[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20032-20056]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2488, TAXPAYER REFUND AND RELIEF ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 274

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2488) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to reduce individual income tax rates, to provide marriage 
     penalty relief, to reduce taxes on savings and investments, 
     to provide estate and gift tax relief, to provide incentives 
     for education savings and health care, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read. The yeas and nays shall 
     be considered as ordered on the question of adoption of the 
     conference report and on any subsequent conference report or 
     on any motion to dispose of an amendment between the houses 
     on H.R. 2488. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply to the 
     question of adoption of the conference report and to any 
     subsequent conference report or to any motion to dispose of 
     an amendment between the houses on H.R. 2488.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274 provides for the consideration of 
the conference report for H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 
of 1999. House Resolution 274 waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration, and provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Finally, the rule provides that clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which 
requires a three-fifths vote on any amendment or measure containing a 
Federal income tax increase, shall not apply to the question of 
adoption of the conference report and to any subsequent conference 
report or to any motion to dispose of an amendment between the houses 
on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the growth in Federal tax revenue has consistently 
outpaced the growth in income of the American people paying those 
taxes. For the first time in American history, taxes have reached war 
era levels during peacetime. Budget projections show taxes at above 20 
percent of the gross domestic product for the next 10 years. Last year, 
and at least for the next few, this ratio exceeds the levels of 
taxation during 1945, when America was involved in every corner of the 
world during and after World War II.
  In short, the American people are paying too much taxes. The American 
people have given the Federal Government too much of their money, and 
we have to decide what to do with it. We committed ourselves to a 
certain cost of government in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. Since 
then, the American people have grown the economy so much they have paid 
too much for their government, and it is time to give it back.
  That is exactly what the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act proposes to 
do, make change for the American people on their tax bill.
  On every other bill we get in the mail, for credit cards, the power 
bill, the phone bill, if we overpay, the company notes a little CR 
credit on the bill, crediting that amount for the next month. What 
would we think if businesses one day decided they could spend that 
overpayment better than we could, and just added it to their income 
statement at the end of the year? Why would we let the Federal 
Government do this to us?
  That is what many of our colleagues in the House and the President 
are trying to do. Just a few months ago President Clinton said, we 
could give it all back to you, and hope you spend it right, but. But of 
course he believes that he knows how to spend our money better than we 
do, and he would rather let the Federal Government decide how to use 
our overpayment.
  We in the majority believe our constituents have overpaid enough and 
are burdened every day by oppressive taxes. Let us think about what 
Americans must pay. First we are taxed on our income, then we are taxed 
on our savings and investments. Then we are taxed on our business, and 
irrationally, if we get married, we get a marriage penalty tax.
  If that is not enough, there are death taxes levied on us after we 
have died. Our tax relief bill begins to change this pattern. This bill 
entirely eliminates the death tax, which has prevented thousands of 
Americans from keeping their family-owned businesses or family farms. 
It provides a 1 percent reduction in every American's tax rate, 
ensuring that every American who has been overcharged for their 
government will receive a refund. The bill seeks to expand on the 
investment that has helped to give us this surplus by cutting capital 
gains.
  The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act also provides $100 billion in 
relief from the marriage tax penalty, a tangled web of tax provisions 
that have punished Americans for marrying for far too long.
  H.R. 2488 expands opportunities for families to save for their 
children's education or their retirement, and it allows the self-
employed to deduct the full cost of their health care.
  In total, this bill provides $792 billion in well-deserved tax relief 
for the American people. Tax relief is about

[[Page 20033]]

freedom, freedom to save, spend, or invest, as we see fit. It is about 
returning dollars and decisions back home to the American people and 
American families.
  With this bill, hard-working Americans will not have to work as long 
to pay the IRS. That means parents will have more time to spend with 
their kids or take care of an elderly parents. They will also have the 
financial freedom to do the things they want to do. I trust the 
American people to make these decisions for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today about how we are 
supposedly slashing funds for education, social security, Medicare, and 
every other program in the Federal budget. Frankly, though, if Congress 
wants to reduce revenues to the Federal Treasury, cutting taxes is one 
of the worst ways to do it, because every responsible tax cut in the 
past has increased revenue, not reduced it. The tax cuts passed in 1981 
doubled the revenues to the Treasury because they doubled the size of 
the economy.
  We are not cutting taxes to reduce the size of government, we are 
doing it because it is the right thing to do, the honest thing to do, 
and the best way to manage the people's trust and their hard-earned 
money.
  Let us be clear from the start, we are not talking about debt 
reduction because the Republican budget, calls for $2.2 trillion in 
debt reduction over the next 10 years. We are not talking about social 
security, either, because the Republican budget, enforced by the 
lockbox legislation passed this year, protects every dollar of the 
social security surplus.
  What we are talking about here is taxing and spending. This bill cuts 
taxes by $792 billion over 10 years, and the Clinton budget hikes 
spending by $937 billion over the same period. It is regrettable that 
the President has chosen to turn this opportunity to refund Americans' 
tax overcharge into a political game, but I feel confident that the 
American people agree that their money is safer in their pocketbooks 
than in Washington.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the 
conferees for their hard work on this historic legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed with the general 
debate and consideration of the merits of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that Congress is nearing the end of a session. 
I realize that people have been working very late. But this bill is so 
convoluted I am surprised my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, can 
keep a straight face.
  They say they want the so-called tax bill to become law, but everyone 
knows it is dead on arrival at the White House. For that reason, my 
Republican colleagues do not want to send it over there until after the 
August break.
  But for some reason, Mr. Speaker, this so-called tax bill is being 
rushed through the House at breakneck pace. It was handed to the 
Committee on Rules after midnight last night. Now 9 hours later, it is 
here on the House floor. Meanwhile, my Republican colleagues are not 
planning on showing it to President Clinton for another month.
  If I did not know any better, Mr. Speaker, I would say that my 
Republican colleagues are embarrassed by this bill. They do not want 
Members of Congress to know what is in it. They do not want members of 
the press to know what is in it. They do not want the American people 
to know what is in it either. I cannot say I blame them.
  Republicans want to raid the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds 
and give a huge tax break back to those fat cats.
  Democrats, on the other hand, want to save the surplus. They want to 
protect Social Security and want to protect Medicare.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, while my Republican colleagues say they do not 
want to hand out enormous tax breaks to the rich Americans, the baby 
boomers are getting closer and closer to retirement which will cause 
Social Security and Medicare to buckle starting the year 2015.
  My Republican colleagues' so-called tax break for the rich is not 
even much of a tax break after all. It is more of a hoax.
  Any tax breaks people would get under this bill are taken away in 8 
or 9 years. That is right, Mr. Speaker, these so-called tax breaks 
vanish into thin air after 8 or 9 years, and they are back where they 
started.
  For the first few years, it will look like individual income tax are 
being reduced. Then in the year 2008, suddenly they shoot right back to 
where they were before. Long-term capital gains will start to go down, 
and then, in the year 2008, they will suddenly shoot back up.
  Even the marriage penalty, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, even the 
marriage penalty will be back before it is fully repealed. So I do not 
know what it is going to do to the divorce courts.
  Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues are so hell bent on giving 
tax breaks to the very rich, why do they not go ahead and do it. Why do 
they not go ahead as their plan would indicate and cut taxes for the 
very rich while Medicare and Social Security follow path.
  The reason is very simple, Mr. Speaker, it costs too much. This all-
you-can-eat tax break smorgasbord is unbelievably expensive. So my 
Republican colleagues decided to do away with it after the year 2009. 
That is right, Mr. Speaker. After the year 2009, the tax break buffet 
is over. Income tax rates shoot back up, debt taxes are reimposed, and 
the marriage penalty is back where it started.
  Mr. Speaker, if any of my colleagues doubt that this bill raises 
rates in the years 2008 to 2009, I would tell them to look at the rule. 
This rule, once again, waives the required three-fifths vote for tax 
increases. This is the same party, Mr. Speaker, that wanted to put this 
in the Constitution, and here they are again waiving the three-fifths 
needed for the tax increase.
  So the tax breaks worth thousands of dollars that my Republican 
colleagues want to give to the richest taxpayers will fade just as 
quickly as the hundred dollar tax break nearly everyone else will get.
  Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees that hard-working Americans deserve tax 
relief. Democrats have consistently stood for targeted tax cuts that 
benefit the middle class. Democrats believe that we shore up Social 
Security and Medicare and pay down the national debt while providing 
targeted tax cuts to the middle class.
  The Republican tax breaks for the rich will disappear after 10 years; 
but at that point, Mr. Speaker, after 10 years, Mr. Speaker, the damage 
to Social Security and Medicare will already have been done.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding me this time and also for his steadfast commitment 
to fight on behalf of the American taxpayer.
  I think it was the comment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) 
that this is about freedom, this debate.
  I think what we are going to have before us, first the rule, and then 
the underlying legislation, are two arguments. One that wants to 
strengthen personal freedom, one that recognizes that government has a 
responsibility to all of the folks that we represent throughout our 
great Nation. The other side of the argument is we have a 
responsibility and we also want to take as much of one's money as 
possible to spend it here in Washington.
  First, let us say what we are doing. We are protecting and 
strengthening and preserving Social Security and

[[Page 20034]]

Medicare. There are those who are going to scare seniors, scare women, 
scare anybody within earshot if they can do it, and that is sad.
  I think the American people are wise enough to understand that the 
Republican Congress has set aside the Social Security taxes for Social 
Security. We are strengthening our national defense. We are funding 
education. We are protecting our environment. That is what we are 
doing.
  Then the question becomes, what do we do with this projected surplus? 
Our economy over the next 10 years is projected to grow to about $100 
trillion. We are talking about tax relief of less than a trillion, 
which is less than 1 percent of our Nation's economy, to send back to 
the people who generated it.
  So if we are committed to continuing economic growth, if we are 
committed to preserving personal freedom for the people who are working 
hard every single day, then the question becomes, do we take that 
projected surplus and leave it here in Washington like leaving candy on 
a table with little kids around, or do we send it back to the folks who 
earned it?
  The question becomes, again, who benefits? Well, under this bill, 
every American who pays taxes benefits. If one is a small business 
owner, 30, 40 years or two or three generations, one has been building 
up one's small business and one goes to sell it, and one has Uncle Sam 
there waiting for his part of the pie, this eliminates the death tax so 
one can pass that business on to one's family so they can make that 
small business become a big business.
  If one sets money aside every paycheck to buy a few shares of General 
Motors or Ford or Coca-Cola or whatever, and then one goes to sell that 
stock so one can pay for one's child's education, if one has two or 
three kids these days in college, $100,000 a year practically, and one 
sets that money aside for 20 or 30 years, and one says, ``Do you know 
what? When Johnny goes to college, I am going to sell that to pay his 
tuition,'' capital gains reduction helps that person.
  Frankly, I think we can find a common ground here. The common ground 
is very simple. With this money that the people from Staten Island and 
Brooklyn generated, the people from Georgia, the people from California 
who work hard every single day to keep our engine humming, to keep this 
economy moving, whether one is a truck driver or worker behind the 
counter at Dunkin Doughnuts, the fact is, when we give one more of 
one's money back, the American people benefit.
  Yes, there are those who want to spend all of one's money. Do not 
believe them. We believe in the American people. We have faith in the 
American people. We trust the American people to spend their money as 
they see fit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and stand up for the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York trusts the American people 
to spend their money only for 10 years, though. Then they want to pull 
it back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House and privileged to 
serve for a long time. I have seen a lot of political things, but I 
have never seen a sham like the one that we are trying to pull on the 
American people today.
  There is not a Republican in this House of Representatives that can 
look their constituent in the eye and say that this bill is going to 
become law. There is not a Republican in this House or in the other 
House on the other side that would be able to say that there is an 
economist that they can find any place in the United States that says 
we can spend the same money four different ways.
  If we were talking about a $4 trillion tax cut and an $800 billion 
tax cut to go into effect in the next decade, one would think, with a 
five-vote margin, one would reach out to some of the Democrats, some of 
the Democratic leaders. Maybe one might even talk to a Democrat or two 
on the tax writing committee.
  But this has nothing to do with tax writing. That is why my 
colleagues had the Majority Whip there, not the tax writing people. I 
feel sorry for a lot of Republicans who were not able to get involved 
in it. But fear not, because, instead of their involvement, the 
lobbyists did the job for them.
  What this is, really, is a rule to have Christmas in August. It is a 
wish list so that every contributor that one can find listed in the FEC 
will get a promise that maybe one day if they keep the majority they 
can keep these things away.
  Because my colleagues know in their heart of hearts that the 
President and the American people are too responsible to let this 
happen. So they have a freebie. They got your Christmas list, and they 
know it never, never, never will become law.
  But it would seem to me that now is the time to be bipartisan. Once 
my colleagues know this thing is going to be vetoed, at least have a 
small tax bill that they think that they would be able to work with.
  But just listen to this, because I want to listen to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) from the Committee 
on Rules, late into the night, the Republicans give away as much as 
they can to the other body to see that they can get 51 votes so that 
they can at least pass it.
  With all of this rush, one would believe that they are rushing the 
bill to the White House. That is the process: House, Senate, 
conference, White House. Oh, no. They want this bill to turn slowly in 
the wind at every Republican fund-raiser around the country and to be 
able to say, ``You see, we even turn chicken manure into electricity. 
It only costs $500 million. But in our bill, we are the only party to 
take care of chicken manure for the chicken farmers so that we can get 
a great charge out of it.'' I tell my colleagues this.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, as we look at the 
prospect of some kind of tax increase, God forbid, I am convinced that 
there is no better expert at putting together a tax increase bill than 
the gentleman from New York standing in the well. I want him to know 
that, Mr. Speaker, if we ever, ever on this side were to consider any 
kind of tax increase, the gentleman from New York is the first person 
to whom I would look for direction and advice and counsel on doing just 
that because he is so expert in it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California can tell the 
people that he works with, those shelters, that ``Rangel is coming for 
you.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, they are ready for the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Everybody wants a tax cut.
  Mr. DREIER. They are ready for the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, everybody wants a tax cut. But some of us 
believe that we are paying off our debts first.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are in the next five years 
by a six to one ratio.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we cannot pay off our debts, take care of 
Medicare, take care of Social Security.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman from New York, keep 
fighting for those tax increases.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me the time, and want to remind one of the previous speakers, 
who suggested that, I suppose he means Democrats who are working for 
wages, could buy a couple of shares of Kodak.

[[Page 20035]]

That would cost them about $160 a month out of their paycheck. Or Coca-
Cola, I guess he said. Now, the tax bill is going to give this worker 
$136 a year. The worker already is not able to pay his or her bills, 
buy long-term care insurance, pay the house mortgage and get the kids 
to college. So I suggest that it is very disingenuous to gratuitously 
say to that worker, go ahead and save 160 bucks a month, we will give 
you $136 a year towards it.
  As a matter of fact, this bill was really designed to help Dr. 
Kevorkian and the undertakers. Several of my colleagues have already 
heard from their adult children wondering how we intend to commit 
suicide so we can escape the inheritance tax.
  Everybody has been bleeding on the Republican side for these poor 
multimillionaires who are going to have to pay an inheritance tax. Talk 
about term limits. They have said to the owners of small businesses and 
the owners of family farms, ``Die baby. Die in the next 10 years, and 
you can give the farm away to your kids tax free. But if you live, it 
goes right back up, and we sock you for a big inheritance tax.''
  They change the rules to make funny speeches. We argued here sometime 
ago about a 60 percent rule, screaming that only the irresponsible 
people in this House would vote to raise taxes and they needed a 
supermajority. Well, with this bill they are going to raise taxes, and 
they have had to waive their own rules.
  One of the more serious issues is that they have really decided to 
turn their back on Medicare, and they are going to let Medicare 
destruct. They voted in committee against their own bills.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to the Member in the Republican Party who said that these 
people should take the money and invest it in Coca-Cola. With the money 
the people on the bottom part of that chain will get, they will only be 
able to invest in a six pack of Coca-Cola.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, one word three times, reckless, reckless, 
reckless. That is what the Republicans are doing. Fiscal discipline 
guards our prosperity here, and they are turning their backs on it.
  The choice this year is clear. As Chairman Greenspan said, let the 
surpluses run, pay down the debt, or let the deficits grow again. The 
Republicans are back at it, letting the deficits grow again.
  And even if the budget assumptions are correct, and those assumptions 
are wrong, there would be no money left to strengthen Social Security 
and Medicare. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has a 
Social Security plan that would use the same trillion dollars that he 
is using for the tax cut.
  Look, the choice in 8 or 9 or 10 years would be this. Continue the 
tax cuts that are in this bill and explode the deficit or let the tax 
cuts expire and that would be the biggest tax increase in American 
history, $175 billion a year, if we let this bill be sunsetted.
  The Republicans like to talk about the biggest American tax increase 
in history in 1993, $275 billion over 5 years. This would be, under 
their plan, if there is a sunset, a $175 billion tax increase in a 
year.
  Lastly, this bill is grossly unfair. If the Republicans shed any 
tears here, they are crocodile tears for middle and low-income 
taxpayers. Here is what Deloitte & Touche says: A couple with an annual 
income of $50,000 with 2 children would get a tax cut of $265; a couple 
with $200,000 would get a tax cut of $2,720; and, look, the millionaire 
would receive a tax cut of $9,861 compared to the family of $50,000, 
$265.
  It is not only excessive it is grossly unfair. Let us turn it down.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to that silliness.
  The top 1 percent of all the income earners in this country earn 17 
percent of all the income and pay 32 percent all the taxes. The bottom 
50 percent of the income earners pay 4.8 percent of all the taxes.
  We now have 40 million American families that pay no income taxes, 
and that is who the Democrats want to help. They want to turn this into 
welfare.
  If we are going to cut taxes because we have overtaxed in this 
country, the people who pay taxes are going to get the tax relief. The 
top 10 percent of the income earners in this country earn 42 percent of 
all the income and pay 63 percent of all the taxes. If we are going to 
cut taxes because it is hurting the economy by taking too much into 
Washington, the people who pay taxes are going to get the tax relief.
  That is what the Democrats cannot stand, because they want this money 
to stay in Washington so they can dole it out to folks who do not pay 
taxes.
  My biggest fear, my biggest fear is that one day they will be back in 
charge of this House and pass their tax relief that will take 60 
percent of America off the tax roles entirely, and we will have a huge 
bias in favor of more government, more spending and, ultimately, more 
taxes because most of America is not paying taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I stood in the back of the chamber here 
listening to the debate, and it is somewhat perplexing. I am trying to 
figure out what it is the gentlemen and the gentlewomen on the other 
side object to.
  Is it the reduction in the rates on ordinary income? Is it the 
provision for the deductibility of health insurance? Is it the credits 
given for adoptions for special needs children? Are they objecting to 
these things? Is it the provision allowing for increased savings for 
the education of our children and grandchildren? Is it the marriage tax 
penalty relief that the Democrats object to? Is it the increase in the 
private savings that is so greatly encouraged by the revisions to the 
IRA and other retirement programs? Is it the fact that the President 
wants to save 62 percent of the Social Security revenue, and we want to 
save 100 percent?
  Exactly what is it the other side objects to here? If it is, in fact, 
an objective of the other side to defeat this bill, then they should 
vote against it. They should just tell the people of America that they 
are in opposition to all these things. I encourage my colleagues to do 
so.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague exactly what we 
object to. We object to funding tax breaks for special interests by 
jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare. That is what this bill is 
all about.
  They call it the Financial Freedom Act. Well, it provides a little 
more freedom for some folks than for others. In the words of Dr. King, 
some people are ``free, free, God Almighty, free at last.'' And at the 
top of the list are the chicken manure producers. Hundreds of millions 
of dollars of tax subsidies for chicken manure producers in this 
country. Down in Texas we have Whataburger. Well, ``What a chicken'' 
this is. They have given new meaning to ``chicken deluxe,'' to 
``chicken special'' in this bill by giving hundreds of millions of 
dollars of tax relief to chicken manure producers.
  And who do my colleagues think pays for that? I think it is best 
summed up in this copy of a painting that hangs here in Washington. It 
is entitled ``Plucked Clean.'' And that is exactly what happens to 
Social Security and Medicare. They get plucked clean. Social Security 
and Medicare do not enjoy the benefits of the chicken manure producers. 
They get plucked clean.
  This $2 trillion figure that they keep talking about, it is not a 
surplus, it is the money that hard working men and women across this 
country are expected to pay into the Social Security System. It is 
their money; it is there for Social Security. In this bill, Republicans 
do not add one additional dollar for Social Security. And we know the 
money, that $2 trillion, is not by itself enough to fund Social 
Security forever.
  Likewise, with reference to Medicare, Republicans do not add an 
additional dollar for Medicare. They are not funding the long-term 
solvency of Medicare or covering the much-needed prescription drugs.

[[Page 20036]]

  Why is it that every time that there is some tax cut, it goes to the 
special interests? And if my colleagues need further verification of 
the fact that Social Security and Medicare are being plucked clean in 
order to provide tax breaks for the special interests, examine the 
phony ``trigger'' mechanism in this bill. It will supposedly cut off, 
in certain circumstances, some of the future tax relief provided by 
this bill. But the ``trigger'' does not apply to the chicken manure 
producers; it only applies to the section of the bill addressing tax 
cuts for individuals. Special interests get the special treatment; 
individual taxpayers get left out.
  This is wrong. Do not pluck Social Security and Medicare clean to 
help the chicken manure producers and most every other special interest 
which has a lobbyist and a political action committee.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to respond to a couple of things.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that what we are proposing to 
send back to the American people, $792 billion, the President's budget 
proposes to spend, not on chickens and not on manure and not on 
Medicare but on 80-some new Federal programs.
  The question is do we give it back to the American people or does 
Washington spend it with new bureaucracies?
  Having said that, I would also like to finish Mr. Greenspan's quote. 
He has been quoted here as saying that his first priority would be to 
let the surpluses run. He then went on to say this. ``As I have said 
before, my second priority is, if you find that as a consequence of 
those surpluses they tend to be spent, then I would be more in the camp 
of cutting taxes, because the least desirable is using those surpluses 
for expending outlays.''
  Read the President's budget. He wants to spend that money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying bill providing tax relief for working Americans.
  For years, I, as a private citizen, saw the politicians in Washington 
not only spending all of the money that comes in, in terms of the 
Federal withholding, but as well spending the Social Security surplus, 
and additionally then spending even more than that. And as we all know, 
we ran huge deficits.
  All the years that I was working in my medical practice in Florida, I 
kept seeing the reports coming back from Washington, $100 billion, $200 
billion, $300 billion of red ink. Now, I have been in this Congress for 
5 years, and I have been very proud to be part of turning things 
around. We have been able to successfully stop the business of spending 
more money than what comes in every year and have been able to produce 
balanced books for the first time in 25 years.
  And then we were finally able this year to do something that I have 
been asking for and fighting for since the day I arrived, which is to 
set the Social Security funds aside and to not spend those monies as 
has been done year after year. Unfortunately, our Social Security 
lockbox is still being played with by the minority in the other body, 
but, hopefully, we will ultimately get that enacted into law.
  And, yes, we are beginning the process today of taking some of the 
money and saying, no, we do not want to keep it in this city but we 
want to return it back to working Americans. Because, after all, it is 
their money.
  And what are some of the things we have in this bill? Well, tuition 
tax credits, so that it will be easier for parents to send their kids 
to college. We have adoption tax credits for special needs kids. In my 
State in Florida and every State of this country, there are kids with 
special needs sitting in the social systems waiting to be adopted.

                              {time}  1100

  We also have a provision in this bill that would make it possible for 
people to deduct the cost of having their elderly parents living in the 
home rather than sending them into nursing homes. And, yes, we have 
capital gains relief.
  I happen to believe that is the best thing to help perpetuate this 
robust economy and creating new jobs. Because when we cut capital 
gains, it is the best thing to cause people to invest money in the 
economy.
  And, yes, we have a reduction or an elimination of the death tax or 
the inheritance tax. In my district, it is causing the break-up of 
family farms, of orange groves, of cattle ranches. These things are 
being sold off for development or being sold off for agribusiness. And 
by doing this, we can allow it to stay in the family.
  This is a good tax bill, and everybody should be supporting it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) from the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask any of my Republican 
colleagues if they know how much they are really helping poor 
Americans? It is only the Republicans who can take a bill full of 
chicken manure and turn it into a turkey. As soon as the public finds 
out how to do that, we will solve the homeless-and-the-hungry problem.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  In 1998 when I ran for Congress, I promised the people of the 11th 
Congressional District that I would come to Washington to fight to save 
Social Security and Medicare, fight for the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
fight to improve educational opportunity, and fight to continue debt 
reduction.
  This is my first opportunity to debate a tax conference report. I 
would not fulfill my commitment to the people of my district if I did 
not stand in fervent opposition to this report.
  My father, a skycap for United Airlines for 40 years, always said, 
``Stephanie, never count your chickens before they hatch.''
  This conference report does just that. It spends a surplus we do not 
even have. Domestic priorities are crushed. The seniors in my district 
want to have a prescription provision in Medicare, not a tax cut. The 
children in my district want to and deserve to go to schools where the 
roofs are not leaking, the classes are smaller, where they can be 
linked to the Internet and prepare for the new millennium. They do not 
want a tax cut.
  The working men and women in my district want assurance of health 
care coverage, not a tax cut. They want an increase in minimum wage 
that will be fueled by economy that continues to grow wherein there is 
no tax cut. Veterans in my district want greater assistance, not a tax 
cut.
  The proponents of this bill suggest that this cut will put money in 
the pockets of American people. Working men and women will get no money 
in their pockets. They are not telling the people that. They are only 
telling the people that someone will get a tax cut, but they are not 
telling whom. What they are not telling the people is that the money 
will come at the expense of Social Security, Medicare, educational 
opportunities, health care, and that the 10 cents that is put in their 
pockets will never buy them health care, will never buy educational 
opportunities, will never give them a tuition credit.
  I urge my colleagues in this House to vote against this rule, to vote 
against this irresponsible tax cut, and to vote to protect the people 
of America.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who could not have 
made my case more clearly.
  She wants to spend money. The Democrats want to spend it on more 
government. We want to give it back to the American people. In their 
entire presentation, she had 10 or 15 new spending programs that she 
wants it used on. We want to give it to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule 
and also the tax relief bill because I am excited about the fact that 
we are doing

[[Page 20037]]

something responsible to help the American people.
  This bill is something that people have been waiting for for a long 
time, to be able to keep more of their money in their own pockets. And 
it really is possible to do that today through the surpluses that we 
are going to be looking at. Over the next 10 years, it is projected 
there will be $3.3 trillion in surpluses.
  Now, we are not going out on a limb and saying we are going to spend 
all of that this year. This is a very responsible bill. It is going to 
be phased in over a period of time. As the money becomes available, 
then it will be given back to the people.
  But the most important thing we need to remember is 75 cents out of 
every dollar in this surplus that we are going to be using, this $3.3 
trillion, is going to be going back into saving Social Security and 
preserving Medicare and improving education and our national defense. 
Only 25 cents of every dollar is going to be given back to the American 
people.
  Now, this 25 cents is income tax surplus they are going to be paying, 
money that is more than we need to run the government. So why should it 
stay here in Washington and be spent? Why should it not go back to the 
people? They deserve to have that money to use.
  This tax bill is going to provide some marriage penalty relief in the 
form of people who are married to be able to deduct twice as much money 
as the individual is so they can be treated fairly and we do not 
penalize marriage anymore.
  We are going to be putting money into extending the research and 
development tax credits. That also spurs the economy. It develops new 
technologies. It provides capital for our businesses in this country. 
That also helps to provide new jobs for people, which, of course, we 
are always interested in doing.
  The death tax repeal is something that is crucial. I hear all the 
time in my district, I am really concerned about how I can leave the 
farm or how I can leave my small business to my kids because everything 
is going to be eaten up in taxes.
  It is like we penalize people. The American way is to do well for 
ourselves, save, try to put a little away for our kids, for the future. 
And then we come along and say, Oh, no, they have got to pay it to 
Uncle Sam so they can die.
  The same with capital gains relief. We are going to provide capital 
gains relief again for the second time. This also spurs the economy and 
it helps middle-class Americans. It is not the rich that it helps. It 
helps all of us when we sell our homes and to be able to save some of 
that money.
  The same with education savings accounts. It helps us send our kids 
to school and college and put that money away tax free.
  So these are good things that the people at home have been asking 
for. I am proud to stand here today and support the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I constantly hear from the other side that unless we 
give the surplus away in tax breaks, the rich right now, the 
politicians, will spend it.
  Well, is the gentleman so afraid of his own party? Has the gentleman 
forgotten that the Republicans control this House, they control the 
Senate, and no money can be drawn except through the appropriations 
process, which they also control?
  I would think they should have more confidence in their party and 
know that they could use the money well here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this rule and, obviously, 
object to the entire Republican risky bill. It is risky because the 
Republicans who are putting forth this program are endangering our 
families, our businesses, and our seniors.
  This scenario that they are going to have $3 trillion in 10 years is 
by no means assured by anyone. Two-thirds of that is entirely Social 
Security monies that should go to protect Social Security.
  Nothing in the Republican plan extends Social Security for even one 
day. Nothing in their plan even addresses Medicare's needs, in 
particular, prescription drug needs.
  The only way they would get the other third to be able to put for any 
tax breaks at all is if they design to cut education, cut veterans' 
needs, cut research and development, cut a myriad of other programs 
that Americans depend on every day. That is the only way they get the 
kind of surplus they are talking about. And already they have shown 
that they have no intention of doing that.
  It is going to be the Ronald Reagan plan again, borrow and spend, 
borrow and spend until we have trillions of dollars in debt to pay off. 
And after they have put all of this at risk, who are they putting it at 
risk for? The wealthy.
  One of the gentlemen from the other side said that we object to 
certain tax breaks and listed off things that he did not find 
objectionable if they are put in at the right time and if they are in 
fact the tax breaks that people are getting.
  What we object to is the $80 billion of corporate welfare, including 
by now the well-known chicken manure credit, but also breaks for three-
martini lunches.
  As the Washington Post said, the details in this tax ban highlight 
the Republican predilection for constant breaks for multinational 
corporations, real estate ventures, and other special interests.
  They spend nearly a tenth of their breaks to favorite corporate 
America. $24 billion over 10 years would benefit multinational 
corporations. It is a break for foreign oil and gas income that would 
cost the Treasury more than $4 billion.
  This is in fact a plan, as the President rightly said, that is risky 
and plainly wrong. Even Mr. Greenspan says that this is not appropriate 
in timing and in substance on this particular deal. They are going to 
raise interest rates over the roof. The American businesses and 
families, when they pay their mortgages, are going to suffer.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, reversed the President's 1993 budget to 
bring us the surpluses.
  If we will recall, by 2001 and 2002, the President's 1993 budget 
agreement predicted a $300 billion and $400 billion annual deficit. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has turned that around.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I think we should not miss the big picture 
in this debate. The debate in America today is about where power ought 
to be. Should power lie with the government and with big institutions 
in this society; or, conversely, should we attempt to strengthen the 
individual in America, the family in America, and the community in 
America.
  That is the debate here today. The single biggest manifestation of 
empowering individuals and families in America is to give them a tax 
cut. Well, we ought to also give them school choice and individual 
retirement accounts, the opportunity to have more control of health 
care.
  But fundamentally, the single greatest manifestation of the transfer 
of power and the building of the individual is when the individual has 
more money in their pocket and that individual could then share it with 
those in their communities or with their family members.
  The fact is the next model is not about running America from the top 
down with big bureaucracies, whether it is big government or big 
business or big labor or big media, trying to tell us how to live our 
lives.
  The model that I believe we ought to operate with into the 21st 
century is

[[Page 20038]]

the fact that power should flow from our families and our communities 
and from the individuals who make up those families. They ought to be 
strengthened in America. Because once they are strengthened, then they 
must assume responsibility.
  But in America today, we are all worried about Littleton, we are all 
worried about being islands unto ourselves, we are all worried about 
the fact that we tend to have to go it alone today in America.
  We must break that model. We have got to recover what has made this 
country so great, and that is a virtue system that says to individual 
Americans that they have a responsibility not just to themselves and 
not just to their families but to people who live in their 
neighborhoods. Because we are all connected.
  The reason why we must transfer power to people is because with that 
power and with that freedom comes a set of responsibilities. The fact 
is that if they can have more money in their pockets as a family, then 
they can assume more responsibility for those around them.
  Maybe we can begin to end the frustration and the cynicism that so 
many Americans have today. Because the choice in the 21st century is 
really are we going to eat the last piece of pizza or are we going to 
look out for those who live near us and around us and those who are in 
our families.
  My colleagues, do not mix the issue here. Power is a zero-sum gain. 
If government has more, the individual has less. If government has 
more, the individual will be frustrated, more cynical, more road-
blocked.
  What we need to do is to set Americans free, more freedom, more 
power, more responsibility to connect ourselves again to one another, 
to connect our hearts and our souls together so we can shine up America 
and restore its vigor.
  Support the tax bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just had the opportunity to 
visit with a number of seniors who are visiting the United States 
Congress today. I came back to the floor because I thought this was an 
important debate on their behalf. And even as I listened to my good 
friend who chaired the Committee on the Budget talk about power and its 
distribution, I was disappointed that he did not give us the facts 
about a tax bill that I plan to enthusiastically oppose.

                              {time}  1115

  The corporate welfare in this package is enormous. The power is being 
transferred from the people who work for a living to the large 
corporations who take their money for a living.
  One lobbyist was quoted as stating, ``We got the sun, the moon and 
the stars in this tax bill.'' Another lobbyist was joking and said, 
``We've been trying to get these cuts since the beginning of dawn.''
  It made me reflect upon who really is in charge in this country. If I 
have to cast my lot anywhere in the United States, it will be with the 
working people, the senior citizens who understood what the Depression 
was all about, understood what making ends meet is all about, and they 
realize that when this tax bill is passed, the mortgage rates on their 
children will go up $100, the interest rates will go up $100, the 
ability to secure a loan, to do things like send their children to 
school and college and remodel their home will be enormous. They 
understand in 1981 when the Reagan tax cut came in, there was nothing 
but devastating financial days. We in Houston, Texas collapsed, 
bankruptcies were at their highest amount, homes were foreclosed on.
  I beg my colleagues on the Republican side, stand with the working 
men and women, the senior citizens who understand, the people who want 
to educate their children, good health care, good environment. This is 
not taking your money. This is bringing down the deficit. This is 
bringing down the debt. This is what Chairman Greenspan said. Let the 
surplus increase so that when you move into the 21st century, you will 
be able to have a quality of life. Save Social Security and Medicare. 
Let me tell my colleagues where the power is. It is not with the 
working people of America. It is with the power-hungry people of 
America, and I am going to vote against this tax bill.
  Mr. LINDER. At the risk of sounding remedial, Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to point out to the gentlewoman from Texas that there were more 
bankruptcies last year than any other year in history.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time for 
my friend from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and myself?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 9\1/4\ minutes and the gentleman from Georgia has 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson explained to his Treasury 
Secretary, and I quote, ``I consider the fortunes of our republic as 
depending in an eminent degree on the extinguishment of the public 
debt.'' He later explained to that same Secretary of the Treasury that 
retiring the national debt would be his highest priority.
  The Democratic proposal puts more money into debt reduction and debt 
relief than the Republicans do. Why is that important for us? They have 
a $1 trillion tax cut, we have a targeted $250 billion tax cut, but we 
put more emphasis on Social Security and debt relief. Why? Because if 
you are a small farmer in Indiana and you are trying to buy a $150,000 
combine, that debt reduction can save you $10,000, for all farmers, not 
just for the wealthy. We also target the small businesses who are 
trying to buy and update the technology and capital equipment. That 
debt reduction that we put more money into helps them with tens of 
thousands of dollars in reductions for million-dollar capital 
equipment. We have targeted estate tax relief in our New Democrat 
proposal, targeted at small businesses and small farmers and American 
families that have someone sick with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's 
disease.
  This is not a question of whether Democrats support tax cuts or not. 
We do. But we pay for them. According to one economic analysis, some 50 
percent of the tax cuts would benefit, in the Republican plan, those 
earning $300,000 or more. How many of you watching today are in that 
category in America?
  We have two choices: A Republican plan on prayed-for projections that 
answers the plans of the wealthy and the prayers of the wealthy. We 
have a Democratic plan that gives a tax cut and debt relief to every 
single American. The choice is easy.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, again at the risk of sounding remedial, I 
would like to point out that our budget reduces the debt $200 billion 
more than the Clinton-Gore budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I support tax cuts, but I also 
support fiscal responsibility. This bill only does the former. We will 
hear and have heard ad nauseam from the opposition about how this bill 
protects Social Security and reduces the debt. I guess if you say 
something often enough, you figure you will make it true, the facts be 
damned.
  This bill cuts taxes by nearly $1 trillion, period. It does not do 
anything to protect Social Security. And it does not do anything for 
debt reduction. All it is is a $1 trillion tax cut over 10 years.
  Let us look at those numbers that they use to assume how they are 
going to cover all of these promises that they have made. We hear of a 
$3 trillion surplus over 10 years. Right off the top, $2 trillion of 
that is in the Social Security surplus. Then we hear that the folks on 
the majority side are kindly setting aside this $2 trillion for Social 
Security. They do not have to. It is already there. It is in the Social 
Security trust fund. Furthermore, that $2 trillion regrettably does not 
do anything

[[Page 20039]]

to help us with the coming shortfalls in Social Security. That is the 
current system. That is not doing anything for Social Security. That is 
just covering the existing debts. It does not do anything to help with 
the coming problem.
  So to say that you are setting that $2 trillion aside for Social 
Security is meaningless. Yet that is what we continue to hear. So we 
are left with $1 trillion. Well, that is all gone in tax cuts. Where is 
the debt reduction?
  We hear from them that they have all this debt reduction, which is 
not in the bill and the numbers are clear: $3 trillion over 10 years, 
$2 trillion is gone for Social Security, $1 trillion is left and it is 
done in tax cuts. Yet we hear this constant rhetoric, we are doing all 
of these things, debt reduction, Social Security, occasionally they 
throw in Medicare. It does not add up. It is overpromising. It is based 
on projections, furthermore. And those projections include two key 
projections: One, it already locks in 20 percent cuts in existing 
spending over those 10 years to get to that number. We have not even 
begun to do those cuts. In fact we just declared the census an 
emergency yesterday to get around them this year, much less 10 years 
from now. Furthermore, these projections count on continued growth, no 
recession. So if any of this does not come to pass, we do not even have 
that $1 trillion that is already to be done in tax cuts.
  Lastly, we hear that this is all about giving money back to the 
people and letting them make their decisions. Medicare and Social 
Security are two things the government does. Should we get rid of those 
programs to give the money back? Some programs need to be funded. The 
government does need to do some things.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the chart to my right compares the 
Republican tax cut plan with the tax cut plan of the Democrats. It is 
really very simple. We take the $1 trillion general operating budget 
surplus and we apply it to some very legitimate problems that we are 
facing in the Federal Government. We apply 25 percent to tax cuts, we 
apply 25 percent to save Social Security and Medicare, we apply 50 
percent to debt reduction. Under the Republican plan, all of it is 
devoted to tax cuts.
  This is a very risky plan for us to follow. First of all, the 
Republican tax cuts are aimed at Wall Street, not at Main Street where 
our plan aims them. Secondly, we save Social Security and Medicare by 
applying 25 percent of the on-budget surplus to those purposes. The 
Republicans like to claim that they have saved Social Security in their 
plan. Well, frankly, we have already done what they say they are doing 
in their tax cut. We have lock-boxed Social Security, we all voted for 
it, Democrats and Republicans. We have taken care of that and it is 
important that we do that.
  Finally, we apply 50 percent of the on-budget surplus to debt 
reduction. After 29 years of running up $5.5 trillion in national debt, 
do you not think that we could at least wait 1 year until we have a 
true on-budget surplus? Apparently the Republicans do not think so. 
Democrats do. We think we ought to lock-box 25 percent for tax cuts, 
lock-box 25 percent to save Social Security and Medicare, and let us 
lock-box 50 percent of the on-budget surplus to reduce the national 
debt so we will not be passing that on to our children and 
grandchildren. That is what makes sense for American families. That is 
what makes sense for America.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman will be as enthusiastic 
in convincing the Democrats in the other body about the lockboxes as he 
is in this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  In looking at the figures that the previous speaker had up, holding 
25 percent of the surplus out to save Social Security, 25 percent for 
Medicare, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, that 
interests me greatly because I want to know where the Democrat plan is. 
I want to know where that 25 percent figure came from. I think that 
could be very, very interesting.
  But there is another thing that I want to know for those who have 
spoken before and those to come later. What is it that you do not like 
about eliminating the limitation on the deduction for the interest on 
student loans? What is it that you do not like about eliminating and 
phasing out the death tax where you have to see the undertaker and the 
Internal Revenue Service on the same day? What is it you do not like 
about an across-the-board tax deduction for all American taxpayers? 
What is it you do not like about reducing the cap on capital gains? 
What is it about the marriage penalty that you like that you want to 
hold on to? Why not eliminate it? Why not join with the Republicans? 
What is it you do not like about deducting health insurance costs? What 
is it you do not like about increasing the amount you can put into 
educational savings accounts? Last of all, what is it you do not like 
about getting a deduction for taking care of your elderly parents?
  This bill has been drafted very, very carefully. This bill is a 
wonderful bill. This bill just uses a small portion of the surplus and 
leaves plenty, believe me, plenty. By the passage of the Archer-Shaw 
Social Security plan, Members will see that we are going to save Social 
Security and they will also see that we are going to get many Democrats 
that are going to join with us. This is the plan that we have and we 
are going to do it. We are also going to reduce the accumulated debt 
that is going to pester our descendants so much unless we do something 
about it.
  Let us get together. Let us in a bipartisan way do these things that 
the American people want us to do. Let us pass this rule and pass this 
very fair and very good tax plan.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise to oppose this rule and the bill that underlies the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, like the instinctive march of lemmings over a cliff, it 
is instinctive for the Republican leadership to give huge tax breaks to 
the richest individuals and special interests. In their bill, the 1 
million wealthiest families whose income is greater than $300,000 per 
year will get about $1,000 a week of tax breaks. But for the 120 
million American families whose income is under $125,000 a year, and 
that, by the way, includes everybody virtually whose income is under 
that of Members of the Congress, for those 120 million families, they 
are going to get enough to buy a cup or two of coffee a week, so that 
they can stay awake while they are working their double jobs. That is 
not the tax relief that the middle class needs and deserves. But they 
simply cannot help themselves. It is in their genes. It is their 
genetic defect. They deliberately, deliberately crafted a bill that 
makes the richest 1 percent of Americans a very great deal richer, a 
bill that gives away the projected surplus, not one dime of which has 
yet been produced. But they give away that projected surplus in order 
to produce that kind of tax break, distribution of tax breaks. They 
deliberately have not extended the life of Social Security by so much 
as a single day so that in the year 2030 when they open the lockbox, 
which all of us have voted for, they are going to find that the lockbox 
is empty.

                              {time}  1130

  They have deliberately left not a single dollar to extend the life of 
Medicare, which provides healthcare for all of our senior citizens and 
our disabled citizens, so in the year 2014, Medicare is going to be 
bankrupt too.
  This plan is not just risky, it is reckless. This bill should be 
rejected.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman

[[Page 20040]]

from California (Mr. Dreier), the Chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. It is really 
sad to listen to the tried, age-old, and failed argument of class 
warfare. The previous speaker was just once again getting into that 
``us'' versus ``them'' argument. The fact of the matter is we are all 
in this together, and I think that we need to recognize that, yes, 
there are some people in this country who have been successful.
  One of the greatest things about this Nation is that we provide 
opportunity. We provide opportunity for people to succeed, and we also 
in this country have an opportunity that some people are not all that 
successful. But I find that virtually everyone wants to have the 
opportunity to succeed, and that is what this tax bill is all about. We 
want to make sure that we maintain the kind of economic growth and 
expansion which this Nation has seen for the past several years.
  We have today the highest tax rate in 50 years. The American people 
are paying more in taxes than they have in 50 years. We have been able 
to see the great benefits of surpluses that have been building, and 
what we are saying is that to maintain economic growth, we think it is 
important for people to be able to keep some of their own hard-earned 
dollars.
  Guess what? That, in fact, is what we are going to do, and I hope 
very much that the President of the United States sees the way, as he 
has on the Y2K bill, welfare reform, on the National Ballistic Missile 
Defense bill, on the Education Flexibility Act, to come around to what 
is the right position, and that is to sign the bill.
  I know that there are public opinion polls out there that are saying, 
gosh, we do not overwhelmingly, as the American people, support a tax 
cut. But we are proceeding with it. Why? It may not right now be the 
single most popular thing, but we know it is the right thing to do. 
That is why we are stepping up to the plate and doing just that.
  As we look at the fact that 100 million-plus Americans are investing 
in the market, they are people who are often called ``rich'' by our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, but they consist of people who 
have maybe a few thousand dollars they are investing. What is it we are 
doing? We are going to allow them to keep more of that so they can 
choose to save or invest it by reducing that top rate on capital gains 
from 20 percent to 18 percent, and the very important provision in 2003 
which allows us to see indexation of capital gains.
  Then, extending for 5 years the research and development tax credit, 
that is very, very important. Forty-five percent of our Nation's gross 
domestic product growth in the past 4 years has come in the high-tech 
industry. Not only have hundreds of thousands of jobs been created by 
those investors, by new technologies, but we have also dramatically 
improved the quality of life for people here in the United States and 
around the world. We must do everything that we can to continue that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this rule and to support a very, very good bill, and then, Mr. 
President, please sign it.
  Mr. LINDER. 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 previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 203, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 377]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)

[[Page 20041]]


     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Rodriguez

                              {time}  1154

  Mr. MOORE and Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 274, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2488) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to sections 105 and 211 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Pursuant to House Resolution 
274, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, August 4, 1999, at page H7027.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous matter on the conference report on H.R. 2488.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report keeps our commitment to protect 
the taxpayers and not the tax takers. This Congress has already secured 
social security, Medicare, paying down the debt. Now we are ready to 
provide real tax relief.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, the American workers have known for a long time that 
they are caught in a tax trap. The harder they work, the longer they 
work, the more they pay; and that is not right.
  It is their hard work and success that has provided the resources to 
give Washington a windfall surplus. That is an amount over and above 
what the government needs to operate. The amount is projected in the 
next 10 years to be $3.3 trillion.
  The question is, Mr. Speaker, what do we do with that surplus? 
Republicans said strengthening Social Security and Medicare should 
happen first. We have already done that with the lockbox to ensure that 
every penny that goes into Social Security and Medicare cannot be spent 
on any other government programs. We have set aside 100 percent of the 
Social Security and Medicare surplus to be used only for Social 
Security and Medicare.
  The Archer-Shaw Social Security plan available and publicized in 
detail has been certified by the Social Security Administration to save 
Social Security for all time at a cost of only half of that set-aside 
surplus. So there is plenty of money still there for Medicare.
  Out of the surplus, surely we should be able to leave in the pockets 
of the people who have earned it and provided it one-quarter of the 
surplus. Twenty-five cents out of every dollar should be left in their 
pockets. In the meantime, we are paying down the Federal debt.
  As has been mentioned earlier, the Congressional Budget Office 
nonpartisan body has said that the Republican budget pays off $200 
billion more of the debt than the President's budget. The Democrats' 
statements that have been made over and over again are just flat wrong, 
and they know it. But it serves their political purposes to continue to 
state it over and over again because it employs fear. They know fear is 
a very, very powerful motivation with many Americans.
  They have put every hurdle in the way of tax relief ever since we 
came into the majority in 1995. They revelled in their largest tax 
increase in the history of the United States which they passed on a 
straight party-line vote in 1993. They fight ferociously to keep money 
in Washington.
  It expresses, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the genuine difference between 
our parties, generally held, that the Democrats believe Washington 
knows how to spend the people's money better than the people do 
themselves.
  The President said this in Buffalo, New York, the day after his State 
of the Union Address when he said, ``We have a surplus. What should we 
do with it? We might be able to give some of it back to you, but then 
who would know that you would spend it right.''
  So the Democrats say keep it in Washington, and we will spend it. We 
know better than the people who have earned it. We disagree. We do not 
think it is Washington's money. We think it belongs to the people who 
earned it.
  After we have done all of these things, of saving Social Security, 
Medicare, paying down the debt, yes, we can use a part of the non-
Social Security surplus for tax relief. If we do not get that money out 
of Washington, politicians will most surely spend it. They always have.
  So I ask the President and my Democratic colleagues to reconsider 
their staunch opposition to this breath of relief to hard-pressed 
American families and individuals. Do not mock broad-based tax relief 
to every income taxpayer in this country, I say to my Democrat 
colleagues.
  Do not discourage marriage by blocking marriage penalty relief. Let 
us help people caring for elderly relatives at home. Do not stop that. 
Do not block health and long-term care insurance tax deductibility. Do 
not stand in the way of pension incentives that will help more men and 
women enjoy retirement security. Do not block education incentives to 
make college more affordable and to give parents the ability to save 
for their children's education beginning in kindergarten through high 
school and college.
  Now, many Democrats say they are for tax relief. In fact, some of 
them have cosponsored bills to end the marriage penalty. Some of them 
have cosponsored bills to end the punitive death penalty tax. Some have 
cosponsored bills to help the pension provisions that are in this bill 
and to expand IRAs.
  I would say to my Democrat colleagues, now is their chance. Do not 
follow the political path of fear that has been put in their hands by 
their leaders and which has been articulated over and over again in 
this debate. Stand with married couples rather than more Washington 
spending. Stand with the family farms and businesses, and defend the 
death tax instead of more Washington spending.
  In summary, help us protect the taxpayer, not big government and more 
spending. Because, Mr. Speaker, what this debate is really all about is 
downsizing the power of Washington and upsizing the power of people.
  This is a great bill. I urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was really moved by the chairman's speech, almost to 
the extent that I would think that he would think this is on the level 
here. The theme of this is let us get this money out of Washington 
before the politicians in Washington spend the taxpayers' money. This 
is like the theme, ``Stop me before I kill again.''
  Mr. Speaker, at the last count, even though it is dwindling, the 
Republicans are in charge. We cannot stop them. They may kill again. We 
watch them every day. So we know they are out of control. But do not 
just say spend the money. Send the money back that they have not got.

[[Page 20042]]

  Now, first of all, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) said, 
when the Republicans came into office, they had great ideas. They have 
been in office and the leadership for 5\1/2\ years attempting to pull 
the tax code up by the roots. Now, the last we saw of the tax code, we 
cannot get a truck to bring that bill over from the Senate over to the 
Committee on Rules. It is loaded with fertilizer. So what are they 
pulling up by the roots?
  This is something that they really should not want to go home and 
campaign on, except if they know it is not on the level, and except if 
they know it is going to be vetoed, and except if they know that, after 
they finish all this work, they are not going to take it to the 
President.
  Why would they not put this bill on the President's desk until after 
Labor Day? Answer: it is not a bill. It is a piece of campaign 
literature. It is a lobbyist's wish list. It is Christmas in July, and 
the President is supposed to be the scrooge and veto it and deny the 
Republican contributors the things that they wanted to give them.
  Give us a break. If my colleagues really wanted a tax bill, they 
would have found at least one Democrat in the House they could have 
trusted, one Democrat in the Senate that they could have trusted. They 
could have brought in the administration for a trillion dollars.
  It is not a Republican thing; it is something that we should work 
with in a bipartisan way. So I am suggesting that my colleagues have 
taken one big political crapshoot in what they have done, and it is my 
belief that they are going to pay for this with their campaign bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, improving retirement security is one of the top 
priorities that Congress has this year. Just improving the retirement 
security by fixing Social Security will not do it.
  In this legislation, fortunately, we have 15 provisions from H.R. 
1102, which is the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform 
Act that was reported out of our committee in a bipartisan fashion. 
These reforms will directly improve the retirement security of millions 
of American workers, particularly low and middle-income American 
workers.
  So I am very pleased that the 60 Republicans and 60 Democrats that 
cosigned this legislation for pension reform finds that it is part of 
this very important piece of legislation that we are going to enact 
today.
  I would hope that the President looks thoroughly at the entire bill 
and understands that there is an awful lot here that will help families 
in the future to save and to have a decent retirement in their golden 
years.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if one looks at this conference report 
and one supports it, one is going back to the days of large deficits 
for our country. That is why the Democrats want an economic program 
that will continue our economic prosperity into the future.
  We think, and I think the American public will agree, that the 
approval of this conference report is reckless, and it is an 
unreasonable risk for our future.
  Let me explain why. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, explains that we are 
projecting a $3 trillion, projecting a $3 trillion surplus over the 
next 10 years. Now two-thirds of that, approximately $2 trillion is 
generated because of Social Security. Now we have all agreed we should 
not touch that money. We cannot use that. We have got to protect it for 
Social Security, and I agree.
  But that gives us a $1 trillion surplus to work with. We have not 
gotten one dime of it yet. Yet this conference report would spend just 
about all of that projected surplus. Not a dime would be available for 
Medicare. No money would be available for the programs that already are 
being spent by calling them emergency spending.
  That is why we believe this is reckless and wrong. We think 
priorities should be set. The surplus should first be used to preserve 
Social Security and Medicare. Then we should pay down the debt.
  The conference report is estimated to provide the average family in 
this Nation 10 years from now when it is fully implemented a little 
over $200 a year in tax relief. But, yet, what the proponents are not 
telling us, is that because of the recklessness of the bill, interest 
rates were likely to go up, and we are going to take away more in 
increased interest costs to the average taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the conference report.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do find it rather curious that this line 
of argument now comes from the Democrats. In fact, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who just spoke, voted for the 1997 tax bill, 
which clearly we were in a much more serious budget situation.
  I think perhaps the situational ethics, that the politics of the 
situation dictates their rhetoric, their concern about our trying to 
put a budget together for 10 years and how reckless that is.
  Let me go back to January 19 when the President was in this Chamber 
and said, ``Now we are on course for budget surpluses for the next 25 
years.'' No concern from them about looking a decade and a half beyond 
where we are.
  The President went on to say that he is going to dedicate 60 percent 
of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security. How 
reckless is that? We do not know what the next 15 years is going to 
look like. Republicans put 100 percent away.

                              {time}  1215

  We have a plan that will save Social Security forever. The President 
goes on to talk about Medicare. He has a program to ensure it for the 
next 15 years. We have a program that does better than that.
  The Democrats are now the party of ``I can't.'' Republicans are ``we 
can.'' We can do this.
  Something else is interesting. The last time the Democrats were in 
the majority, they passed a tax bill that the low rate was 15 and the 
high rate for the rich folks they are talking about was 28 percent. 
This bill lowers that bracket on the lower end to 14 and it is 38 
percent for the rich people.
  When we listen to them, they are arguing politics, not policy.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report.
  I rise in opposition to the conference agreement on H.R. 2488, the 
Financial Freedom Act.
  This bill is the Republican's risky scheme for how they want to help 
the rich. The majority knows that their only bread and butter issue is 
tax cuts, whether or not the American people ask for them, whether 
there is a budget surplus or a deficit, and whether other important tax 
cuts instead or priorities get squeezed out, such as protecting Social 
Security, saving Medicare, strengthening education, and paying down the 
national debt.
  The American people won't be fooled. This bill provides very little 
for the average working family. The bottom sixty percent of Americans 
by income will only see about 8% of the tax cuts in this bill. 
Approximately $10 a month. Whereas, the top 10% of Americans will 
receive almost 70% of the benefits under this bill.
  Plain and simple, this bill is one big tax cut for those who need it 
the least.
  I would also like to mention that there are a number of pension 
provisions included in this bill, some of which are good policy and 
some

[[Page 20043]]

which are not. Overall, however, this bill does little to significantly 
improve the retirement security of working Americans. Our current 
pension and tax system already favors the well-off. Over 80% of 
individuals earning over $75,000 a year have tax deferred pension 
income whereas only 8% of those earning under $10,000 and 27% earning 
between $10,000 and $15,000 have pension coverage.
  I oppose this irresponsible raid on our Federal budget to benefit the 
wealthy and special interest at the expense of the average working 
family.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons to 
oppose this tax bill it is hard to know where to start.
  I have spoken on the floor about the need to save the surplus for 
Social Security and Medicare. I have spoken about their importance as 
the premier government programs that keep millions of elderly Americans 
out of poverty. I have discussed the importance of deficit reduction 
and the need to maintain on-budget surpluses in the face of unrealistic 
budget assumptions.
  Every day that goes by, it is more and more clear just how 
unrealistic these budget assumptions currently are. If we hold this 
bill until September, it will be as clear as a pie in the face.
  The Washington Post this morning has a long article about how 
Republicans have already spent the on-budget surplus for next year. If 
we cannot maintain discipline for 1 year, how on earth will we 
guarantee that surplus for the next 10 years. We cannot.
  The Democratic approach here is entirely reasonable. We want to go 
slow. Let us not repeat the errors of the last 18 years and pass a 
massive tax bill. Let us be for modest, reasonable tax cuts that become 
clear when the budget surplus really arrives.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), another member of the conference committee.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this historic 
tax cut, one that will protect Social Security and Medicare and still 
put some $800 billion back in the pockets of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, while others dwell on the past, Americans look to the 
future. We strive, we dream, and we sacrifice so that we and our 
children can have a better future. Our work, our dreams, and our 
sacrifices have more to do with realizing that than any program that is 
hatched here in Washington.
  That is what this tax bill is really all about, letting the American 
people keep more of what they earn so that they can make the plans and 
do the work that will lead to a better future for them and their 
children. That is why we are lowering marginal tax rates, cutting the 
capital gains rate, fixing the marriage penalty, and increasing 
deductibility for retirement savings and health care. It is so our 
constituents can have the future that they deserve.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for working 
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and myself to 
include important pension reforms introduced in the House by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  These reforms will directly improve the retirement security of 
American workers by expanding small business retirement plans, allowing 
workers to save more, making pensions more secure, and cutting the red 
tape that has hamstrung employers who want to establish pension plans 
for their employees. They are important, bipartisan proposals and they 
will benefit every American worker who is trying to save for 
retirement.
  But I also want to commend him for the much larger package. It 
returns money that our constituents have earned and that Washington 
hasn't. That's why we owe it to our constituents to vote for the 
conference report.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the committee and my colleague from New 
York.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear a lot of speeches today, and a lot of them 
are going to sound the same. Mine will be different in one minor 
respect. I am not going to attack the other side of the aisle. I am 
just going to ask what I think is a very salient question. Do we not 
learn anything from history?
  In the 1980s, the leaders of this country, in a bipartisan fashion, 
decided to attack the national budget deficits. A Republican president 
proposed and this Democratic House of Representatives adopted a plan 
which called for a massive tax cut. It was bipartisan. So if there is 
any blame to go around, there is plenty for everyone.
  But I hearken back to the words of President Harry Truman. Let us 
look at the record. What happened when we did that? We had the largest 
budget deficits in the history of the United States of America. In the 
ensuing 12 years we quadrupled the national debt. All of the debt 
accumulated in this country from George Washington to Jimmy Carter was 
quadrupled in a period of 12 years.
  So I do not attack the other side today. I just make a very simple 
plea. Let us not make the same mistake. Let us not do it all over 
again. Let us pay down the national debt and stop stealing our 
children's money.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend 
from New York, his comment on the 1980s, during the Reagan 
administration, regarding the tax cut. I would like to state the facts 
during that time. During that time, the tax rates were cut in half and 
revenues during the 1980s actually doubled. But the then Democrat 
Congress tripled the spending, so we ended up spending more.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer Refund and 
Relief Act. The time has come to allow hard-working Americans to keep 
more of their money. Mr. Speaker, our plan sets aside three-fourths of 
the anticipated surplus, 75 cents out of every dollar for Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Now we must take the next step. The legislation before us today 
provides all taxpayers with broad-based tax relief by reducing tax 
rates for all income taxpayers, allows parents to save more for 
educational expenses, and phases out both the destructive marriage 
penalty and death tax.
  Mr. Speaker, let us side with hard-working Americans over Washington 
bureaucracy. I urge all my colleagues to support the Taxpayer Refund 
and Relief Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the truth squad needs to work overtime here. 
The chairman of the committee has said this bill secures Social 
Security and Medicare, and a subcommittee chairman said it saves Social 
Security forever. That is eternally untrue.
  Mr. SHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. No, I will finish, and then I will yield.
  Mr. SHAW. That is not true what the gentleman is saying.
  MR. LEVIN. It is.
  Mr. SHAW. The chairman did not say that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The time is controlled by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. It is untrue. The lockbox saves what is already coming in. 
It does nothing for the future.
  What the Republican bill does is take money from the future to apply 
it now. Medicare is in jeopardy. It will run out of money in 2015.
  The Republicans say give back some of the money. We Democrats are in 
lower interest rates. The Democratic program is also trying to save 
some money to assure Social Security and Medicare.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said his bill is a breath of 
relief. What it is in the future is a hurricane of red ink. The 
Republicans were wrong in 1981, they were wrong in 1993, and they are 
wrong today. Reject this reckless bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page 20044]]

Michigan (Mr. Camp), another respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the challenge here today is to listen and not to 
mischaracterize. We are talking about tax relief after we have set 
aside $2 trillion of our budget surplus for Social Security and 
Medicare. Locked it away. And by doing so, we begin to pay down our 
national debt.
  Today, the question is should we return what is left to the taxpayer 
or should it stay here and be spent on big government? This bill is tax 
relief for the American family. Close to 90 percent of the tax relief 
in this bill goes to families. The average American family pays double 
in taxes today what they paid in 1985, and that is just too much.
  Let me give my colleagues a few examples of how this bill helps 
families. This bill cuts taxes for every taxpayer. It provides tax 
relief from the marriage penalty, so couples do not have to pay higher 
taxes just because they are married. And we kill the death tax. We also 
increase the adoption credit for parents with special needs children. 
We give an extra personal exemption to families caring for an elderly 
relative in their home. And people can provide more for their 
retirements in this legislation by saving more in their IRAs and paying 
less in investment taxes.
  This legislation will help American families. Vote for the Tax Refund 
and Relief Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time and simply say this. I think the American people are ahead 
of the Congress on this. I think they know instinctively that we cannot 
have debt reduction, save Social Security, save Medicare, take 80 
percent of a projection over the next 10 years and cut taxes today. It 
is called a free lunch, a bridge in Brooklyn, or any way we want to 
paint it. The American people know we cannot do all that and they are 
ahead of us on that.
  The comment was made earlier in the debate about this, that if we 
keep the money, any of it, the bureaucrats will spend it. The last time 
I looked, a bureaucrat cannot spend any money unless we have 218 votes 
on that board. All my colleagues can well remember the government 
shutdown. Nobody here can spend money or authorize money but us. So 
what do my colleagues mean when they say if we keep the money the 
bureaucrats will spend it? That is patently untrue.
  The other thing I would like to do is quote one of the leaders of 
this tax bill today regarding a comment made in 1996. ``It is about our 
Nation's debt. Our debt stands at over $4.9 trillion then, now it is 
$5.6 and growing. For a family of four, their share is $72,000, 
increasing each week by $89, each month by $383, and each year by 
$4,594. Sometime, some day, someone has to pay that debt, and that 
someone is today's younger workers, their children and their children's 
children.''
  Now, I asked in a motion to recommit last week just to take half of 
this projected $1 trillion on-budget surplus and give it to the 
children. That was rejected. So when we say give it to the people, are 
kids, nonadults, are they not people too? They are the ones that have 
to pay this, not us.
  Everybody within the sound of my voice under 35 years old ought to 
insist that we take at least half of it and split it with them. It is 
the honorable thing to do.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), another respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means. We have tremendous talent on our committee.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  It is interesting that today we hear lots of slogans on the other 
side but not one debate point on any provision of this bill. Think 
about it. They are not against any of the provisions. In fact, they 
cosponsored half the provisions in this bill.

                              {time}  1230

  But not one debate on any provision.
  Let us just bring up one, the farm accounts, that came back in the 
conference report that has not gotten much attention just yet.
  What that does, and I appreciate the assistance of the chairman in 
getting this into the conference report, what that says to farmers who 
are struggling right now is we want to be able to carry forward some 
income so that they can spread out the peaks and the valleys of what is 
happening in farm country right now.
  That combined with the death tax relief, the capital gains relief 
gives a real shot in the arm to American agriculture, who needs it 
right now.
  Now, I understand there are some quotes on the other side about what 
the leadership said. Let me remind my colleagues of a quote from the 
Democratic leadership: ``I think we will write off rural America.''
  Well, with their vote today they are writing off rural America. If 
they say no to death tax relief, if they say no to capital gains 
relief, if they say no to the farm accounts, they are saying to those 
farmers that are struggling right now that we can spend their money 
more wisely than they can.
  Well, go right ahead. Because, my colleagues, it is not our money. We 
have not even gotten the check yet from the American people, and they 
are already claiming it, saying what they do with it. Well, for the 
last 30 years they spent the Social Security surplus. We do not want 
them to spend this surplus.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has said it all, we have not 
gotten the check yet and he is putting out the tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we say 
``No'' to their chicken manure subsidy, and we say ``No'' to a bill 
that jeopardizes Social Security and Medicare in order to provide tax 
breaks to chicken manure producers and many other special interests in 
this country.
  This so-called $3 trillion surplus is nothing but a figment of a 
Republican political imagination. $2 trillion of this amount simply 
represents the money that hard-working Americans will be paying into 
Social Security, and that $2 trillion, as large as it sounds, is not 
enough to ensure Social Security will be there for future generations 
of Americans.
  Republicans do not provide one new dollar to help Social Security or 
to help Medicare in this bill. The other trillion dollars is funny 
money.
  The Republicans have already consumed all of this funny money, this 
projected surplus for next year with the bills that they have under 
consideration in this Congress. That $1 trillion is as unreliable as a 
10-year weather forecast.
  But what I really object to is plucking Social Security and Medicare 
clean in order to provide tax breaks for most every special interest 
with a PAC and a lobbyist. This is wrong. Reject this bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Dunn), another respected member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years, Americans on average, each 
American, will pay $5,300 to the Federal Government in income taxes, 
more than it costs to run the government. This is above and beyond the 
Social Security surplus which we save in a lockbox.
  This is a fair tax bill. This bill reverses the Clinton tax increase 
of 1993 by reducing income tax rates for every single person who pays 
them and by reducing taxes for lower-income Americans by expanding the 
15-percent bracket.
  It also will save married couples an average of $1,400 a year by 
doubling the standard deduction and keeping couples whose combined 
earnings are up to $5,100 in the 15-percent tax bracket.

[[Page 20045]]

  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it eliminates the death tax. This 
unfair tax has caused often tragic hardship for families who are trying 
to build a legacy to pass on to future generations. We should honor the 
values of the hard work, not tax them.
  I call upon the President to help us roll back the 1993 tax increase, 
which he himself admitted was too much. Join us, Mr. President. Let us 
do this bill together. Give something back to the American people. It 
is their money. Give it back.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, to answer the questions, we have not 
written off rural America. For some reason we quit remembering that we 
gave $275 billion in 1997. We gave capital gains. We gave death taxes. 
We did education. And we did the family tax relief. It is now time to 
pay down the debt.
  However, what I do not understand and what I am having a hard time 
today is we could have been having a debate where we would have been on 
the verge of fixing Social Security. We could have been strengthening 
Medicare. We could have possibly been providing a drug benefit. But if 
we were to pass this tax cut and if it was not vetoed, we would be able 
to do either of these.
  While I may disagree with the different Republican Social Security 
proposals, I applaud them for having the courage to suggest a 
politically difficult proposal. But today I now know more than ever 
that they just are not serious about finding a solution.
  The reality is that with this tax cut bill they have abandoned any 
hopes of enacting even their own ideas of how to solve Social Security.
  Here is why: the risky tax cut before us today will cost nearly $1 
trillion. The Republican Social Security plan requires roughly $1 
trillion to fund new private accounts. They will say they have done 
that. However, this is money already going into Social Security, not 
new money.
  Mr. Speaker, they can do both. The tax cut would use up nearly all of 
the $1 trillion in projected non-Social Security budget surpluses. Once 
this money flows out in tax cuts, once it has gone and spent, the only, 
and I repeat ``only'' surplus left are in the Social Security Trust 
Fund. The only way to fix Social Security, fix Medicare is by using the 
non-Social Security surplus.
  So today, my colleagues, the Republican leadership has made a choice. 
It is clear and simple. This is short-sighted and irresponsible.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), another respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, opportunity knocks only once, while temptation will beat 
the door down.
  In 1995, the President and I were at Warm Springs, Georgia, the 
Georgia home of F.D.R., friend of the little man.
  As the President and I were departing company that day, I looked at 
him and I told him, ``Mr. President, I want to leave you with one 
particular thought. That is, we must look after the little man. Because 
the big man can take care of himself. But every now and then, you have 
to give the big man just a little something so he will help the little 
man.''
  He was nodding his head in agreement. I said, ``Mr. President, that 
is our tax bill.''
  That was the 1995 tax bill. He vetoed that tax bill. He missed his 
opportunity, because that veto ended that tax bill.
  This tax bill today that we are dealing with targets American 
workers, American families, and American business, American business 
that provides the jobs for American workers and American families.
  I ask my colleagues to resist the temptation of a Clinton-Gore veto 
looking for another day. Do not miss the opportunity to give tax relief 
to the American worker and the American family and the American 
business.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  This is an irresponsible special-interest tax giveaway. It is a tax 
cut for the wealthiest corporations and Americans that is paid for by 
the middle class. It reflects the upside down values of this 
Republican-led Congress and does not reflect the values of American 
families. It is risky. It threatens our economic progress. And it does 
not pay down the national debt.
  Tax cuts are a priority for those that support middle-class families 
who need a tax break. If we take a look at this chart, the family that 
makes under $30,000 a year gets $278 in the tax break and the family 
that makes $837,000 a year gets a $46,000 tax break. Where is the 
equity in that?
  This plan jeopardizes Social Security and Medicare to pay for 
special-interest tax breaks. Corporations can write off a three-martini 
lunch. And there is even a tax credit for burning chicken manure. A 
chicken manure tax break.
  Where are our priorities, Mr. Speaker? Hundreds of millions of 
dollars to chicken manure farmers but chicken feed for the rest of us.
  Vote ``no'' on this conference report.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), another respected member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to 
rise in strong support of the taxpayer refund and relief act.
  Let me say, I have trouble believing some of the arguments I am 
hearing on the other side. Tax cuts for the wealthy, special-interest 
legislation. This is much-needed tax relief that provides tax relief 
for virtually every American household and in many ways and especially 
for the middle class.
  For example, it makes the dream of higher education more accessible 
for millions of students in the struggling middle class. This 
legislation makes college more affordable by extending tax breaks on 
student loans, by permitting private universities to offer tax-
deferred, prepaid tuition plans, and by exempting the earnings of all 
tuition plans from taxation.
  It also eliminates the 60-month limitation on student loan interest 
deductions. This is critical to college graduates struggling to pay off 
student loans as they begin their careers, and it extends the tax 
exclusion for employer-provided tuition assistance.
  This is important legislation to make education more affordable; yet 
we have heard the demagoguery on the other side.
  I hope that my colleagues are persuaded that this is legislation that 
provides middle-class tax relief where and when it is needed at a time 
when we are clearly running a surplus, yet setting aside the needed 
resources to put Social Security on a sound footing and save Medicare.
  We have done it. It is time for a tax break for the middle class.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote for a tax bill, but I cannot vote 
for this one. It is too risky. It is fiscally irresponsible. It does 
not help the families who really need tax relief. They will end up with 
less money in their pockets and pay higher interest rates.
  Our priority should be to retire the debt so we do not put America's 
economy at risk. Who does it help? The special interests, like foreign 
oil. Foreign oil and gas interests get a tax credit in this bill that 
will cost the American taxpayers more than $4 billion. That is right, 
$4 billion.
  A family of four earning $50,000 gets a $265 tax cut. That is just 
about $20 a month in their pockets.

[[Page 20046]]

  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a grab bag for special interests. I am for 
tax relief, but we need to do it right. Vote against this report. Go 
back to the conference table and produce a prudent measure that will 
put money in the pockets of working families, not foreign oil 
interests.
  Never mind we have spent two decades trying to reduce our dependency 
on foreign oil so we will never again experience those high prices and 
long gas lines at the pump like we did in the 1970s.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another respected member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for 
yielding me the time and for his leadership on the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Well, despite the pledge not to engage in name-calling, we have heard 
it again from my dear colleague from Missouri. We even heard claims 
about chicken manure from my friend from Connecticut and my other 
friend from Texas. It is interesting where the chicken manure really 
resides here on the floor of the Congress.
  I just think there is a simple fact we need to point out. The $3.3 
trillion in the surplus, for every one of those dollars, this is what 
we are prepared to do: take 75 cents of that dollar and lock it away to 
save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare and pay down the $5-
trillion debt hanging over the heads of our children. It leaves a 
quarter. Nothing risky, nothing irresponsible about giving the American 
people back their hard-earned money.
  For my friends on the left who fancy themselves champions of the 
working people, here is the challenge: join us with this bill. Because 
included in it is much needed tax relief for the inner cities, for 
Indian reservations, to inspire savings, to offer help for business 
start-ups, to help those families who feel the brunt of economic pain.
  I challenge my friends on the left to join with us, adopt the 
conference report, real tax relief.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means who, too, was excluded from the conference. I might add that all 
respected Democrats were excluded.
  (Pursuant to a subsequent order of the House by unanimous consent of 
Mr. Kleczka, the remarks of Mr. Kleczka have been deleted.)
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) another respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking another step in our 
effort to balance the budget for the third time in 3 years. We are 
taking the step where, of course, earlier this year we set aside $2 
trillion of the projected surplus for saving Social Security and 
Medicare. I would point out in our balanced budget that for every $6 in 
debt retirement over the next 5 years, we provide $1 in tax relief and 
that over the next 10 years that pays down $2.2 trillion of the 
national debt, which is 10 percent more than the Democrat proposal to 
retire the debt.
  I rise in support of this legislation for a particular reason. I have 
often asked the question over the last several years and, that is, is 
it right, is it fair that under our tax code a married working couple 
pays more in taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it 
fair that 28 million married working couples pay more in taxes just 
because they are married than an identical couple living together 
outside of marriage?
  Let me introduce Shad and Michelle Hallahan, two public school 
teachers in Joliet, Illinois. When they chose to get married in the 
last couple of years, they discovered something. They now pay higher 
taxes just because they got married, similar to 28 million married 
working couples throughout America. Michelle, by the way, is due any 
day to have a baby. She notes that their marriage tax penalty, which is 
just over $1,000, will provide 3,000 diapers for the Hallahan family. 
Those who oppose our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty 
would much rather spend those dollars here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, this deserves bipartisan support. I ask for bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my children and all children 
in America, I rise against the risky, budget-busting, trillion-dollar 
tax cut.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, let us sustain economic growth. Vote ``no'' 
on the Republican tax package.
  Mr. Speaker, this tax cut is simply too large. It spends almost all 
of the projected on-budget surplus for the next 10 years.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have locked on to the 
quote by Senator Kerry in which he said that in an era when we have a 
budget surplus of $3 trillion, it is not unreasonable to pass a tax cut 
of $1 trillion. What they don't tell you is that $2 trillion of that 
supposed surplus is Social Security money, which both sides have agreed 
should be set aside solely for Social Security. That means that money 
is off the table. So, if you set aside $2 trillion for Social Security 
and pass a tax cut of $1 trillion, how much does that leave for 
Medicare, debt reduction, veterans health care, the National Institutes 
of Health, and other important domestic programs? It's simple math: 3-
2-1=0.
  The leadership in this body is in a big hurry to pass this conference 
report on a tax scheme they know has no chance of going anywhere so 
they can go home for a month and tell their constituents what they 
accomplished for them. Of course, they're not in quite as big a hurry 
to send it to the president. They don't want the president to rain on 
their parade by vetoing their wonderful bill before they have a chance 
to convince people how wonderful it is. What they don't realize is that 
the American people already know that this irresponsible tax cut is a 
bad deal. When asked what we in Congress should do with this surplus, 
the American people have consistently said ``save Social Security, save 
Medicare, and pay down the national debt.''
  Let's defeat this ill-conceived, irresponsible tax scheme and get to 
work on a real tax relief package that will provide relief to those who 
need it while still allowing us to fulfill our obligations to pay down 
the national debt, save Medicare and Social Security, and adequately 
fund important domestic programs that millions of Americans rely on.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2488, 
the so-called Financial Freedom bill. I only wish it were so.
  In reality, this bill should be called the Medicare and Social 
Security elimination act--because it irresponsibly spends the projected 
budget surplus without committing a single penny to the future of those 
programs.
  The decisions the majority have made will ultimately hurt the very 
people they say they want to help--the American people--by forcing 
through a tax scheme that place our nations economy at risk in the 
future.
  The fundamental problem with this bill is that it bets the future of 
Medicare and Social Security on economic projections ten years away. If 
we spend the money today, almost 80% of the projected surplus, on this 
risky tax scheme, what will happen if the projections fall short?
  Ten years ago, not a single economist could have predicted how strong 
our economy is today and has been over the last five years. As best 
they try, it is a very inexact science.
  In fact the Congressional Budget Office, whose numbers the majority 
is relying on, has been off by billions of dollars on even one year 
projections. Now they want to bet the farm on projections over ten 
years.
  If this bill becomes law, there will be an insufficient amount of 
money left over to ensure the long term stability of Social Security, 
Medicare, other programs such as veteran's health.
  Now don't get me wrong, there will be enough there to take care of 
today's beneficiaries.
  But without dedicating portions of the surplus to Medicare and Social 
Security today, we will force our children and grandchildren to either 
pay higher taxes or receive significantly lower benefits tomorrow.
  You just can't have it both ways--as much as everyone here would love 
to eliminate taxes completely, and believe me I would, it just isn't 
the responsible thing to do.
  Antoher major problem with the Republican scheme is that it fails to 
provide any money to

[[Page 20047]]

pay down our national debt. If this bill becomes law, interest rates on 
car loans, mortgages, and credit cards could rise.
  Our nation's debt is finally going down--but if we follow the plan of 
the republicans, it will go right back up and fall squarely on the 
shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
  We need to reject the Republican's risky scheme, because it could 
balloon the debt, send us back to huge deficit spending.
  We need to do the right thing and wait for the money to become real, 
see how much is there, and then decide where it needs to go--and at 
that time, tax cuts should and would be included in that formula.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on 
H.R. 2488. This is a very serious debate about a serious piece of 
legislation. If this tax cut were to pass and actually be signed into 
law, it would set the course of fiscal policy for the next several 
decades in this country.
  And I don't get it. When a family in western Wisconsin enjoys good 
times, they see it as an opportunity to take care of existing 
obligations first. For the Federal Government, this should mean paying 
down the $5.7 trillion national debt and shoring up Social Security and 
Medicare for future generations.
  What this legislation proposes, however, is the equivalent of my wife 
Tawni and I going into our local bank and telling our bank officer, 
``Yes, we know we have a mortgage and a car loan and credit card 
payments. But we would like to restructure those debts so we can enjoy 
some additional money now and shift these debt obligations onto Johnny 
and Matthew, our 3-year and 1-year-old sons.'' We would get laughed out 
of the bank if we said that. I didn't come to Congress to leave a 
legacy of debt to my children and mortgage their future with an act of 
such irresponsibility. That's why I oppose this riverboat gamble of a 
tax cut.
  A short time ago, before former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin 
retired, I had the opportunity to ask him what he felt we, as 
policymakers, should do to ensure the prosperity of our nation in the 
next century. His response was two-fold--first, we should pay down the 
$5.7 trillion national debt, and second, we should not shortchange our 
investments in education. This legislation fails both of these goals. 
This tax cut proposal also ignores the words of Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has repeatedly testified before us in 
Congress that the first, best use of any budget surplus is to reduce 
the debt.
  An emphasis on debt reduction would provide real tax relief to all 
American families, not just the top 1 percent who receive the bulk of 
the benefits of this proposal. A lower national debt would benefit 
everyone by lowering interest rates. Families who make mortgage, car, 
credit card, and other loan payments would realize tremendous cost 
savings, and businesses would be able to invest at lower cost, create 
jobs and increase productivity. Finally, lowering our national debt 
would be fair to future generations who would otherwise have to repay 
an obligation they did not create.
  A vote today against this legislation is a vote for fiscal 
responsibility and fiscal sanity. It is a vote for our children's 
future, and for continued economic growth and the promise of prosperity 
for our kids. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, the chief complaint of 
the right wing of the Republican Party over the past few years has been 
that their leadership lacked real commitment to the core right-wing 
principles of their conference.
  Well, today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican right wing should be 
pleased, because the true believers have asserted their control over 
this Republican Congress. Today, the Republican Congress makes its 
priorities crystal clear. Today, the Republican Party plainly states 
its commitment to risking Social Security, Medicare and our economy on 
fiscally irresponsible, budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthiest 
that could cost us $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Why, Mr. Speaker, would Republicans risk exploding the deficit once 
again, driving up interest rates and hurting an economy that is the 
envy of the world? Do Republicans believe that Americans want their 
mortgage payments to go up? Do Republicans believe that Americans want 
their credit card bills to go up?
  Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out before that the record of the 
Republican Congress makes clear their belief that Congress' only job is 
providing red meat for the right-wing extremists controlling their 
party. Why else would they insist on squandering the surplus on tax 
breaks for the wealthiest and refuse to devote even a few dollars to 
saving Medicare?
  Nothing speaks more clearly to the priorities of this Congress. Just 
16 years from now, Medicare faces a death sentence, but Republicans 
refuse to use a dime of the surplus to delay that execution by even a 
day.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats support fiscally responsible tax cuts, 
targeted to the middle class, but we cannot support risking Social 
Security, Medicare and the economy. I urge defeat of this bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), another respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to start by commending him for his determination and 
vision in moving this tax relief proposal to this point.
  There are a lot of great provisions in the bill before us today. They 
have been focused on by others, eliminating the marriage penalty, 
expanding everybody's opportunities to achieve a good education for 
themselves and their children, helping Americans afford health care for 
themselves and for their elderly family members.
  I want to focus for a moment on the retirement security provisions. 
The Financial Freedom Act before us today contains the most 
comprehensive reforms of our pension laws since ERISA was passed 25 
years ago.
  By strengthening 401(k)s for all Americans, by strengthening defined 
benefit plans, the traditional plans and other plans, by allowing 
workers to save more in their pensions, save more in their IRAs, by 
making pensions portable so workers can take them from job to job, by 
providing a catchup for workers over 50 years old, by modifying section 
415 to help union workers to be able to have a better multi-employer 
plan, by doing all these things, we allow all Americans to save more 
for their own retirement, to have more peace of mind in their own 
retirement, and we are going to allow millions of American workers who 
do not currently have any kind of a pension at all, that is half of our 
workforce, to be able to come into a system where they have a pension, 
to be able to provide in their retirement years for their own 
retirement security.
  This, Mr. Speaker, is why this bill makes sense for the American 
people, why this bill is going to be supported today. I urge the 
President to sign it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, we all want tax cuts. Let us not spend money 
that does not exist. When we have some surplus, let us reduce the debt, 
save Social Security and Medicare, get our priorities straight. Let us 
not create another $5 trillion debt to burden our children and 
grandchildren.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1981 when we cut $749 billion in revenues. 
Those on this floor represented that this would be a great step 
forward. Howard Baker, the then majority leader of the United States 
Senate, said, no, that it was a riverboat gamble. It was, Mr. Speaker, 
a riverboat gamble that we lost. We quadrupled the national debt. Now, 
that is a nice phrase, but what does it mean? It means we plunged the 
children of America deeply into debt, because we did not provide for 
the spending that our generation votes for.
  Let us not take this risky step again. Let us not put at risk the 
solvency of Social Security. Let us not put at risk the vitality of 
Medicare. Let us not put

[[Page 20048]]

at risk the defense of this Nation. My Republican colleagues talk about 
just taking $1 trillion of $3 trillion. $2 trillion is in a lockbox for 
Social Security, they say. But the appropriation bills we have been 
passing belie that lockbox theory because we are about to spend that 
Social Security revenue.
  My friends, reject this risky, riverboat gamble. Ensure that our 
children's security is safe. Do not again go on the path of quadrupling 
the national debt. Rather, let us be fiscally responsible, target tax 
cuts, give relief to Americans who are most in need, working Americans, 
Americans with children who need care, Americans who are sending 
children to school. Do not take this risky road to further debt and 
unsureness.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer 
Refund and Relief Act of 1999. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Texas for leading the way to the future by lowering the taxes on our 
people. The gentleman from Texas will be dearly missed if he leaves us 
after this Congress.
  This bill represents tax relief of $792 billion over the next 10 
years, including the elimination of the marriage penalty, 100 percent 
deductibility for the health insurance of the self-employed, and 
lowering the capital gains tax.
  But this bill is not really about numbers and figures or phase-ins 
and credits. This bill is about the American people, their hopes for 
the future and their dreams for their children.
  To that end, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for including 
in this package my legislation to encourage both public and private 
colleges to establish prepaid college tuition plans. These plans allow 
parents to begin paying for tomorrow's college education at today's 
tuition prices.
  This legislation will allow middle-class families to pay for college 
out of savings instead of paying for it out of debt. This will make a 
college education more affordable for more people. I thank the 
gentleman from Texas for including this in his legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our distinguished Democratic whip.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BONIOR. Risky. Dangerous. Deceptive. That is what this Republican 
bill is. Instead of building on the strongest economy in a generation, 
they would roll the dice. They would take $1 trillion. They would slap 
it down on the table, they would spin the wheel, and hope for the best.
  What they are doing is playing Russian roulette with the whole U.S. 
economy. And it is our money they are gambling, our Social Security, 
our Medicare, our education, our future.
  The Republicans say their tax plan will benefit the average American, 
that it will put money back into their pockets. But if you look at the 
numbers, the truth comes out.
  Under their plan, a family that makes $52,000 a year gets a tax cut 
of about $11 a week. The super-rich, the people who pull in more than 
$300,000 a year or more, the Republican plan gives them $127 a day, 
$900 a week, $46 thousand a year. So when you compare the numbers, 
those who really need tax relief, they get chump-change, and those, of 
course, who do not, get a brand new Cadillac.
  After the party is over, what then? What is the long-term cost to the 
American family? Higher interest rates on our credit cards, on our 
mortgage payments, on our car loans; higher interest rates and payments 
on the national debt, which already cost the average American family 
$2,000 a year; and a higher probability that Social Security and 
Medicare will not be there when Americans need them.
  This Republican plan is risky, it is dangerous, and it is deceptive. 
We need to pay down the national debt, not to drive it up. We need to 
take care of first things first, Social Security, Medicare, education. 
Let us address these national priorities first, and then cut taxes; 
and, when we do, let us get it to the middle-income people in this 
country, and not the super-rich.
  We need to invest in the future, not gamble it away. This Republican 
plan is risky, it is wrong, and it will wreck the economy.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to talk on the conference 
report today, I spoke on the bill when it was on the floor earlier, but 
I got tired of hearing some Democrats say that we were jeopardizing 
Social Security and Medicare by giving a tax cut to the American 
people. That is just not true.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) had a Social Security plan that is fleshed out and 
demonstrates clearly that we only need $1.2 trillion of the almost $2 
trillion Social Security surplus to solve the Social Security problem. 
That leaves $700 billion with which to pay down the debt, to help fix 
Medicare. Speaking of Medicare, what we do not need is to throw more 
money at it. We need fundamental reform. We also have a plan for that.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important 
tax relief bill for America's families.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I have seen 
firsthand the excellent leadership of Chairman Archer in putting 
together this package that will bring meaningful relief to millions of 
over-burdened taxpayers who deserve to keep more of what they earn.
  This is broad-based tax relief that makes sense. This conference 
agreement promotes issues that people care about most--fairness for 
families, education, health care, retirement savings, growing jobs and 
being able to pass farms and businesses on to the next generation.
  I want to highlight two provisions of this legislation I authored. 
Although these items will cost very little in terms of federal revenue, 
they send a powerful statement about the level of fairness in this 
bill.
  The first provision is based on legislation I introduced to provide 
relief to volunteer drivers for charities. This common sense change 
will dramatically improve the ability of charities to attract volunteer 
drivers to serve vulnerable people.
  As many charities in my home state have told me, a volunteer 
reimbursed for mileage expenses has taxable income if the reimbursement 
exceeds 14 cents per mile, even though an employee performing the same 
function could be reimbursed at 31 cents per mile.
  This creates a significant disincentive for people considering 
volunteering for food delivery programs, patient transportation, and 
other services which rely on volunteer drivers. There have been 
examples of volunteer drivers being audited and subjected to back 
taxes, penalties and interest because of unreported volunteer mileage 
reimbursement, even though the reimbursement did not exceed the 
allowable business rate and the dollar amounts are quite small.
  This bill will codify relief to reimbursed volunteer drivers if the 
amount of their reimbursement is less than the business mileage rate. 
This solution will allow America's charities to attract the volunteers 
they need to for critical services like transporting elderly patients 
to the doctor and food to the hungry.
  The second provision I offered as an amendment in committee. It 
ensures consistent tax treatment of survivor benefits received by 
families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.
  Survivor benefits of public safety officers slain in the line of duty 
are currently tax-free for the wives, husbands and children who are 
left behind, but only if the officer died after December 31, 1996. This 
means that the survivor benefits of families who lost a loved one 
before January 1, 1997, are still subject to tax. I see no sound tax 
policy reason for this discrimination. This bill corrects this inequity 
and will allow all families of slain public safety officers to enjoy 
the same tax relief.
  Nothing can compensate for the loss of those who pay the ultimate 
price by giving their lives for their communities. However, this bill 
will provide tangible help to the families of our slain heroes.
  These are only two examples of the many provisions in this package 
that will improve the lives of Americans in very real ways.
  I urge my colleagues to support this tax relief package for American 
families. We have

[[Page 20049]]

already set aside the portion of the surplus needed to save Social 
Security and Medicare. Now, we need to return a portion of the tax 
overpayment to the families who earned it. If we don't, Washington will 
surely find a way to spend it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority 
leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Missouri is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my comments to American 
citizens all over the country and to ask them a simple question, and 
that is, do they do better with the Republican plan that is on the 
floor today, or would they do better our Democratic plan, which is much 
less revenue cost, but a tax cut that is more targeted to middle-income 
families?
  If one looks at the Republican plan, it offers a family of four 
earning $50,000 a year about a $278 a year tax cut. In other words, 
their taxes would be reduced by about, to make it rough, $280 a year. 
That comes out to about 76 cents a day. That would not even buy a cup 
of coffee in most of our modern coffee houses.
  On the other hand, the Democratic tax cut would have had an impact on 
the real budgets of middle-income families. We wanted to provide a 
$1,000 credit for a family trying to take care of a disabled parent who 
they were trying to keep at home or a $500 credit for parents who care 
for an infant at home. In other words, for ordinary families, we could 
have done a tax cut today that would really have an impact on their 
lives, not just 76 cents a day.
  But it is also worth noting that the real expense cut that we ought 
to be talking about today is what getting rid of the deficit would do 
for ordinary American families. The Research Director for the Concord 
Coalition put it well. He said debt reduction is a tax cut for future 
generations.
  We now pay $218 billion a year at the Federal level on interest on 
the national debt every year. That is $900 for every man, woman, and 
child who lives in the United States. Eliminating that debt could put 
that money back in their pockets or certainly allow us to do some 
things with Medicare and Social Security that would put money into 
their pockets in the future. This is a fundamental decision we are 
having to make. If we could get that debt down, it would hold interest 
rates down.
  Let us talk about the family out there that has maybe a $100,000 
mortgage on their house right now. If we could lower interest rates by 
1 percent or, maybe to put it another way, hold them where they are and 
not let them go up from where they are now, that could be $1,200 a year 
that goes right into that family's pocket because we have not gone with 
this risky tax cut that puts in jeopardy the financial wherewithal of 
that family of four that is trying to pay off that mortgage. This is 
not even talking about credit card debt and auto loan debt that they 
have to pay.
  The big tax cut that we ought to be talking about is holding interest 
rates down so that family out there does not face higher interest 
rates.
  Let me end with a story. When I was a young kid, my mom and dad told 
me that if I do chores around the house, they would give me an 
allowance. Usually a quarter or two is what I would earn, carrying out 
the trash, doing the dishes, cooking dinner, sometimes even cleaning up 
the basement.
  My mother used to always say to me, because she would give me the 
quarters, usually two quarters, 50 cents, she would always say, ``Dick, 
those quarters are burning a hole in your pocket.'' Because what I 
loved to do with those quarters was go up to the corner confectionery 
and buy a Mars Bar. I loved Mars Bars, it had that soft marshmallow 
center, chocolate; and I loved to buy baseball flip cards. That is what 
I really wanted to do. Sure enough, whenever I would get those 
quarters, I would run up to the corner confectionery and blow all my 
money and get that Mars Bar that had that soft marshmallow center and 
buy those flip cards. Instant gratification is what I was looking for.
  She used to always say to me, ``If you would save those quarters, 
maybe you could buy that ball glove you have been talking about or that 
bicycle you wanted to buy, and that would even be better, if you would 
save for the future so you could really do something important.''
  This is the very same decision we face today as a country. Do we want 
instant gratification, do we want to hand out candy bars, make people 
feel good right now with, again, 76 cents a day for that average 
family, or do we want to save money, pay down the debt, keep interest 
rates down, give a targeted tax cut that would really mean something to 
hard-pressed middle-income families? That is the choice we have today.
  I urge Members to reject instant gratification and to save this money 
for the future, pay down the back debt of this country, save Social 
Security and Medicare, give a targeted tax cut that will really help 
middle-income families, and do the right thing for the future and 
future generations of this country.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the very 
respected and distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to compliment him and those on the staff and members 
of the Committee on Ways and Means and the other committees for 
crafting as near a perfect tax bill as I have seen in the years I have 
been in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the minority leader just spoke of targeted tax cuts for 
people who really need it. Let us talk for just a moment about who 
really needs the tax cuts in this country. Let us see who we should 
exclude from that category.
  Americans who care for their elderly family members at home, with an 
additional exemption in this bill of $2,750. What is wrong with that?
  We allow parents to save up to $2,000, rather than only $500, in 
Education Savings Accounts. What is wrong with that?
  We eliminate the 25 percent contribution limit on pre-tax salary to 
401(k)s. Saving for one's retirement, what do you have against that?
  Reducing the capital gains rate by a small percentage, but saving it 
so that Americans can invest for their future, why are you against 
that?
  Allowing Americans who purchase their own health insurance to deduct 
100 percent of the premium, who can be against that?
  Cutting the marriage penalty. We now penalize people when they get 
married where you have got two earners in the family. What in the world 
can somebody be against in cutting that back, cutting that penalty 
back?
  Permitting private colleges and universities to establish prepaid 
tuition programs for parents of prospective students. Currently only 
public universities are allowed to do this. We extend that to private 
universities. Who could be against that?
  Reducing the individual income tax rates for all American taxpayers. 
That is something we should all be for.
  Allowing Americans who purchase long-term care insurance, we allow 
them to deduct the full amount of their premiums from their taxes. That 
is something we should encourage, and we encourage it by allowing the 
deduction.
  Phasing out the death tax. The death tax is the biggest destroyer of 
American farms and American businesses in this country today. It is an 
evil tax that should be eliminated, and this bill would phase it out 
over a period of time.
  Student loans. Right now when you get a student loan, you can only 
deduct the interest that you pay for 5 years. After that it is not 
deductible. I can tell you from the young people who work in my office 
that I have talked to, this is a very important part of their income, 
and they should be able to at least deduct it. This is important.

[[Page 20050]]

  Mr. Speaker, during this debate we have heard a lot about Social 
Security. Interestingly enough, and I have kept score, I do not believe 
that one person who stood up here and said that we are going to do 
nothing about Social Security has any inkling how to solve the problem, 
and, if they do, they have not come out and put that down.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and I and the Committee on Ways 
and Means and many of us are working together and reaching out to 
Democrats in order to be able to do precisely that. We have come up 
with a plan that does precisely that, and it saves Social Security for 
all time. Very shortly, that plan will be going to some type of a 
markup, and I look forward to that. We will continue to reach out 
across the aisle to the Democrats.
  But I can tell you right now, and I think the American people should 
hold all of us to this standard: Do not talk about saving Social 
Security on the floor of this House unless you are ready to step 
forward to do it.

                              {time}  1315

  Sitting back and doing nothing will do nothing to save social 
security for our seniors and for our kids and for our grandkids. It is 
time that we stop this rhetoric, and we go forward and work together in 
a powerful way to save social security.
  The Republicans now are reaching out to the Democrats. Join with us. 
Let us do this before the end of the year, and before this Congress 
goes out for our November-December break. Let us come back and work 
together and save social security.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided 
legislation. This legislation has many serious shortcomings, but given 
my limited time, I will mention just three.
  This bill is paid for with a surplus that doesn't yet exist and which 
is based upon economic projections that have proven wrong in the past.
  This bill would disproportionately benefit the richest people in this 
country--instead of the working- and middle-class families who deserve 
relief the most.
  And this bill would cut taxes before we've reduced our massive 
national debt or ensured the future stability of Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Enactment of this tax bill would put us right back where we were six 
years ago, with projected deficits as far as the eye can see--and with 
a national debt that is growing rather than shrinking.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this unwise legislation.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my friends on the Republican 
side talk about how their budget sets aside $2 trillion of the $3 
trillion projected surplus for debt reduction. While this certainly 
sounds appealing to those of us who have been talking about the 
importance of paying off the national debt, the facts just don't match 
the rhetoric.
  My Republican friends neglect to point out that they are double-
counting the Social Security surplus in order to claim that they are 
reducing the debt. This body has overwhelmingly voted to exclude Social 
Security surpluses from budget calculations. These surpluses are 
essential to meet future obligations to Social Security. Evey Member of 
this body, Republican and Democrat alike, have said that Social 
Security surpluses should only be used for Social Security, and should 
not be counted for any other purposes. But despite all of the rhetoric 
about Social Security lockboxes and taking Social Security off-budget, 
some folks on the other side of the aisle keep counting the Social 
Security surpluses when it suits their purposes.
  Using the Social Security surplus to reduce debt held by the public 
simply offsets the increased debt held by the Social Security trust 
fund. If all we do is save the Social Security surplus, we won't reduce 
the total national debt by one dime, and we will have done nothing to 
reduce the burden we leave to our children and grandchildren. In fact, 
despite all of the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about 
saving money for debt reduction, the total national debt will increase 
by $200 billion over the next five years under the Republican budget.
  The truth is, they don't want the American people to know the 
consequences of their massive tax cuts. They don't want them to find 
out that, if we want to be fiscally responsible and stay within the 
spending caps we agreed to in the 1997 budget, passing their tax cut 
will require a 38% reduction in spending on important programs--
programs like FEMA, class size reduction, and law enforcement. Both 
parties agree that defense spending needs to increase if we want to 
preserve military readiness, but if the Republicans pass their tax 
cuts, our military will suffer as well. While these important programs 
that benefit ALL Americans will have to be cut, TWO-THIRDS of the tax 
cut will benefit only those people who fall in the top income tax 
bracket.
  The fiscal irresponsibility does not stop there. The new trick in 
Republican accounting books is the ``emergency'' spending designation 
being used to bypass the spending caps. They have even resorted to 
calling the 2000 census an ``emergency''--an outrageous claim 
considering that the Constitution requires a census every ten years! 
This ``emergency'' spending comes straight out of the ``projected'' 
surplus Republicans want to use to finance their tax cut.
  This creative accounting is unacceptable. I am a strong advocate of a 
sound budget and fiscally responsible tax cuts, but the best tax cut we 
can give the American people is a promise we will first pay down the 
national debt by setting aside some of the true surplus--the non-Social 
Security surplus. The Blue Dogs have put forward a proposal that would 
lock up half of the true budget surplus to pay down the national debt. 
This approach will truly reduce the burden on future generations.
  I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. The Blue 
Dog's Debt Reduction Lockbox bill would save 100% of the Social 
Security surplus by requiring that the budget be balanced EXCLUDING the 
Social Security surplus. It also helps ensure a fiscally responsible 
budget by establishing a point of order against any budget resolution 
that contains a on-budget deficit or any legislation that would result 
in an on-budget deficit and would prohibit OMB, CBO and other federal 
government entities from including the Social Security trust fund as 
part of budget surplus or deficit calculations.
  While the Republican tax cut bill's debt reduction provisions are 
merely a rhetorical gesture at best, the Blue Dog bill delivers on debt 
reduction. It places 50% of the projected on-budget surplus over the 
next five years in a Debt Reduction Lockbox, away from those who would 
squander it on irresponsible tax cuts.
  The Blue Dog bill also delivers on our promise to save Social 
Security and Medicare by reserving the Debt Reduction Dividend--the 
savings from lower interest payments on the debt resulting from its 
reduction--for these two programs. Seventy-five percent of these 
savings would be reserved for Social Security reform and 25% for 
Medicare reform.
  Mr. Speaker, the fundamental tenet of the Blue Dog proposal--debt 
reduction--has been recklessly omitted from the Republican bill. Our 
primary goal as we debate how to divide the projected budget surplus 
should be to maintain the strong and growing economy that has benefited 
millions of Americans. Irresponsible tax cuts, however, are not the 
means to achieving this end. Using that simple objective as our guide, 
it is clear that the best course of action this body could take is to 
use the budget surpluses to start paying off the $5.6 trillion national 
debt. Reducing the national debt is clearly the best long-term strategy 
for the U.S. economy.
  Economists from across the political spectrum agree that using the 
surplus to reduce the debt will stimulate economic growth by increasing 
national savings and boosting domestic investment. Paying down our debt 
will reduce the tremendous drain that the federal government has placed 
on the economy by running up a huge national debt. Quite simply, 
reducing the federal government's $5.6 trillion national debt takes 
money that is currently tied up in debt and puts it back into the 
private sector where it can be invested in plants, equipment and other 
investments that create jobs and economic output.
  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly advised 
Congress that the most important action we could take to maintain a 
strong and growing economy is to pay down the national debt. Earlier 
this year, Chairman Greenspan testified before the Ways and Means 
Committee that debt reduction is a much better use of surpluses than 
are tax cuts, stating:

       The advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this 
     economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to 
     the public and its virtuous cycle on the total budget process 
     is a value which I think far exceeds anything else we could 
     do with the money.

  We should follow Chairman Greenspan's advice by making debt reduction 
the highest priority for any budget surplus.
  There has been a lot of discussion here in Washington about a ``grand 
bargain'' on the budget that would divide the surplus between tax cuts 
and higher spending. Our constituents are giving a very different 
message. I would

[[Page 20051]]

encourage my colleagues to ignore this inside the beltway speculation, 
and listen to the American public. Our constituents are telling us to 
meet our obligations by paying down the national debt.
  The folks I represent understand that the conservative thing to do 
when you have some extra resources is to pay your debts first. They 
don't understand how we can be talking about grand plans to divide up 
the budget surplus when we have a $5.6 trillion national debt. They 
want us to use this opportunity to pay down our debt.
  We hear a lot of talk about ``giving the American people their money 
back.'' I would remind my colleagues that it is the American people who 
owe the $5.6 trillion national debt we have run up. If we are truly 
interested in giving the surpluses back to the American people, we 
should start by paying off the debt we have run up on their credit 
card.
  I would suggest that the best tax cut we could provide for all 
Americans, and the best thing that we can do to ensure that taxes 
remain low for our children and grandchildren, is to start paying down 
our $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing our national debt will 
provide a tax cut for millions of Americans by restraining interest 
rates. Lower interest rates will put money in the pockets of working 
men and women by saving them money on variable mortgages, new 
mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, and other debts. The 
reduction in interest rates we have had as a result of the fiscal 
discipline over the last few years has put at least $35 billion into 
the hands of homeowners through lower mortgage payments. Continuing 
this fiscal discipline and paying down the debt is the best way to keep 
putting money into the hands of middle class Americans.
  Just as importantly, reducing the national debt will protect future 
generations from increasing tax burdens to pay for the debts that we 
have incurred. Today, more than twenty-five percent of all individual 
income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. The amount of 
income taxes the government will have to collect just to pay the 
interest on the debt will continue to increase unless we take action 
now to pay down the national debt.
  Every dollar of lower debt saves MORE than one dollar for future 
generations. These savings that can be used for tax cuts, covering the 
costs of the baby boomers retirement without tax increases or meeting 
other needs. We should give future generations the flexibility to deal 
with the challenges they will face, instead of forcing them to pay 
higher taxes just to pay for the debt we incurred with our consumption 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote AGAINST reckless spending by voting 
AGAINST the Republican tax cuts--but let's not stop there. Join me in 
supporting the Blue Dog Debt Reduction Lockbox bill and let's eliminate 
our debt.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, let me say, first off, that a tax cut would 
be appropriate if we could afford it, if it would stimulate further 
economic growth, and if it were fair. Our first priority should be to 
use most, if not all, of the projected on-budget surpluses to pay down 
the $3.6 trillion debt held by the public.
  The tax cut considered this morning is contingent upon maintaining 
the spending caps, which we have broken, although nobody is willing to 
admit this fact. It is contingent on maintaining a reasonable level of 
emergency spending, although emergency spending is now an escape hatch 
to avoiding the caps. Above all, it is contingent upon projected on-
budget surpluses. But, there is not on-budget surplus and if there ever 
was, it disappeared this week. In fiscal year 2000, the Congressional 
Budget Office projects a $14 billion on-budget surplus. But, Farm 
relief and the $4.5 billion price tag for the Census have been 
categorized as emergency spending. Yesterday's votes in the House and 
Senate ate up $12 billion.
  Here is a more realistic scenario. If the caps are lifted so that 
overall discretionary spending remains at FY 1999 levels, adjusted only 
for inflation and emergency spending stays at the historical average of 
fiscal years 1991 though 1998, on-budget surpluses would equal $112 
billion over the next 10 years. Some 89 percent of the projected on-
budget surplus would disappear.
  If these surpluses do not materialize, the consequences could be 
severe. It took us 15 years to climb out of the deficits created by the 
1980's tax cuts and spending increases. In 1981 we passed broad based 
tax relief. The consequences were catastrophic. Publicly held debt 
quadrupled between 1981 and 1993. Interest payments on the debt doubled 
as a share of the federal budget form seven to 15 percent. Interest on 
the debt is now the third most expensive government program behind 
Social Security and defense spending. Adding to that debt is the height 
of fiscal irresponsibility. Why would we want to repeat that scenario?
  I know that it is unpopular for Democrats to talk about the 
distributional consequences of tax relief. But fairness and 
progressivity are critical elements of our tax code. I believe we have 
an obligation to fight for those principles. Tax relief, as the 
definition of relief would indicate, is for those who need relief. 
There has been such little discussion in this body and in the press on 
the distributional effects of this cut. Just because we talk about the 
distributional benefits of a tax cut does not mean that we are 
promoting class warfare. But, we ought to tell it like it is. I 
understand that the wealthiest in this country pay a large share of 
taxes collected. They also earn the greatest benefits from the policies 
in place that helped create this unparalleled prosperity. But, the 
middle class does not fair as well as the upper end in the bill before 
Congress today. The Treasury Department estimates that the average tax 
cut for the richest one percent of Americans would be $37,000 a year 
when the tax cuts are fully in effect. The average tax cut for the 
bottom 60 percent of the population would be $134.
  What about intergenerational fairness? Let me quote Herbert Stein, a 
conservative economist, writing on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page 
yesterday.
  ``The argument about fairness is complicated . . . The government's 
revenue is really the taxpayer's money, but the government's debt is 
the taxpayer's debt too--and one can say in fairness that they should 
repay it. Is it fair for today's generation to leave the debt burden to 
its children?''
  No, of course it isn't.
  This tax cut is another river boat gamble. Again, our first priority 
should be to pay down the $3.6 trillion debt held by the public.
  Tax cuts are difficult undo. In the 1980s, the nation spent a decade 
undoing the across the board tax cuts by raising taxes on everything 
else, such as airline tickets, luxury boats, and foreign cars. Deficit 
reduction is painful. Debt reduction is easy. If we need to stop 
because of a recession or a war to raise capital, no problem. We can 
always go back to it.
  As Alan Greenspan has repeatedly said, paying down the debt would 
create more wealth for all Americans. He favors reducing the debt 
because with less debt, interest rates decline. That makes ti easier 
for American families to buy a house . . . to buy a car . . . to start 
a business. Now, what Mr. Greenspan did say after that is he would 
prefer a tax cut to spending. But, that's because he is an economist 
and a conservative who believes in a less activist government.
  He also pointed that there is a ``shadow cost'' to not paying down 
the debt. A tax cut without offsets will add more debt, raise interest 
costs and interest rates. Our new Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers 
said today that for every three one-hundredths of a percentage point in 
reduced interest rates on the total debt, the Government ultimately 
saves $1 billion a year in interest costs.
  Less debt means that there is less competition between the private 
sector and the government in the bond market. As government gobbles up 
less capital, interest rates should decline. A two percent dip in 
interest rates, from eight to six percent, would decrease mortgage 
payments on a $115,000 home by $155 a month. That is a better tax break 
than anything Congress could put together.
  With lower interest payments, government can make crucial investments 
to improve productivity. If productivity is one percent a year, it take 
70 years to double our standard of living. At two percent a year, it 
takes only 35 years.
  As any student in an introductory macroeconomics course can tell you, 
a tax cut stimulates consumption. Americans are consuming at such a 
fast rate, there is no personal savings. Why would we encourage more 
consumption, when it crowds out savings and drives up interest rates? 
It is just bad fiscal policy!
  Finally, we have a chance to shore up Social Security and Medicare. 
We finally have a chance to prepare for the future and we are going to 
squander newfound resources on a risky RIVER BOAT gamble of a tax cut, 
that is unnecessary, unaffordable, and unfair. Thank you.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, as we look at surpluses as far as the eye 
can see, there is only one thing Republicans want to say to the 
American people today: We believe this money is your money. You are the 
ones who have worked hard. You are the ones who have struggled to make 
ends meet. You are the ones who have sacrificed time with your loved 
ones because there just isn't enough money in your wallet.
  Republicans think it is shameful that the government takes more money 
from you, than you spend on food, clothing, shelter and

[[Page 20052]]

health care combined. That's why we offered this excellent tax relief 
package. It's your money, and you should be able to make the decisions 
over how to spend it.
  When Republicans took the reins of Congress in 1995, we made a solemn 
promise to the American people to return our government to a government 
of the people, by the people and for the people. To me, the only way to 
accomplish this is to return to the American people control over their 
lives and over their money.
  That's why we committed to locking away 100% of what Americans pay in 
to Social Security and Medicare for only Social Security and Medicare, 
to paying down $2 trillion in public debt, and to returning money to 
hard-working Americans. When you have a $3 trillion dollar surplus, the 
people have paid too much. Responsibly, 75 cents of each dollar of the 
surplus will go toward strengthening Social Security, reforming 
Medicare, paying down the public debt, rebuilding our military, 
improving public education and other vital programs. Fairly, the 
remaining 25 cents will be returned to the people who earned it: the 
hard-working American taxpayer.
  Instead, the Democrats and the President propose a risky scheme of 
$937 billion in new spending. I guess the President really did mean it 
when he said back in January that he didn't trust the American people 
to spend their money correctly that ``we could give it back to you and 
hope you spend it right.''
  The Republican tax relief plan follows a fair, responsible 
commonsense principle: it returns dollars and decisions home. Rather 
than viewing the wallets of the American People as ATM machines, the 
Republican tax relief plan remembers whose money this really is and 
who, in the end, is in charge: the hard-working American people.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support tax relief for all 
Americans. As Governor of Delaware, I reduced income taxes three times. 
As Delaware's representative in Congress, I supported the significant 
tax relief for families and businesses in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997. I hope to have the opportunity to vote for significant, broad-
based tax relief in 1999. However, in the past each time I signed or 
voted for legislation to reduce taxes I worked to ensure it was as part 
of a comprehensive balanced budget plan. Unfortunately, this 
legislation, at a cost of $792 billion over ten years--80% of the 
projected budget surplus--does not allow for a complete plan to 
preserve the surplus and a balanced budget.
  When this legislation was considered by the House, I proposed an 
alternative tax relief plan that would have provided $514 billion in 
tax relief. My proposal would preserve $482 billion of the projected 
surplus for debt reduction, emergencies and other needs. Unfortunately, 
the House was not permitted to vote on that alternative. I hope when 
Congress and the President finish staking out political positions on 
this issue, we can come together in the fall and reach a comprehensive 
agreement that provides for solid tax relief and sets aside funds for 
debt reduction, potential emergencies and a realistic plan to fund 
defense, education, Medicare and other important priorities over the 
next ten years.
  The size of this tax legislation is the most serious issue. The bill 
would commit $792 billion of a projected $996 ten-year surplus to tax 
reduction. It just does not make sense to commit 80% of a surplus we 
have not yet achieved to one purpose. It leaves very little margin for 
error. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified just last week 
that ten-year economic projections are not reliable. The surplus will 
grow to $996 billion only if the economy remains strong and if there 
are no other changes in tax or spending policy. If we spend more or 
have less revenue, interest payments on the debt will be larger and the 
surplus will be smaller. If we commit $792 billion to tax reductions, 
virtually all of the rest of the $996 surplus will be needed to pay 
higher interest costs on the debt. If we experience an economic 
downturn, these surpluses could easily turn to deficits. The 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which made these predictions stated 
that they could vary by as much as $100 billion in any year.
  The assumptions necessary for a $792 billion tax cut leave no room 
for the unplanned, but almost certain expenses like natural disasters 
and other emergencies. Over the past ten years, emergencies have 
averaged at least $8 billion per year. It is a fact: hurricanes, 
floods, droughts and military emergencies happen virtually every year. 
This year, Congress has already spent $15 billion in emergency funds 
for Kosovo. Just yesterday, the Senate passed a $7.4 billion emergency 
disaster relief package for farmers. Delaware and virtually every state 
in the eastern U.S. is suffering from one of the worse droughts of the 
century. The billions in emergency aid now in the Senate will almost 
certainly be followed by the need for more drought assistance.
  Those funds will come straight from the surplus. There will be 
emergencies every year and those likely costs must be factored into our 
calculations of what size tax cut is possible. Furthermore, while 
Medicare is currently fundamentally sound, there are growing problems 
in the area of home health care, HMO's and rural and teaching 
hospitals. Correcting those problems may require additional funds. 
Finally, important programs like defense, education, and veterans must 
be adequately funded. The size of this tax legislation is based on 
completely unrealistic assumptions that domestic programs can be 
drastically reduced. Congress is already avoiding those cuts this year. 
We can and should limit spending, but cuts of 10 percent or more are 
just not realistic.
  My second concern is the need for debt reduction. The federal debt is 
$5.6 trillion and requires 15 percent of the annual federal budget to 
service. If we do not take the opportunity to pay down this debt during 
strong economic times, then when will we? Tax relief is important, but 
it should be balanced with the need to begin to pay down at least some 
of the $5.6 trillion federal debt. Committing 80 percent of the 
projected surplus to tax reductions, simply does not allow enough of 
the surplus for debt reduction. I was pleased to be involved in the 
negotiations that produced the amendment to condition the phase-in of 
the broad-based tax relief provisions on reducing the debt. This ``tax 
cut trigger'' is a positive addition to the bill, but it does not go 
far enough. Billions in tax relief to businesses will go forward 
regardless of whether we are meeting our debt payment goals. More of 
the projected surplus should be reserved to pay down the debt. When I 
talk to people in Delaware, they almost always tell me that should be 
our top priority because they know everyone benefits from lower 
interest rates on their own debt, including credit card and mortgage 
rates. In fact, a 1 percent drop in interest rates saves Americans 
$200-$250 billion in mortgage costs. That is real middle class 
financial relief.
  We can and should provide tax relief to all taxpayers, but we must 
balance tax relief with debt reduction, future emergencies, national 
defense, health care and education and the need to protect against an 
economic downturn. The tax alternatives proposed by House Democrats and 
President Clinton are not adequate. We can provide more than $250-$300 
billion in tax relief to working Americans without jeopardizing other 
priorities. Clearly the President must become actively engaged to 
achieve a true compromise.
  I cannot support his legislation today because it does not balance 
tax relief with the need to reduce the national debt and a realistic 
cushion for the inevitable emergencies and other budget problems that 
will occur over the next ten years. When Congress returns in September, 
I hope we can engage in serious negotiations with the President that 
utilizes the good proposals for broad-based tax relief in this 
legislation but at a more affordable level. I look forward to working 
with all members of Congress and the Administration to ultimately 
produce legislation to give every American significant tax relief.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of common sense tax 
relief for American families and small businesses. I also rise in 
support of saving Medicare and Social Security, two programs critical 
to today's seniors and future generations.
  Unfortunately, the tax conference report before us today is fiscally 
irresponsible. It would threaten our ability to ensure the long term 
solvency of Medicare and Social Security. It would also restrict our 
ability to pay down national debt and to make needed investments in 
national defense, education and environmental protection.
  By using virtually the entire projected surplus for permanent tax 
cuts, this bill would leave no money for modernizing Medicare or 
reforming Social Security. This is simply unconscionable. Medicare is 
desperately in need of modernization--specifically, the lack of 
prescription drug coverage is a gaping hole in this critical safety net 
for seniors that must be fixed. And while Social Security is fiscally 
sound for the near future, the coming retirement of the baby boom 
generation will strain the system beyond its limit. We owe it to future 
generations to act now to reform these programs while there is still 
plenty of time to do so.
  I strongly support tax relief for middle income families, which this 
bill unfortunately fails to provide. For example, the across-the-board 
tax cut in the measure will cost almost $300 billion, but would give 
someone on the Central Coast making $30,000, a tax cut of only 37 cents 
per day! That's not even enough to buy a copy of my local newspaper.

[[Page 20053]]

  The tax plan I voted for earlier this year would have fixed the 
marriage penalty and ensured middle class families can take full 
advantage of the various per-child, education and child care tax 
credits. It would also have increased the per-child tax credit by $250 
for families with children under age five.
  The bill I supported would have helped families by providing $25 
billion in school construction bonds to modernize our overcrowded 
public schools and make employer-provided assistance tax free for 
undergraduate and graduate education. This measure would institute a 
$1,000 long term care credit and make health insurance fully deductible 
for the self-employed beginning next year. And it would make permanent 
the R&D tax credit, so critical to ensuring future economic growth on 
the Central Coast, as well as credits to help move people from welfare 
to work.
  I have also supported cutting the estate tax for our small business 
owners and family farmers like those on the Central Coast of California 
who are imperiled by the death of the head of the family. We must 
increase the exemption for businesses like these above the current $1.3 
million. The high value of Central Coast land, for example, can make 
even a modest sized farm or ranch impossible to pass down without being 
subject to high estate taxes that can force the sale of the property. 
By increasing this exemption, we would keep family farms and businesses 
in the family and off the auction block.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my profound 
disappointment in the partisan handling of this tax bill. I believe 
there is general agreement among the vast majority of Members that we 
can and should provide tax relief this year. But the House leadership 
has pursued a partisan course designed to make political points and not 
to pass meaningful legislation. How sad it was that Democratic members 
were literally locked out of the conference committee that wrote this 
legislation.
  The leadership knows this bill will not become law. By seriously 
sitting down and negotiating a common sense tax bill we could easily 
pass legislation this year and give families and businesses the tax 
relief they deserve. I hope that we can put the partisanship aside and 
work together on formulating real tax reform this year. Our 
constituents deserve nothing less.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report of 
H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999.
  I'd like to commend our Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer 
and our Majority Leader Dick Armey for their leadership, not to mention 
the wise counsel of Speaker Hastert, who crafted this tax relief 
package for all Americans. I was honored to be named a conferee for the 
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act and am proud of the product of labors.
  Mr. Speaker, during my long service in this body, I have had too few 
opportunities to cut taxes for the American people. I had to wait 12 
years, until 1981, for the first major tax cut provided by the 
leadership of President Reagan. It was another 16 years, in 1997, 
before I could vote for another major tax cut. However, this Taxpayer 
Refund and Relief Act of 1999 is far and away my favorite. Not only is 
it the largest, providing $792 billion in tax relief, but it does so 
from budget surpluses provided by taxpayers. In effect, we're giving 
taxpayers a refund for overtaxing them. At the same time, we will be 
using the remaining surplus to pay down the national debt--as much as 
$2 trillion over the next decade--as we lock away $1.9 trillion to 
preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare.
  However, talking about all those numbers is the stuff of Washington 
policy works. Let me tell the American people what this tax cut means 
for them.
  Our Republican tax plan will give all taxpayers a cut in their income 
tax rates. In addition, 28 million working married couples will see a 
substantial reduction in their marriage penalty. Our bill also repeals 
the alternative minimum tax on individuals that will save taxpayers 
money while simplifying their tax returns. This provision is similar to 
legislation I introduced in this Congress to abolish the alternative 
minimum tax.
  For farmers, small business owners and older Americans, our bill will 
reduce, then abolish, the estate tax over the next 10 years. This 
confiscatory tax, with rates as high as 55 percent, has forced families 
to sell the fruits of a lifetime of labor to pay the taxman instead of 
passing it on to the next generation.
  The growth of the capital markets has given investors from all walks 
of life an opportunity to invest and save for the future. To further 
spur growth in these investments, H.R. 2488 will reduce tax rates on 
capital gains from 20 percent to 18 percent and from the lower rate of 
10 percent to 8 percent. In the future, capital gains will be indexed 
so that investors won't be paying taxes on artificial gains from 
inflation. I am also pleased that my provision to cut capital gains 
taxes on the settlement funds which pay beneficiaries of class action 
lawsuits was included in the final package.
  To further assist Americans saving for retirement, H.R. 2488 also 
includes $35 billion in incentives for saving with individual 
retirement accounts, or IRAs. Savers will be able to contribute much 
more--up to $5,000--to their IRA accounts. Also included among these 
incentives is my provision to allow IRA holders to rollover their funds 
to needy charities.
  This bill has more good tax policy than I have time to mention. I do, 
however, want to say how pleased I am that my provisions to simplify 
the tax returns of affiliated groups of life insurance companies and 
another to encourage more foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds were 
also included in the final product.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this tax relief package so that 
we may start to return the tax overcharge to the American taxpayers. 
Furthermore, I hope the President will not stand in the way of needed 
tax relief by vetoing this measure.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
on HR 2488.
  Let me just highlight a few of this bill's flaws:
  The Republican tax bill would spend $792 billion over the next 10 
years out of a budget surplus that will never occur. This tax cut is 
based on a false premise: without enacting spending cuts, the surplus 
simply won't occur.
  By spending what we don't really have on tax cuts, this bill raids 
the Social Security surplus and endangers Medicare. It pulls a fast one 
today's workers who's payroll dollars are creating the surplus that 
exists today.
  The bill is a hoax even on those it portends to help. The individual 
tax rate cuts are dependent on no increase in national debt from now 
until 2009. One slight increase in interest rates is all that it takes 
for the national debt to increase. When was the last time interest 
rates did not increase over a ten year period?
  This bill is a huge hoax because it claims to phase in all sorts of 
tax relief but all the tax changes end on October 1, 2009 as sure as 
Cinderella's coach turned back into a pumpkin.
  For example, the estate tax repeal is not fully phased in until 
January, 2009. By October 1, 2009, the tax law reverts back to today's 
rates and provisions. What kind of incentive does a nine month tax-free 
window for estates create for families?
  The Republican tax bill expands retirement savings incentives at the 
expense of average workers. How many working couples can afford to 
increase their IRA contributions from $2,000 to $5,000 per spouse? The 
Republican bill does nothing to help those who barely make enough to 
fund IRAs at current contribution levels. Rather than helpng lower and 
moderate income taxpayers to save, this bill helps those who have 
already made the maximum contribution under current IRAs and 401(k) 
plans save even more.
  Worse than just helping those in the upper brackets, this bill harms 
lower-wage workers depending on pensions. The Republican tax bill guts 
the ``top heavy'' rules enacted to assure that tax-favored pensions 
would be available to all workers and not skewed to help mainly those 
at the top. The ``top heavy'' rules are gutted just as the contribution 
amounts and benefits are increased. This bill does not bolster pension 
security; it increases pension insecurity for rank and file workers.
  There is a gesture to assist with health expenses but this, too, is 
flawed. The prescription drug benefit is what the Republicans call a 
``place holder'', not a real benefit for real people who today are 
making hard choices about whether to fill their prescriptions or to buy 
food and pay their rent and utilities. Our seniors need prescription 
drug help now, not a promise to deal with drug costs in some undefined 
way at some later time.
  The Republican bill is flawed in the ways it throws money at special 
interests. Business tax breaks, unlike the rate reduction for 
individuals, will be in effect no matter how high the national debt 
soars.
  The Republican tax bill throws $24 billion in tax breaks at the 
multinational corporations. These are the same folks who move American 
jobs overseas.
  It throws about $650 million at the oil and gas industry which has a 
hand out in hard times but never gives credit due consumers in good 
times.
  There is even a tax break to produce power from chicken droppings, a 
real turkey of a provision if there ever was one.
  Timber growers get over $275 in taxpayer assistance for 
reforestation, something timber growers already do.
  Life insurance cmpanies get a billion dollar tax break which allows 
them to file consolidated returns with their affiliates to shelter 
income from tax.

[[Page 20054]]

  Another billion goes to nuclear power plant stockholders with the 
taxpayers picking up the tab for the decommissioning costs.
  The Republican tax bill spends close to $4 billion on raising 
business meal deductions but average workers won't be at the table for 
that perk. They don't get to take clients out for steak and martinis.
  The Republican sponsors boast that their bill returns money to 
American families but they don't even do that in a fair way. Sixty 
percent of the taxpayers in the middle income quintile (annual income 
of $23,800 to $38,200) would receive an average tax cut of $278 a year, 
less than 8% of the total money to be given back to families.
  Compare that to the best off one percent of taxpayers--those making 
more than $301,000--who would get an average tax reduction of more than 
$46,000 a year under the Republican bill.
  The bill does nothing to shore up Social Security or Medicare. It 
precludes paying down the debt with any surplus that occurs.
  Although the Republicans have the votes to pass this turkey of a 
bill, they won't have my support for it. I will vote NO on HR 2488.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I vehemently oppose this Republican tax bill to 
give money to the richest from a phantom surplus. Our surplus comes 
from Social Security funds and cuts in essential programs in housing, 
community oriented policing, legal services, anti-discrimination, 
research, environmental protection, and a host of other programs 
essential to America's families.
  Let's look at the facts.
  Sixty percent of tax payers of middle income and below would receive 
less than 8% of the total tax cuts. Their average tax reduction would 
be only $138 a year.
  The top \1/10\th of taxpayers would receive 69% of the tax reductions 
and get an average annual tax cut of $7,600.
  Those making more than $300,000--would get an average annual tax 
reduction of more than $46,000 a year.
  Let's look at the other 85% of our people. Personal savings are at an 
all-time low and \1/3\ of the people have no assets at all.
  Another 20% have negligible assets. Almost half of all American 
children live in households with no financial assets. More than 10 
million Americans don't even have a bank account.
  We are leaving too many behind. The rich have indicated they don't 
need the tax cut. Thank goodness they want a society with excellent 
schools, a skilled and healthy labor force, safe towns, all the things 
that the rest of us want.
  The Republican tax bill for the rich who don't want it is an awful 
bill and will be rejected by the people.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I favor cutting taxes. We all do.
  But the Republican tax bill offers pie-in-the-sky, campaign promises 
that will give most Americans nothing but pocket change.
  By failing to attack the $6 trillion national debt, Republicans will 
give all Americans higher interest rates and higher prices for 
everything they buy, every day, for years to come.
  We need a coherent fiscal policy, not feel-good election year across-
the-board tax cuts. We can reduce taxes, but we need reasonable tax 
cuts and incentives that really help working families and small 
businesses. Cutting capital gains and estate taxes, and the marriage 
penalty, are a good start.
  But we should not squander this opportunity to put our fiscal house 
in order. We should use budget surpluses to pay off the debt as soon as 
we can.
  But the Republicans are merely leading us down a road we have already 
traveled--a road that leads to greater deficits, higher interest rates, 
and a higher cost of living for every American.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to do the right thing, and we have the resources 
to do it. Save Social Security and Medicare, reduce the national debt, 
and apply tax reductions where they will do the most good.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2488, the 
Republican tax bill. This legislation reminds me of the favorite books 
of my youth. I enjoyed reading the Hardy Boys series which always dealt 
with some mystery, usually the disappearance of something. This 
legislation would be a classic Hardy boys case--they would call it 
``The Case of the Disappearing Tax Cut.''
  The story would unfold with the Republican Leadership going around 
the country touting the major tax break for working families and how 
families would be able to take this tax break and meet all of their 
needs. And lo and behold, come next year when families were actually 
filing their taxes, that tax break would be gone. It would have 
vanished into thin air. At that point, Speaker Hastert and Majority 
Leader DeLay would call in the Hardy Brothers to find out what happened 
to the tax breaks that they had promised.
  Mr. Speaker, it won't take the Hardy Boys to solve this mystery. 
There will be no generous tax break in 2000 because it was never there. 
Under this legislation, families with an income of $30,000 will receive 
an average $278 tax cut--that's a cut of 76 cents a day when the bill 
is fully phased in. There's not a lot that can be done with that 
windfall.
  As with every Republican tax bill, this legislation overflows with 
tax breaks heavily skewed towards special interests and the very rich 
while giving working families minimal assistance with maximum 
braggadocios. While working families will take home less than $300, 
families earning more than $301,000 will get an annual $46,389 bonus 
from uncle Sam. That is $127 in new tax breaks per day and it is more 
than most of my constituents earn.
  On top of that imbalance, this legislation provides all sorts of 
goodies for the special interests. The GOP tax bill phases out the 
corporate minimum tax, gives special tax breaks to utilities to close 
nuclear power plants and special tax treatment for multinational 
giants. Who knows what other goodies are tucked away in this package? 
Certainly not the House Action Reports upon which many of us rely. The 
GOP Leadership and their staff gave them less than $650 billion of the 
$792 billion in ten year tax breaks. Well what's $150 billion in tax 
breaks between friends: ``Don't worry, be happy.'' These facts won't 
come out until this package has been forced through the House.
  In their rush to reward their friends, the Republican majority 
refuses to set aside even one dollar of the on-budget surplus to extend 
the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund or the Social Security Trust 
Fund. Over $4,100 a month in new tax breaks for taxpayers earning more 
than $301,000 but not a penny for resolving the Medicare and Social 
Security programs. Mr. Chairman, it is time for a reality check. The 
problem in this issue is not ideology. We would all like a tax cut. The 
problem is basic arithmetic. This GOP tax bill doesn't add up.
  Frankly, this fiscal tax expenditure scheme, which is based on 
speculative projects, risks undercutting the solid economic growth of 
the U.S. and the global economy. This scheme threatens to blow a hole 
in the budget, stacking up dollar after dollar in deficit red ink with 
no chance to pay down the U.S. $5.6 trillion debt, while starving the 
defense and domestic program to death with commitments significantly 
less than in 1999. Ironically, we cannot even meet the needs today and 
this tax scheme assumes more cuts over the next ten years. This action 
and projection assumes no emergency spending, no military needs, no 
natural disasters, no new investment in families and places the U.S. 
economy in a straight jacket. At its best, this measure is 
irresponsible, unneeded, unfair, unworkable and represents bad 
judgement and politics at its worst.
  Yesterday, the House voted to fund the 2000 Census categorized as a 
$4.5 billion emergency and the Senate added $7.4 billion as an 
agricultural emergency. The way this Congress is moving on emergencies 
there will be no budget surplus in FY 2000.
  I believe that it is possible for Congress to get real and approve a 
targeted tax cut that will benefit working families. But first let us 
get the fiscal house in order and secure Social Security and Medicare, 
pay down the $5.4 trillion debt and then move to enact a fair working 
family tax cut. Such a tax cut could include fairness in the marriage 
penalty and incentives to help families to help themselves. Such a tax 
cut should be based on real economic projections and not be viewed 
through the rose colored glasses that the Republicans wear. Above all 
else, these tax cuts should not be achieved at the expense of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  When the Members vote for this measure they ought to use their 
``charge cards'' because they are voting for new deficits. They want to 
go back to the pre-Clinton 1993 budget when our nation faced $200 
billion to $300 billion deficits each year as far as the eye could see. 
This ``charge it'' policy is not for me nor is it for the American 
people who lived through 20 years of the Reagan inspired instant 
gratification philosophy. It is time to put away the credit card and 
reject this irresponsible, unfair politically inspired tax and fiscal 
mess.
  Mr. Speaker, let's write a new ending to ``The Case of the 
Disappearing Tax Cut.'' Let's work together on a bipartisan tax bill 
that does not jeopardize Social Security and Medicare; that does not 
sentence us to new deficits; that does provide real tax relief for 
working families and does simplify the current tax code.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican Tax 
Bill.
  As I read through the Republicans' Tax Bill, I am reminded of the 
prayer in Saint

[[Page 20055]]

Augustine's Confessions, in which he asked God to ``Give me chastity 
and continence, but not just now.''
  The Republican Leaders in Washington want to genuflect on the alter 
of fiscal responsibility.
  But when it comes down to using the surplus to strengthen education, 
preserve Medicare and give seniors a prescription drug benefit, and pay 
down the debt, they say: ``Give us chastity and continence, but not 
just now.''
  And with this bill, we are seeing the GOP embarking on a budget-
busting bender.
  The top 10 percent of the taxpayers will get 48 percent of the total 
benefits. The middle class tax breaks are phased in slowly, and may not 
happen at all depending on the strength of the economy. In contrast, 
the special-interest corporate tax breaks and estate tax repeal are 
automatic.
  This isn't tax relief. It's deficit debauchery. This bill will 
squander the surplus on tax breaks for the rich, do nothing for Social 
Security, nothing for Medicare, and nothing on a prescription drug 
benefit. And at the same time, it will threaten to send us back to the 
days of deficits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). All time for debate on the 
conference report has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit this bill to 
the conference, hoping that Democrats this time might be included so we 
can clean up this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
opposed to the conference report?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rangel moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill, H.R. 2488, to the committee on conference with the 
     following instructions to the managers on the part of the 
     House.
       1. In order--
       A. to preserve 100 percent of the Social Security Trust 
     Fund surpluses for the Social Security program and to 
     preserve 50 percent of the currently projected non-Social 
     Security surpluses for purposes of reducing the publicly held 
     national debt, and
       B. to insure that there will be adequate budgetary 
     resources available to extend the solvency of the Social 
     Security and Medicare systems, and to provide a Medicare 
     prescription drug benefit,

     the House managers shall, to the extent permitted within the 
     scope of conference, insist on limiting the net 10-year tax 
     reduction provided in the conference report to not more than 
     25 percent of the currently projected non-Social Security 
     surpluses (or if greater, the smallest tax reduction 
     permitted within the scope of conference).
       2. The House managers shall, to the extent permitted within 
     the scope of conference, insist on not including in the 
     conference report any provision which would constitute a 
     limited tax benefit within the meaning of the Line Item Veto 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 221, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 378]

                               YEAS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 20056]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bilbray
     Ganske
     Lantos
     Largent
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  1336

  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ANDREWS, CONYERS, RAHALL and PAYNE changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 206, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 379]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bilbray
     Gutierrez
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  1347

  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.

                          ____________________