industrial
production increasing 4.3 percent, real hourly compensation rising at
3.2 percent, real consumer spending increasing at 5.1 percent over the
first quarter, productivity in the Nation up 3.7.
See, I would say to you that because of the tax relief, because of
the job growth package and because of that, we are going to be able to
grow ourselves and our economy to meet the needs to be able to take a
sizeable chunk out of that red part of your chart.
Mr. CLEAVER. That would be true, but we cannot do everything that we
need to do and give the tax cuts. I mean, I think we have to keep in
mind the growing cost of the war against terror, and we do not even
budget for it. Most of the Americans will probably find it amazing that
we do not even budget for the war, and the supplemental budget, of
course, is supposed to be for unexpected costs. We did not even budget
for the rebuilding of the gulf coast region. All of that finds its way
into the supplemental budget, and I am saying that we are borrowing
money that we might not have to borrow if we had it in the Treasury,
and we would have it in the Treasury if we had not given it in tax
cuts.
Now, I want to say that the economic stimulus, the administration's
tax cuts in 2003 had particularly low bang for the buck. The moderate
economic growth has not been disbursed, as I said two or three times a
night, to most American families. After accounting for inflation, the
typical American family's income has decreased every year of the Bush
presidency for a total reduction of $1,700. Now, that is when you
factor in the inflation. It has dropped to $1,700.
The GDP growth in the first quarter this year was, as you said, a
strong 5.6 annual rate, but most forecasts, including the economists in
the White House, see the growth moderating to around 3 percent over the
next few quarters. So, whether you take the economists who lean on the
Democratic side or on the Republican side, the truth of the matter is
they all agree that things will moderate shortly to around 3 percent in
the next few quarters.
So I do not argue with the facts, and we all ought to be happy there
is some life injected into the economy right now. I just do not think
that we ought to come to the conclusion that it is long lasting, number
one; and number two, I think that it would be wrong to assume that all
is well in this government so we can give the people a tax cut back
because it lulls them into believing that we have no problems.
I want to say that we do have some major problems, some major
economic problems, not the least of which is the growing debt that is
eating away at us. I thought this was interesting. If we pay $1 per
second, it would take us 284,000 years to pay off our debt. 284,000
years to pay off our debt if we paid $1 per second, and that is scary.
The other numbers, if we laid dollar bills side by side all around
the globe, we would be able to go around the globe 34,196 times with
dollar bills reflecting the debt we have, and we cannot afford to give
tax cuts, fight the wars, handle the many issues that come before us at
the same time. We just cannot do it.
Mrs. CAPITO. Well, again, I think we are probably going to agree to
disagree on this, our policies, and we have disagreed through our
votes, I think, on the floor of the House.
I think what I have appreciated about your argument is you have
talked about the problems that we have, and I think that is what we
need to do in this body. We need to agree on what our problems are, and
we have not even touched on some of our bigger ones like Social
Security and Medicare for the future, and this is all going to pool
into this argument.
So, my suggestion would be that, of course, I believe, and I think I
have emphasized that point quite enough tonight, that the policies that
we have put in place have us on the right track. What the future will
bear, the future will bear, and we will be able to see, but had we not
had these policies in place, I do not think we would see this engine
moving as quickly as we have.
So I am going to rest my argument here on those facts, on the
economic facts, on the facts that in my State of West Virginia, we have
some of the historically lowest unemployment we have ever had; and that
we have 50,000 West Virginians who have children who are now paying
fewer taxes; and that we have 94,000 taxpayers in West Virginia who are
benefiting from a lower tax rate; and that we have 510,000 taxpayers
who now are in the 10 percent bracket; and we have 194,000 married
couples who are paying less, and these are not the wealthy 1 percent.
These are the hardworking people of West Virginia who live in a
beautiful State, the same State they want to raise their children in
and want to have a future there.
So I will rest my case with that and listen to your final argument.
Mr. CLEAVER. My final argument is, and I think this is a very, very
good example or illustration of the disparity between the recipients of
the best ends of the tax cut.
Lee Raymond, who was the retiring CEO of ExxonMobil, owns 7.7 million
shares of their stock. Now, at the current dividend rate, he would
generate, if he sold his stock today, $10 million. On top of that, he
will have a $2.5 million tax cut. I think when we see that kind of
disparity it has to pull at us that something is dreadfully wrong.
Now, I am not upset with Mr. Raymond. I do not even know him. He may
be a nice person. He may want to tithe to the church I pastored, but
what I am concerned about is the fact that his total retirement package
came close to $400 million, including his 7.7 million shares of stock.
That is far more than one human being needs to earn, and I think that
people who are earning $34,000, $45,000 a year are going to look at a
$2.5 million tax cut for this gentleman and wonder about themselves.
My final point that I have continued to make, as my uncle says
sometimes I make the argument poorly, but it is that we cannot do
everything. We cannot do everything. We cannot fight a war, $87 billion
a year; we cannot fund all of the programs that people lobby you and me
every day to fund; and we have used up every single nickel of the
Social Security surplus. That is devastating, and we have got to come
to grips with pay as we go, like all other Americans. If they want a
refrigerator, they try to wait and pay for it.
But what we have done is has been to demonstrate that to the people
of the United States that the amount of credit they have, credit debt
does not matter. In 2004, we saw the average credit card debt for
Americans rise by 63 percent. Now, Asians save on an average of about
20 percent. The savings rate, Mr. Speaker, for the United States, this
is embarrassing, is minus zero. We go on the other side. We are not
saving any money at all.
So the country looks at us, the Congress of the United States, we are
spending wildly, and they have joined in. Because the American public
is not saving, the government cannot borrow domestically. We are
borrowing some domestically, but when we get ready for the heavy
lifting, we are travelling around borrowing money from Caribbean
Nations.
I think that reeling in the tax cuts will allow us to address some of
those other problems and reduce the amount of borrowing.
Mrs. CAPITO. Well, that is a very respectful debate, and if you are
ready, I think we will just kind of close. I think we have covered a
lot of our bases, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Cleaver) for, I think, a very instructive debate, and I think we have
learned a lot from each other. I certainly have, and I would now like
to
[[Page H5669]]
move just a little bit about the civility issue in Congress.
I found a couple of quotes, one of which was from Winston Churchill
who said, ``Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried
in the world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect
or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form
of government except all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time.''
None other than our first President, President George Washington,
when he began, he wrote, ``Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior,'' and
it is fun to thumb through this because some of them are telling us not
to spit on the floor and make sure we go out clothed and all those
things that I think we do do that all right. But the very first one
that he has is, Every action done in company ought to be with some sign
of respect to those that are present. He also said, ``Think before you
speak, pronounce not imperfectly, nor bring out your words too hastily,
but orderly, distinctly.'' Those are wise, wise words, I think, from
our very first President. I am sure that if he is in Mt. Vernon
listening to us right now, or not us, but some of the debate that we
have on the floor of the House, then he is not too proud at the level
of disrespect that we sometimes show our colleagues.
So I want the thank you for joining with me in this effort. I want to
say to all the other Members on both sides that we want this to be an
ongoing practice, where we will pick a good topic that we can debate
civilly and other such exercises, and we are going to grow this
committee, the two of us, so we can return this body to the great
esteem, the great integrity, the great respect and the great historical
honor that I believe it is due. So I thank Mr. Cleaver.
Mr. CLEAVER. I thank the gentlewoman. I actually have read George
Washington's book on civility. Russ Carnahan, my colleague from
Missouri who is from St. Louis, gave me that book shortly after we
arrived because I was talking all the time with many of the freshman
Members about the issue, and so he very kindly gave me that book.
I think neither of us are likely to change our opinions on the tax
cuts, and I think that people who watch, particularly Members of
Congress, hopefully realize that talk does not have to be toxic, and in
many instances, that is what has happened on this floor. The more
convinced we are that our position is sound and moral and ethical and
right, the less hostility we need to speak of it.
To give you an example, Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Junior, both
believed so deeply in what they were doing and the moral world coming
to their side that they were so civil that they were willing to be
beaten and to even go to jail. They did not respond in kind to the
things that were done, and so on this floor, if we believe deeply in
what we are saying, that is even more reason to be civil.
When I was elected to this body, and my father and my sisters and my
wife and our 4 children and nieces and nephews all came to Washington,
I was very excited over the fact that I was elected to this body. Only
18,000 people in the history of this republic have been able to sit in
this Chamber and debate, and we are the only office in the United
States that must be elected. You can ascend to the presidency without
being elected; you can ascend to the vice presidency; you can ascend to
the Senate, to governors, to lieutenant governor, to the to the U.S.
Senate and so forth. We have to be elected here.
{time} 2145
If a vacancy occurs, nobody can appoint anyone. We have to be
elected. That means that this is a special body. There is nothing like
it.
And so I assumed when I came here I would join the likes of James G.
Blaine and Cordell Hull, who came to this floor and demonstrated a
wizardry of words. Once upon a time, the level of debate and oration in
Congress was the envy of the world. We had the example of the silver-
tongued spellbinders like Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams and
Henry Clay. And the amazing thing that many Members of this body may
not know is that Henry Clay was in the United States Senate, but became
so enamored with the debate in the House, that he did something that
people would never even think about doing today. He left the United
States Senate to become a Member of the House of Representatives, to
stand in that well to debate the great topics facing the Nation.
That is one of the things I thought about when I came to this body.
Henry Clay was known as the great compromiser, not as the great bomb
thrower, but the great compromiser. He is remembered in history because
he knew how to work with people on all sides, a compromiser. And
somehow we have to come to the conclusion if we want to be remembered,
maybe, just maybe we can be remembered better for our ability to work
with one another.
We had a situation when I first came here with 25 jobs being lost in
Kansas City, and some people told me that I needed to go to war. We
were going to lose it anyway, so I needed to go to war with a
Republican, Frank Wolf. It didn't sound right to me. So I did something
that was completely stupid. I called Frank Wolf on the phone, went to
his office, we met, we talked about the issue, and he said, Cleaver,
you're right.
Twenty-five jobs were saved because I refused to go to war with
someone just because he was a member of the other party. And I am
convinced that much more could be accomplished here if we worked
together.
I have heard this story more than once. Barry Goldwater and Lyndon
Johnson are about to launch their Presidential races. Barry Goldwater
calls the White House and made a request that would be laughed at
today. He asked that he be allowed to ride around the country with LBJ
on Air Force 1 and they would stop at various cities and debate the
issues. That is the kind of leadership that we need now in this
Congress.
I believe a part of the reason that the tone in this Chamber has
plummeted so low is because the volume is too loud, literally. Too
frequently Members fail to extend the courtesy of attentive and
respectful listening to other Members when they speak on the floor. Too
frequently volume is so loud in this Chamber with disrespectful and
discourteous conversations that Members end up shouting to be heard,
and that only contributes to the incivility here in the House.
Let me conclude by saying that as we were thinking about this debate,
I looked at everything I could look at, and one of the things that
surfaced was that civility derives from the Latin word civitas, which
means city, especially in the sense of civic community. Civitas is the
same word from which civilization comes, the age-old assumption behind
civility is that life in the city has to be civilizing. People could
not live in a city without civility. And I believe that we cannot and
should not dare to walk into the people's House without a strong and
irreversible commitment to civility.
I would like to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for this
opportunity. I hope that next month we will have other Members of this
body joining us for a discussion on something that we feel very
passionate about, and will probably not convince the other side, but I
think the public will benefit by the debate.
Mrs. CAPITO. I agree with the gentleman, and I have to say
additionally that I am a mother of three, and I think sometimes that
the lessons that we teach our children, when we come here, we have
forgotten. We teach our children not to interrupt; we teach our
children to show respect to their classmates and their parents; we
teach our children to not say bad words; and we teach our children to
listen or be quiet when other people are talking. I have even been in
this Chamber when I have heard hissing at another Member when they are
speaking.
So I pledge to you my cooperation, and I enjoy your eloquent words.
____________________