[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3229-3238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF 
                              ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 83

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce individual income tax 
     rates. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means 
     now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Rangel of New 
     York or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1100


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, under what rules of the House is the rule 
that we are about to consider being brought to the floor when Section 
303 of the Congressional Budget Act says that until the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for a fiscal year has been agreed to, it shall 
not be in order in the House of Representatives, with respect to the 
first fiscal year covered by that resolution, or the Senate, with 
respect to any fiscal year covered by that resolution, to consider any 
bill, any bill or joint resolution, amendment or motion thereto, or 
conference report thereon that; one, first provides new budget 
authority for that fiscal year; two, first provides an increase or 
decrease in revenues during the fiscal year; three, provides an 
increase or decrease in the public debt limit to become effective 
during the fiscal year; and, four, in the Senate only, first provides 
new entitlement authority for that fiscal year?
  Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is, under what rule of the 
House are we bringing this rule and this resolution today before this 
body?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond to the gentleman 
that the rule is brought under rule XIII of the House, which allows the 
Committee on Rules to bring special orders of business to the House at 
any time, and it is under clause 5 of rule XIII that the rule is being 
considered.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Do I understand the Speaker to say that this rule is 
waiving this particular Federal law, or are there some technical 
definitions that we will hear in which technically that we are still 
within this law?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond that the Clerk has 
read the rule, which includes waiver of all points of order against 
consideration, and that was read to all Members.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, briefly continuing on my parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may continue.
  Mr. STENHOLM. So that I might understand, it is the decision of the 
Speaker that this bill that we will soon take up shall come to the 
floor of the House under a rule that waives technically all points of 
order?

[[Page 3230]]

  My opposition, I guess, to this if that is the Chair's ruling, this 
centers around the fact that I thought that we got away from 
technically defining words on January 20, but it seems that we are 
going to continue that in the House for a few more days.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond to the gentleman 
that it is up to the will of the House as to whether the rule is 
adopted or not.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, just for information, my understanding is that the 
Democratic substitute actually probably violates more rules that we are 
waiving points of order on than the Republican measure of any points 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) brings before us today.
  House Resolution 83 is a modified closed rule, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 3, a bill to reduce individual income tax rates 
by amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means. Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill.
  The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
  The rule also provides consideration of an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the 
resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or 
his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately 
debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled between a proponent 
and an opponent.
  Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in strong support of this rule and its 
underlying bill, H.R. 3, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 
2001.
  This bill provides immediate relief to taxpayers by reducing the 
present-law structure of five income tax rates to four by 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, 238 years after patriot James Otis first railed that 
``taxation without representation is tyranny,'' the American people 
have found that taxation with representation is not so hot either.
  Working Americans are spending a greater percentage of their income 
towards taxes than at any time since World War II. In an era of 
unprecedented budget surpluses, that is just plain wrong.
  The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act is the first step towards 
establishing parity and fairness in America's Tax Code.
  The President's plan gives a tax cut to every American who pays 
income taxes and gives the lowest income families the largest 
percentage reduction.
  When fully implemented, President Bush's tax plan will eliminate the 
death tax, reduce the marriage penalty, and continue this majority's 
commitment to fiscal responsibility in paying down our Nation's debt.
  Equally important, the President's tax plan will spur savings and 
investment and, in an analysis released just yesterday by the respected 
Heritage Foundation, will boost economic activity, creating 917,000 new 
jobs and strengthen the income of taxpayers.
  As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has warned, America's 
economy is slowing, and relief such as this, that puts more money in 
the pockets of working families, may very well keep us out of a 
recession.
  In my own congressional district, earning the district's family 
median income of just under $35,000, they would pay no Federal income 
taxes under the President's plan, saving them more than $1,400.
  Mr. Speaker, $1,400 is enough to send a child to a semester of 
community college, make a mortgage payment or pay off a credit card. 
This is real savings, real money in the pockets of local families.
  Of course, under the Democrats substitute included within this rule, 
that family in my district would not be able to afford a semester of 
community college for their child, pay off their credit card or even 
make a mortgage payment. That is because in testimony yesterday before 
the Committee on Rules, the measure's sponsor admitted that the family 
would pay $700 in Federal income taxes, and that is $700 more than they 
would pay under President Bush's plan.
  We all know that it was a position of a previous administration and 
even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this 
plan will benefit only the very rich.
  The median family income in my district is $34,573, not exactly 
enough to be featured on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Under the 
Republican plan, they would pay nothing, saving more than $1,400. Under 
the Democratic plan, they would save less than half of that, having to 
write a check to Uncle Sam each and every year. Whose plan is it that 
is really helping working families?
  Now, I know that there have been people that say Americans do not 
care about this tax cut. They are wrong. Paul Meloon, a husband, 
father, teacher from Batavia, New York, in my congressional district, 
recently wrote me about, and I quote, ``whether the country can afford 
tax cuts.''
  ``The people that pay the taxes'' Paul wrote,''can't afford our high 
taxes. We can't afford so much year after year on Federal programs. No 
one asks if the taxpayer can afford a tax hike. It's not a matter of 
affording a tax cut, we demand it.''
  Paul, thanks to our President and this Congress, you are going to get 
the tax relief you need.
  Mr. Speaker, I have another purely parochial reason for so 
enthusiastically supporting this tax relief package. Currently, my 
State gets back only 85 cents of every dollar it sends to the Federal 
Government.
  For years, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan released a report 
detailing the tremendous inequity that New Yorkers were burdened with 
each and every year, sending their hard-earned dollars to Washington 
and losing billions of dollars on their investment.
  As Senator Moynihan himself suggested, the more New Yorkers send to 
Washington, the bigger the disparity. So maybe we should not send down 
as much, and let New York's families keep more of their hard earned 
money to spend how they see fit.
  Under the President's tax plan, New York State will receive the 
second most of any State in tax relief, $88.6 billion over 10 years. On 
average, taxpaying households in New York will receive more than 
$18,000 of relief over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that this government is amassing 
record-breaking surpluses; it is because people are sending too much 
money to Washington. Today we have the opportunity to give them 
something they have earned and something they deserve. We can give them 
some of their money back. I ask only that my colleagues not let this 
historic opportunity slip by.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), our new chairman of the Committee on Ways and Mean, and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member, for their 
hard work on this measure as it comes before the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my 
good friend, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Senate will only take up a tax bill

[[Page 3231]]

after they vote on the budget, so what is the rush here in the House? 
This is not the right time to debate a tax bill. This is not the right 
time to consider a spending bill. This is not the right time to require 
the House to decide about any part of a budget, because we have not 
agreed on an overall budget plan.
  I do not say that because the law or the Congressional Budget Act 
says so. I do not say this just because plain old common sense tells us 
we should make decisions the same way any rational individual or family 
or business firm would. I know the Committee on Rules can waive the 
Budget Act and the dictates of common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the right time to consider a tax bill, 
because we need an overall budget to see what we can actually afford.
  Mr. Speaker, I sense a broad bipartisan support for a host of very 
important commitments, including providing tax relief. We agreed on the 
need to continue paying down the debt. There is a broad commitment to 
invest in more education and more national defense. We all say we need 
to provide prescription drug benefits and, most importantly, Mr. 
Speaker, there was a consensus to undertake a serious shoring up of 
Social Security and Medicare.
  But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3 is estimated to cost almost $1 trillion. Can 
we really afford a trillion dollar tax cut with our schools crumbling 
and overcrowded, our prescription drug costs skyrocketing, our Social 
Security and Medicare programs begging for reform?
  We cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker, unless we have an 
overall budget plan. I am sure a lot of people would be amazed, Mr. 
Speaker, to know that 43 percent of President Bush's tax cuts benefit 
the richest 1 percent of Americans. Let me repeat that, 43 percent of 
President Bush's tax cuts benefit only 1 percent of the richest 
Americans.
  Those tax cuts are 13 times larger than all of President Bush's 
education reform proposals, 13 times larger than all of President 
Bush's education reform proposals, all the dollars that President Bush 
has proposed for all kinds of educational reform amounts to less than 
\1/13\ of the tax cuts that go to the richest 1 percent of America. I 
mean that figure is amazing.
  I cannot understand how my Republican colleagues can defend a $15,000 
tax cut to a family making $500,000 per year in income, while the 
Republican bill, that same bill, gives absolutely no tax cut to a 
working family with three children earning $30,000 a year.
  I cannot imagine how any Congressman can defend this proposal at home 
unless they represent a district very different from the one I do.

                              {time}  1115

  In my State of Massachusetts, 224,000 families with children will not 
get any benefits whatsoever from this Republican tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question so that I may 
offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment would require Congress to 
adopt the budget resolution before the House takes up the tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not debate H.R. 3 until we have a budget to 
show us if H.R. 3 leaves room for all the other things we agreed we 
need to do. We need to fix Social Security. We need to fix Medicare. We 
need to keep our promises to the beneficiaries of these programs today 
and tomorrow.
  Today's New York Times says, ``The House leadership's rush for action 
today makes a mockery of President Bush's pledge for bipartisanship and 
respect for dissent.'' Cutting taxes without a budget, the Times 
continues, ``is tantamount to telling lawmakers not to look too closely 
because they might change their minds if they do.'' Social Security and 
Medicare are too important to be treated so recklessly.
  Mr. Speaker, let the Congress see whether this tax cut leaves the 
resources we need to do all the other important things we must do for 
America, and then we can take up this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time of record surpluses, should Americans pay 
40 percent of their income in taxes? Should they pay more to the tax 
collector than for food, shelter, and clothing combined? Mr. Speaker, 
the truth is that, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too 
much. That is why we are here.
  Let us take a look at the road that has led us down this path. We 
have paid down $363 billion of debt since 1997. We have already taken 
steps to protect nearly $3 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, to 
provide for further debt relief. According to the conservative budget 
projections that we keep hearing, we continue to maintain a very 
significant surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too much. 
Now we have the opportunity to provide American taxpayers, all American 
taxpayers, with a refund for the taxes they have been overcharged. By 
taking this step today, we can further empower people to help 
themselves and to help our economy.
  How can we ever underestimate the importance of this money to 
individuals and their families? This tax relief represents new clothes 
for children, school tuition or personal debt reduction or even a new 
heater or air conditioner for a home.
  Mr. Speaker, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too much. We 
have a record surplus. We cannot spend it. The American people need it. 
They have record debt. They can use it. Return to sender. Let us give 
it back and let them spend it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, this House and the Congress 
rushed headlong into the promised land of supply-side economics. This 
institution bought this medicine-show magic of cutting taxes along with 
rosy economic forecasts that within a year left us soaring deficits and 
a staggering public debt. It was a classic case of, if it is too good 
to be true, it probably is.
  Mr. Speaker, we are right back there today. We have spent the last 18 
years struggling to bring deficits and debt under control and have only 
now begun to see the fruits of our labor.
  My Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten that the promises of 
20 years ago were fool's gold. So today they are again rushing pell-
mell toward yet another promised land that may turn out to be only a 
mirage.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, Democrats support tax relief for the 
American taxpayer. But Democrats do not support this bill. We do not 
support considering this bill or any other tax bill without having 
first put into place a budget that will give us a more realistic 
understanding of what we can and what we cannot afford.
  Democrats cannot support a tax package that will once again trigger 
deficit spending and will set back our efforts to pay down the national 
debt. Democrats cannot support a tax package that is so heavily weighed 
toward the most well-off of this country that low- and moderate-income 
working families will necessarily have to be shortchanged.
  Democrats cannot support a package that is built on a foundation of 
rhetoric and not on reality. Once one gets past the Republican 
rhetoric, it is clear that this package provides no tax relief for 
millions of Americans, including nationwide the families of 24 million 
children.
  In Texas, the President's home State, 1.2 million families with 2.3 
million children will receive no benefits at all. Over 85 percent of 
American households will receive a tax cut far less than the $1,600 
President Bush has promised. At the same time, the Republican tax plan 
gives 43 percent of its benefits to the richest 1 percent of Americans 
and in so doing, will force this Congress to cut funds for national 
priorities ranging from education and defense to law enforcement and 
health care.
  This tax bill will ensure that any surpluses that do materialize in 
the Treasury will be spent and is, therefore,

[[Page 3232]]

nothing more than a promise to raid the Social Security and Medicare 
Trust funds; and Democrats cannot and will not support that.
  It is an amazing turn of events. The Democrats are now seen as the 
party of fiscal responsibility, the party that wants to protect the 
American taxpayers' money, now and in the future. The Republican Party 
today is relinquishing any claim to that title. They have relinquished 
any claim to responsible law-making.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this proposition is the 
height of fiscal irresponsibility. The consideration of this 
proposition, without having first put into place a budget, is, quite 
frankly, a dereliction of duty.
  This is a shameful subversion of the process that no Member of this 
body should support.
  Mr. Speaker, we were all elected to serve the people of our 
individual Districts and the people of the United States as a whole. 
That is a proud and noble responsibility. But, today we are doing them 
a disservice. Instead of doing the right thing, we are replaying the 
actions of 20 years ago that were neither proud nor noble.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) in the spirit of bipartisanship for tax cuts.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the bill. I hear 
the same old arguments: Cutting taxes only helps the rich. This time 
the excuse is the budget. Once again, the politics of division, pitting 
rich versus poor, worker versus company. Mr. Speaker, this is un-
American.
  If there is no wealth, there is no investor. If there is no investor, 
there is no company. If there is no company, there is no job. If there 
is no job, there is no American family.
  It is time to wake up. America is still a Nation of free enterprise 
and capitalism. And, Mr. Speaker, profit is not a dirty word.
  I happen to come from a poor family, like many others. My dad, Mr. 
Speaker, never worked for a poor guy. In fact, today, I want to thank 
every company that found my father fit, good enough to have worked for 
them and to have made a living to help our family.
  But I thank more than anyone else and support today our President. I 
believe the President is right on this targeting business. Some who 
would target people in are the same who would target people out. Enough 
of the targeting in America. There is enough bull's-eyes on people's 
backs to go around.
  All Americans deserve a tax cut. Every American that pays taxes 
should get a tax break. The President of the United States today should 
get that support because the American people are coming to realize that 
it is not our money. It is the taxpayer's money, and we should in fact 
return some of that money. I compliment those who have crafted this 
bill. I also compliment Mr. Rangel for making an attempt to mitigate 
some of the concerns that are realistic, but ladies and gentlemen, the 
politics of division must be set aside. It is wrecking America.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say one last thing. The rhetoric of division is 
the rhetoric of socialism, not a capitalistic, free enterprise America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is not an accounting debate, this is a 
debate about the future of this country. I believe that every American 
ought to get a tax cut, and the kind of tax cut that I favor is one 
that will not eat up so much of the surpluses that there is nothing on 
the table to strengthen Social Security or Medicare or strengthen 
schools or pay for a prescription drug benefit or fill in the gaps in 
health care and pay down debt. That is why I believe that there should 
be no tax bill on this floor until we have a full, complete budget so 
we can see the entire game plan.
  For this Congress to proceed with taxes alone before they have the 
other pieces on the basis of promises about what will happen to the 
economy 10 years from now is as irresponsible as the action that this 
Congress took in 1981. In 1981, this Congress roared through President 
Reagan's budget and said ``If you pass that big tax cut, we will have a 
balanced budget in 4 years.'' This chart demonstrates, the green bar 
shows the promises and the red bar shows the results. Instead of 
getting to a surplus, we wound up with $600 billion of added debt in 
those 4 years, and over the next 10 years we more than quadrupled the 
national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the route we are heading down again if you pass 
this bill. Fooled me once, shame on you. Fall for it twice, shame on 
me. Fall for it four times, please, bring on the adult supervision!
  Mr. Speaker, the only other point I want to make is to say that this 
bill demonstrates that the top priority of the majority party, with all 
of the problems Americans face on Social Security, education, health 
care and the lot, their top priority is to ease the tax burden on those 
who make more than $300,000 a year by huge amounts. If that is your top 
priority, I say pitiful.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, consumer confidence, capital investment and 
growth are down. Layoffs, energy prices, and concerns are up. Tax 
relief is critical to giving a boost to the economy and putting the 
brakes on runaway Washington spending. Americans are more than aware 
that surplus money that stays in Washington is spent to perpetuate 
Washington bureaucracies.
  H.R. 3 intends to put taxpayers' money first. We have walled off over 
$3 trillion for Social Security, Medicare and further debt relief. 
Since 1997, Republicans have paid down $363 billion of debt. Uncle 
Sam's fiscal house is not only in order, it is in the best shape it has 
been in generations. H.R. 3 works under a simple principle, that no one 
should be paying more than one-third of their income to the IRS. It 
helps lower-income Americans by making tax relief retroactive to 
January 1 of this year providing tax relief for working Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can all support the rule for H.R. 3 and 
put money back into the pockets of American taxpayers instead of 
pouring in the abyss known as Uncle Sam's bank account.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am here to represent the working people 
in my district, the schoolteacher dealing with an overcrowded class 
working to teach 30 students algebra, the waitress at my local diner 
serving tables, the police officer risking his life every day, these 
are the hard-working people that I am fighting to give a tax break to.
  So when I look at a Republican plan that gives a tax-free inheritance 
to a billionaire's son, and an average tax cut of over $28,000 to those 
making $900,000 a year while giving, on average, only several hundred 
dollars per family to the vast middle class, that just does not seem 
fair to me.
  I do not think that most American families would take all of their 
projected earnings for the next 10 years and spend every last dime up 
front leaving no room for ill health or a rainy day. Unlike the 
Republicans, most American families would never do this without first 
preparing a budget. But that is what the President wants us to do here, 
blindly follow him and leap off the budgetary cliff.
  The Democratic plan gives everyone a fair tax break, leaves enough 
money to pay down the debt and invest in the future. The Republican 
plan gives away our future so that a few can share the lion's share of 
everyone's hard-earned surplus.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the Committee on Rules for bringing this to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk specifically, because we are hearing a 
lot of rhetoric today, about how we are

[[Page 3233]]

matching priorities with our ability to pay. Basically, we are covering 
a fiscal relief package that not only provides Social Security and 
Medicare, but takes care of priorities and provides what we think is a 
rather slim tax relief package.
  Now, the people on the other side of the aisle say they represent the 
working class, and I appreciate their interest in that subject. I 
started in life in a gas station. I went on to become a dishwasher in a 
restaurant. I went on at the age of 21 to start a small family business 
in Lakeworth, Florida. And week after week I would work hard, with the 
help of my employees, to make the business a success. But oftentimes 
there was no money left for me at the end of the week. So when people 
demean a $180 tax cut as insignificant, maybe it is easy for people who 
make $145,000 a year to say $20 or $30 a month is insignificant. But I 
know when I was struggling in my business, if I got an extra 5 bucks a 
week I was delighted, because I was able to do something in my 
community with that $5.
  Let us not diminish this debate into, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) said, a class warfare debate. I think it is significant that 
every American works hard and, when they work hard, they are rewarded 
for their good behavior. But I want to show one other thing and I will 
leave my colleagues with this next chart.
  This is what we are facing now. This is Newsweek's impression of 
where our economy is. If we do not pass the tax cut we can look forward 
to more headlines like that. ``Laid off. How safe is your job?''
  Maybe $20 is too much to give hard-working Americans back, or maybe 
it is the Lexus or muffler comparison used by the other side of the 
aisle, but I would suggest to my colleagues that those in the trenches 
working hard, and though I do not have a college degree, I know many 
people in my community who work hard every day would thankfully look at 
20 bucks a week and say, Thank you, U.S. Congress; thanks for sending 
some relief. And maybe because of this economic stimulation, I will not 
face that headline and a pink slip at the end of the week.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  There are three points I want to make today about the tax plan before 
us: number one, when an American family considers spending in a major 
way, whether it be on a home or a car, they sit down first to figure 
out how it fits into their budget and if they can afford it. The 
Congress is not that sensible. Almost $2 trillion of spending today and 
no budget. I think this is wrong.
  Number two: do the American people deserve a tax cut? Sure they do. 
But we have some old bills to pay and interest on those bills. If all 
of the tax revenue belongs to all of the American people, so does our 
national debt, and that should be paid off. And we have family 
obligations, too: A solvent Social Security System, a prescription drug 
benefit in Medicare, a superb education system for our children. That 
is why we should budget before we spend.
  Number three: Let me warn Californians and New Yorkers to fasten 
their seatbelts, because under the Bush tax plan they will not be able 
to deduct their State income taxes or their property taxes anymore.
  I think there is a better way. We should be fiscally responsible. We 
should budget first, pay off our debt, and save and invest prudently. 
Vote against the plan.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding me this time.
  Today's legislation is a great first step in providing tax relief for 
Americans and American families. All Americans who pay taxes deserve 
tax relief. Allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn in their 
own pockets and providing for paying down of the debt is a first good 
step for this Congress, but we need to do more. I look forward to 
working with this body to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and to 
putting an end to the death tax.
  Today, however, let us help strengthen our slowing economy and 
support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to putting money back in 
people's pockets.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
Yesterday, I offered an amendment to add a trigger mechanism, or a 
safety valve, to the President's rate-reduction plan. Under my 
amendment, the safety valve would only be triggered if the Treasury 
Secretary determines that we are financing tax cuts with the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds. My amendment was rejected.
  If bringing this bill to the floor is a litmus test on uniting 
instead of dividing, the Republican leadership has failed. President 
Bush pledged to change the tone in Washington; yet his own party is 
using its narrow majority to stifle bipartisanship.
  The American people have worked hard and deserve real tax relief. Let 
us not squander this opportunity to give it to them by playing partisan 
politics. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the rule on H.R. 3. Webster's dictionary 
defines the word ``refund'' thus: to give back or put back; to return 
money in restitution; repayment or balancing of accounts.
  Today, we have the opportunity to take a small part of the Federal 
surplus and give it back to Americans who have overpaid their taxes. It 
is a refund.
  Now, I have heard that some suggest that this refund is nothing more 
than a giveaway to the wealthy. They will be able to buy a new Lexus, 
while others will only be able to buy a new muffler. Well, that was the 
message that was broadcast across the country, and here is what one of 
my constituents wrote to me. ``Dear Judy, I want my tax relief, even if 
I only get the muffler.''
  Well, under H.R. 3, taxpayers of all income levels will get much more 
than a muffler. They will get the tax relief they deserve and the 
refund they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R. 
3.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, when I am at home in Orange County, people 
continuously tell me, Pay down the debt, Loretta. Strengthen Social 
Security; take care of Medicare. In other words, we need to figure out 
our budget before we make a tax cut.
  The Blue Dogs have called for the largest possible tax cut available, 
the one that we can afford. But until we make our budget, we do not 
know what we can afford. No one would go out and buy a house and not do 
a budget.
  Today, in the paper, we read that the Civil Engineers of America have 
written a report that says our sewers are in trouble, our water pipes 
are in trouble, our transportation system is in trouble, aviation is in 
trouble. Even businessmen who have been promised the Bush tax cut will 
spend more time and money sitting there waiting because that runway was 
not built in their city.
  So let us do what is correct. Let us sit down and do a budget. Let us 
not vote for a tax cut until we know what our obligations are.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, at some point I do think we have to get 
realistic in terms of our arguments against this bill. The title of the 
bill is the Economic Recovery and Relief Act of 2001. That is this 
year. Despite all the arguments that are being made on the other side 
of the aisle about a budget

[[Page 3234]]

not being in place, they are simply wrong. Why are they wrong? Because 
we have a budget for 2001.
  We create a budget every year. No multiyear tax plan or spending plan 
has a budget that conforms to that plan beyond 1 year. We have a budget 
in place. It pays down debt. It takes care of Medicare. We have a lock 
box for Social Security. That is this year's budget. Democrats voted 
for it.
  This bill pays, this year, a return to the taxpayers. It is the only 
budget available, and it fits. Their problem is they are just having a 
hard time supporting real tax reduction.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time my 
colleague and I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) has 12 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, President Roosevelt once said, ``The test of 
our progress as a society is not whether we do more for those who 
already have enough but whether we do enough for those who have too 
little.'' President Kennedy said, ``Ask not what your country can do 
for you, but rather what you can do for your country.''
  The Republicans here today have issued a different kind of a 
challenge: ``Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what can be 
done for your country club pals. Ask not what is in this titanic tax 
cut for ordinary families, ask what is in it for the wealthiest 1 
percent,'' with an average income of $1.1 million a year. Forty-five 
percent of the benefit goes to the upper 1 percentile. And, finally, 
``Ask not who pays now but who will pay 10 and 15 years from now,'' 
because this tax cut becomes so massive when the baby boomers retire, 
when the number of Alzheimer's patients will increase from 4 million to 
14 million; Parkinson's disease down the line, long-term care, Social 
Security, and Medicare. That is when the tax cut begins to balloon, 
just as the greatest needs do for those seniors who built our country.
  It is immoral, Mr. Speaker, to pass a bill which calls for sacrifice 
from those who will need much a decade from now.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and 
the rule which brings it to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from 
New York for yielding me this time.
  The average person, as many people have noted today, pays almost 40 
percent of his or her income in Federal, State, and local taxes; as 
well as sales taxes, property, income, gas, excise, and all of the 
different taxes; Social Security and so forth. The GAO tells us that 80 
percent of Americans pay higher Social Security taxes than anything 
else today. Then, of course as many people have noted, families pay out 
another 10 percent in regulatory costs, which are things that 
government forces or requires businesses to do that are passed on to 
the consumer in the form of higher prices.
  One Member of the other body said recently that today one spouse 
works to support the family while the other spouse has to work to 
support the government. Former President Clinton said in Buffalo that 
we cannot give the people a tax cut because they would not spend it in 
the right way. Well, many of us believe that people know better how to 
spend their own money than bureaucrats in Washington know how to spend 
it for them.
  The President's plan, as has been noted, takes only about 30 percent 
of the projected surplus, as has been projected by the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office over the next 10 years, to give back to the 
people. Only about 30 percent. This is a balanced plan, with some going 
to those who will spend it immediately and some going to people who 
will invest it. So the benefits will be both short term and long term.
  Over 6 million lower-income people will be removed from the tax rolls 
entirely under this bill. This is a moderate plan, a reasonable plan, 
and a responsible plan. It deserves our support, Mr. Speaker. Everyone 
is better off. More jobs are created. Prices are lower when more money 
is left in the private sector where it is spent more economically and 
more efficiently than does government.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STENHOLM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. STENHOLM. In light of the statement the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means made a moment ago, and which I agree he is 
technically correct regarding the budget, my parliamentary inquiry is, 
is the concurrent resolution on the budget that the House adopted last 
year still valid, even if the majority in this body voted last year to 
exceed the spending levels in that resolution by at least $33 billion 
in the current fiscal year alone?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can affirm that House Concurrent 
Resolution 290 of the 106th Congress is still in place by the adoption 
of House Resolution 5 on the opening day of the 107th Congress.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. STENHOLM. Further extending my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Speaker, it is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget filed a report adjusting the revenue level set in the budget 
resolution last year to make room for the bill before us today.
  Does the chairman of the Committee on the Budget have the authority 
to change the revenue and spending levels set by the budget resolution 
without a debate or vote in the full House of Representatives?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would respond to 
the gentleman that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget makes 
reports from time to time reflecting current levels and making such 
adjustments in appropriate levels as are consistent with the budget 
resolution. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has authority 
under the budget resolution to make certain adjustments from time to 
time, and he does so consistent with that authority.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Further extending my parliamentary inquiry to make sure 
that I understand what the Speaker has said, the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget may make adjustments to the budget without 
action of the House of Representatives regarding the budget for the 
fiscal year 2001 of which we are now operating under which is being 
used, I believe technically correct, to justify bringing this bill 
before the House today?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again respond to the 
gentleman that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
such adjustments as are authorized under the budget resolution.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the Speaker for his clarification.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this multi-trillion-dollar tax 
plan that benefits mostly the wealthy. Without the context of a budget, 
it is impossible for us to foresee what vital programs will be 
sacrificed. We do know, however, that under the President's budget 
blueprint, all funding would be cut for both the FIRE Act and Project 
Impact, two FEMA programs that are vital to community safety. Last 
year, the FIRE Act was signed into law as part of the defense 
appropriations bill. Almost every single Member of this House supported 
this measure, illustrating how urgent it is.
  Each year, over 100 firefighters die in the line of duty. Many of 
these deaths could have been avoided with improved technology and 
increased funding. And Project Impact, Mr. Speaker, helps communities 
prevent tragedies and prepare themselves if disaster strikes.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent Worcester, Massachusetts, where six brave 
firefighters lost their lives in a terrible blaze that engulfed an 
abandoned building. No community should ever have to experience the 
pain my community did. Is it too much to ask that

[[Page 3235]]

Donald Trump be given a slightly smaller tax cut in order to save 
efforts that save lives and make a difference for our communities? I 
urge my colleagues to support our firefighters, defeat the rule, and 
defeat this Republican tax bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in support of the rule and in support of this important 
piece of tax relief legislation. I would like to tell my colleagues 
why. We all pay taxes and we are all entitled to tax relief. It could 
not be more simple.
  There are two big myths put out here about this tax relief plan: 
First, they say it is too big. Second, they say it is only for the 
wealthy. Let us address each. First, it is too big. We are using 70 
percent of the tax surplus to pay down the debt, shore up Social 
Security, shore up Medicare and provide prescription drugs, with only 
30 percent going back to the folks who paid the taxes, the taxpayers. 
Now, we could keep that money in Washington, but Washington is going to 
spend it if we keep it here. Whether it is a Republican Congress, a 
Democrat Congress, a Congress made up of space aliens, they will spend 
it if we keep it here.
  The second myth is that this is only for the rich. The truth of the 
matter is that a secretary raising three children, a single mom making 
$35,000 a year, will get a 100 percent tax cut. Her boss, a lawyer 
making $100,000 a year, will get a 16 percent tax cut. The folks on the 
low end of the income spectrum are the big winners. The top 10 percent 
of wage earners provide 66 percent of the tax revenue. Of course they 
are entitled to relief. They are the people who provide jobs in this 
country.
  I owe it to my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on this tax 
relief measure.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and I oppose the plan. 
If we choose wisely, we can provide very sensible tax relief for all 
Americans, we can pay down the national debt, we can invest in the 
priorities of the American people and the people of my district, the 
First Congressional District of North Carolina, providing quality 
education, providing prescription drugs for our seniors so they do not 
have to choose between buying food and buying medicine, supporting 
hardworking farmers, fighting the scourge of child poverty and 
strengthening Social Security so all Americans can rest easily and 
confidently in their retirement of tomorrow.
  Is this tax bill too large? It is too large. Is it fair? It is 
unfair. It is too large because it is fuzzy math. I serve on the 
Committee on the Budget. We are now trying to decide what really is the 
true contingency, whether it is $1.85 trillion, because you do not 
know. Indeed, the math is fuzzy. It is not fair.
  All of these people are left out. As my colleague who preceded me 
said, three families, $24,000, you get no money. That is unfair.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
tax program. I will say that this is a good opportunity because, after 
all, we need good jobs at good wages and this tax bill will give us 
more saving and investment in our economy. But I will express a regret 
that I have, and, that is, the fact that the trigger that I supported 
and that Chairman Greenspan has outspokenly supported in testimony both 
before House and Senate Committees. I wish that debt trigger could have 
been included in this. But it would seem to me that the Senate is 
probably going to pass a trigger also known as a ``safety valve.'' So 
it may be in consideration in the conference. But in any case, we can 
certainly go back and deal with the trigger as we do the budget 
resolution later this year.
  In any case, we have to be fiscally responsible, and I am speaking 
now as a fiscal conservative, and not increase the debt but balance the 
budget, pay down the debt and get the saving and investment back in 
this economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I say this for the following reasons:


                           REDUCING TAX RATES

  The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 will provide 
approximately $958 billion over 10 years in income tax relief. This 
plan will put money into the pockets of American families by reducing 
income tax rates across the board.
  Mr. Speaker, hardworking American families are paying more in taxes 
than they should or need to pay. In fact, federal income tax revenues 
rose dramatically in the 1990s. Today, federal taxes from all sources 
are the highest they have ever been during peacetime, topping 20 
percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). No one, no matter what 
their income, should send more than one-third of their income to the 
IRS in taxes. That is why we need tax relief.
  This bill provides immediate tax relief by reducing the current 15 
percent tax rate on the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples 
($6,000 for singles). This bill represents the heart of President 
Bush's tax package to bring fairness, simplicity and tax relief to 
American families.
  This tax bill not only provides tax relief for millions of American 
families but also generates economic growth by helping small 
businesses.
  You see S corporations pay taxes at the individual rate level. By 
cutting the individual rates helps these small businesses. These small 
businesses create millions of new jobs every year. I have advocated S 
corporation tax relief and have introduced legislation to help these 
``job machines.'' This tax cut carries through on this action and will 
stimulate the economy by providing relief for S corporations.


                             AGE OF SURPLUS

  This new ``age of surplus'' offers us both a great opportunity and 
challenge.
  The opportunity is for once and all to put our fiscal house in order. 
We have the opportunity to make the necessary structural and funding 
changes to save Social Security and Medicare for this and future 
generations, pay down the debt, provide for national priorities like 
education and healthcare, and provide for tax relief like we are today.
  But like all true fiscal conservatives, I worry that we are making 
decisions today that will affect our national bottom line in ten years. 
And we are making these decisions based on ten-year economic 
assumptions. We cannot deny that the huge projected surplus is just 
that--``projected.'' While these assumptions may ultimately be correct, 
I believe there is no one in this House who would venture a bet on it. 
The money may or may not materialize in the amount we predict.
  If the revenue materializes, that's great. Then what I am about to 
say is a moot point.
  But if the revenue does not materialize, it's back to the bad old 
days--the bad old days of deficits and red ink as far as the eye can 
see.
  Clearly, the American people want a tax refund. In our current 
economic and fiscal condition, they deserve it. But they do not want us 
to return to the bad old days of mounting national debt.
  How do we prevent that? I submit that we need a double-barreled debt 
prevention mechanism--a debt trigger.


                              DEBT TRIGGER

  I am very disappointed that we are not including a debt trigger as 
the Senate has under consideration.
  In 1999, this House passed as part of that year's tax bill a debt 
trigger. A debt trigger is a fiscally conservative idea that was 
supported by 216 Republicans in the 1999 tax bill. The debt trigger on 
a tax bill would make future tax reductions contingent on debt 
reduction. Therefore if future surpluses failed to materialize, then no 
tax cuts would occur. But let me be perfectly clear--a trigger would 
not cancel tax cuts already in effect or cause a tax increase.
  It would merely ensure that tax cuts are paid for in full so that we 
do not add to the national debt that hangs over our children's heads. 
We must understand that our children will inherit the debt. It is a 
burden created by us for them to carry. I firmly believe that the wish 
of every parent is to leave the world a better place for his or her 
children. And the greatest challenge of Congress is to make sure that 
the next generation will be better than this generation. That is the 
overwhelming moral imperative of this Congress. We must not shrink from 
this responsibility.
  Chairman Greenspan supports the idea of a debt trigger and reaffirmed 
it in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in February. 
In fact he supports a trigger on both the tax and spending side.
  Again, I would expect that serious consideration will be given to 
this trigger in conference

[[Page 3236]]

with the Senate. The trigger is the fiscally responsible, conservative 
procedure to follow. It will complement the growth of our economy on a 
sound financial basis.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go on record as supporting a debt trigger for 
both the tax and spending side. That is why I believe we should adopt 
this ``dual trigger'' on the Budget Resolution that we will consider 
later this year. A debt trigger is a fiscally conservative idea whose 
time has come and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in this 
effort.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support tax relief provided in this bill and 
I strongly support providing tax relief in a fiscally conservative 
manner. That is why I am going to support this bill and work for a debt 
trigger on the budget resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the budget process and 
in opposition to this rule because it overrides, overrules and 
dispenses with the budget process.
  We are here talking about a tax bill for a particular reason. We are 
here because we have moved the budget from a deficit of $290 billion, a 
record deficit, in 1992, to surpluses no one thought possible just a 
few years ago, surpluses that extend as far out as the eye can see. We 
did that because we adhered to a budget process. We adopted a provision 
that we would have 5-year forecasts and 5-year budget resolutions, and 
then we extended that to running out tax cuts, their application, to 10 
years. We adopted ceilings, caps for discretionary spending. We imposed 
a rule called the pay-go rule, a rule that says you cannot increase 
entitlements or cut taxes unless you offset the amount so as to make it 
neutral on the bottom line. That is why we are here today. That 
discipline has helped us reap this reward of doing a major tax bill.
  Let me say something. Democrats want to cut taxes. We are proposing 
tax cuts of $800 to $900 billion. Republicans want to cut by more, but 
the problem they have got is not by how much they want to cut so much 
as the fact as they are putting the cart ahead of the horse. What they 
want to do is do this without first having a budget resolution. 
Regarding all of those rules and budget process disciplines that I just 
mentioned, if you look in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 where 
they are codified, you will see emblazoned at the very top of these 
provisions the language, ``No budget-related legislation shall be 
considered before a concurrent budget resolution has been adopted.''
  That is the very thing we are doing today. That principle, which is 
emblazoned in big bold letters in the Congressional Budget Act, is 
being violated by this rule and this rule overrides and waives major 
provisions, major disciplines in the budget process. First of all, 
section 303. Section 303 says you shall not do a tax cut for future 
fiscal years until you have done a concurrent budget resolution. They 
are able to skirt past that particular provision because of the curious 
language of it. It says you cannot do one if it first decreases taxes 
in the fiscal year covered by the concurrent budget resolution. Since 
they first decreased the taxes this fiscal year, they are able to skirt 
by it but they violate the principle of it. They skirt by it only to 
run smack into section 202.
  You see, this bill contains tax provisions that indirectly trigger 
credits to certain working families. Because of that, the bill 
increases refundable tax levels and as a result it violates the 
provisions of section 311, section 401, and section 302, three distinct 
provisions of the code.
  It violates section 302 because you are exceeding the committee 
allocations that were set in the budget resolution last adopted, it 
violates section 311 because you are exceeding total spending, and it 
violates section 401 because you are creating new entitlement 
authority. And it violates the spirit of section 303. We are trashing 
the budget process. The disciplines that have brought us to this day 
where we can have a big tax cut, we are abandoning.
  Mr. Greenspan was cited just a minute ago. Last week, he was asked 
about the budget projections and the fact that we were moving 
immediately with a tax cut. He said, all of these projections, 
regardless of how optimistic they are, will be worthless if you do not 
have the discipline and the process in place to keep it in balance.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For the record we no longer seem to be debating whether it is going 
to be a tax cut or not a tax cut because we are going to get a tax cut 
in America. But we are talking about process. For the record, in 
listening to the distinguished Member talk about the past, I would 
remind him that 48 Democrats voted for the marriage penalty relief 
before the budget resolution last year, which was in February of 2000, 
including the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as to the question on the budget, we 
have now got a President that will not only not embarrass the country 
but he will not hold the Congress hostage to spend money above the 
budget or shut down the government. President Bush will increase the 
budget by 4 percent above inflation and give tax relief.
  But even more of a joke, my friends on the other side in 1993, when 
they had the House, the White House and the Senate, we talk about 
middle class tax relief, they gave the middle class the biggest tax 
increase in history. They used the same rhetoric that they have here 
today. They talk about Social Security. They increased the tax on 
Social Security. They talk about, oh, saving the trust fund. They spent 
every dime in their budget on spending the Social Security Trust Fund. 
President Clinton and Al Gore every single budget spent every dime out 
of the Social Security Trust Fund. They even had a retroactive tax 
increase in which the First Lady redid her taxes. Remember that? We 
have retroactive tax relief.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas), all my Democratic colleagues, all my 
Republican colleagues, I would like someone to come to the floor now 
and tell me that our Nation is not $5,735,859,380,573.98 in debt, 
because we are. I keep hearing about the debt being paid down, but the 
truth of the matter is, according to our own Treasury statements, the 
debt has increased since September 30 by $61,681,170,687. How can 
anyone come to this floor with a straight face and tell me we have a 
surplus?

                              {time}  1200

  It gets worse than that. Those taxes that were raised in the 1980s 
with a Republican Senate, a Democratic House and a Republican 
President, that placed on working Americans a 15 percent increase on 
their Social Security and Medicare taxes with the promise that that 
money would be set aside. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) is right on that, because we now owe Social Security 
$1,070,000,000,000. We owe Medicare $229 billion. There is no surplus.
  Since the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned it, 
and I know he is a military retiree, we owe the military retiree trust 
fund $163 billion.
  We owe the civil service trust fund, and I hope every single Federal 
employee is listening, $501 billion. There is not one penny in any of 
these accounts, and yet speaker after speaker talks about a surplus.
  Come tell me I am wrong because this is straight out of the Treasury 
Report.
  I am voting against this rule because I offered an amendment 
yesterday that says before we have any tax relief we pay back to these 
people, the folks who pay Social Security taxes, the folks who pay 
Medicare taxes, the folks who had their military pay reduced so that 
some of it would be set aside for a trust fund, the folks who work for 
our Nation who had their pay reduced so that

[[Page 3237]]

some of it would be set aside for a trust fund, that we will fulfill 
our obligations to them before we make new obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, I am issuing a challenge to the Speaker of the House, 
the President of the United States, the Senate Majority Leader, come 
question any of these numbers, because they know they are all the 
truth.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support this 
rule and, more importantly, to support what this rule stands for. This 
rule stands for moving ahead with tax relief for Americans who have 
overpaid their tax bill.
  We are going to pay down debt. We are going to pay down debt faster 
than any American family would reasonably assume this debt could have 
ever been paid off. We have a tax overcharge. This is a tax overcharge.
  When one sees the price of what government is going to be needing for 
the next 10 years, and one sees that we are sending in much more money 
than that, what needs to happen is that families need to get that money 
back. This is a debate about what the tax rate structure should look 
like. Should there be a 15 percent bracket that affects every American 
family that is affected by it now or should we reduce that bracket to 
10 percent? Should one pay more than a third out of every dollar that 
they earn at the highest bracket?
  This is a question about how high that highest bracket should be, and 
we need to move forward with certainty. The economy has flattened out. 
Small businesses that now pay that 39 percent rate need to know that 
their rate is going to go to 33 percent. They can then reinvest money 
back into their businesses, into the economy. Families who know they 
are going to get a $1,400 annual amount of their own money back to 
spend can make a decision about investing in their family's future, 
buying that new car, buying the washer and dryer, putting money aside 
for community college.
  I urge a yes vote on this rule and on this tax package.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, the entire budget debate has been caught up in so much 
mysterious facts and so much slight of hand that perhaps so many people 
in this country have been confused about that.
  The tax cut will do nothing to stimulate the economy. That is not the 
words of the Democratic Party or people in opposition to the tax cut. 
That is the words of Chairman Greenspan himself who said that fiscal 
fine-tuning of the economy is, in fact, oftentimes counterproductive, 
not in fact helpful to an economy that may indeed be in decline.
  The interesting question is not again what the marginal tax rate 
should be or what the tax structure should be, but instead how much we 
can afford to spend in this country over the next 10 years.
  There has not yet been a significant tax overcharge. There is a 
prospective tax overcharge over the next 10 years, and if that money 
does come in, under the many assumptions behind these budget numbers, 
then we can talk about meaningful tax cuts. When the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff alone want nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, $1 trillion 
for modernization of our military, we are going to have a $2 trillion 
tax cut that is not consistent with President Bush's own priorities, 
which demonstrates the myopic thinking behind this entire move.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the newest member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, there is just one big bottom line 
to this debate today: People are overpaying their taxes.
  We are going to hear a lot of debate today saying it is too risky, 
the process is backwards, all of these things. What is behind these 
remarks is basically this: They want to deprive people from getting 
their tax payments back. They want to keep the size of the bite of 
Washington out of workers' paychecks as big as it is today.
  Look at the whole perspective of this. This tax bill, in its 
entirety, is 6 cents on the dollar. The tax relief plan is 6 percent of 
all the Federal revenues over the next 10 years. So the idea that this 
is too big and irresponsible is irresponsible.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. If this tax bill is defeated and this 
money comes to Washington and is laid up on the table, it will be spent 
by this body and we will not get tax relief.
  This bill is responsible because we are first paying off our public 
debt. We are protecting the Medicare and Social Security trust funds; 
and, most importantly, we are giving every hard-working American some 
money back in their paychecks.
  I urge passage of the rule and passage of the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about whether there is bipartisanship 
support for tax relief. There is. It is just a matter of whether it is 
going to be responsible and fair.
  President Bush, during his first address to Congress here a couple of 
weeks ago, quoted Yogi Berra by saying if we come to a fork in the road 
we should take it.
  Well, Yogi Berra was also famous for having said ``this is deja vu 
all over again,'' and it is. When we compare the Reagan economic plan 
of 1981 with what is being attempted today, it is deja vu all over 
again. The Reagan plan led to 15 consecutive years of deficit 
financing. We could get away with that then, with a $1 trillion debt at 
that time. I am afraid that we will not be able to get away with it 
again with the baby-boomers about to retire at a $5.7 trillion debt 
today. I hope we are not merely repeating history by basing large tax 
cuts on speculative budget surpluses that may never materialize 10 
years from now.


                             budget process

  Notwithstanding the fact that the law requires a budget to be passed 
before Congress considers tax cuts, the House leadership has decided to 
rush to the floor a fiscally irresponsible tax plan that gambles with 
our children's future.
  This plan is irresponsible because once all of President Bush's 
campaign tax-cut promises are added up, the total of cost of his plan 
will easily exceed $2 trillion.


                          1981 reagan tax cut

  If this huge tax break plan is adopted, virtually all of the 
remaining projected surplus funds will be spent. In 1981, a similar tax 
plan and budget led us down the road of deficit budgeting. It took two 
decades and several acts of Congress to dig the country out of the 
deficit hole that was created.
  This tax cut is even more risky than those of 1981. Today, we have a 
national debt that is 5 times higher than in 1981. Further, within the 
next decade we will see the retirement of the baby boomers, in the same 
years that the tax cuts will be fully phased in.


                      republican tax cut proposal

  The Bush tax plan also overwhelming benefits the wealthiest 
Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will get 43 percent of 
the benefits and their average tax cut will total $46,000 a year.
  Over 85 percent of American households will receive a tax cut far 
less than the $1,600 that the President promised. And for the hardest-
working Americans who do not pay any income taxes, the President 
delivers nothing, even though they still pay a disproportionate amount 
of their income for FICA taxes.


                       budget surplus projections

  This plan is incredibly risky. Ten-year surplus projections are 
unreliable. If the budget projections are off by less than one-half of 
1 percent, a $1 trillion shortfall will occur, with these massive cuts 
in place, Congress will be tempted to tap into the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds to balance the budget.


                        chairman alan greenspan

  In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the 
Senate Budget

[[Page 3238]]

Committee and confirmed that the budget projections are ``subject to a 
wide range of error.''
  He also noted that when considering the emerging budget surplus, 
``debt reduction is the best use for the added revenue.'' Nonetheless, 
the administration and leadership are still pushing large tax cuts 
above debt reduction.


                           budget priorities

  In the end, the Bush plan will squander all of the funds necessary 
for critical investments in our nation's future. It is much more 
prudent to pay down our national debt, invest in education, and 
defense, shore up Social Security and Medicare, and provide a 
prescription drug benefit for seniors. With a tax cut of this 
magnitude, however, the surplus will be wasted, if it is not more 
fiscally responsible.


                         democratic alternative

  That is why I support the alternative offered by Representative 
Rangel, which will be nearly half the cost of the Republican plan.
  It would provide immediate and fair tax relief for middle-income 
families and is also fiscally responsible.
  A new 12 percent tax bracket would be created, thereby giving an 
across-the-board rate cut for all Americans. In addition, it will give 
those working families who only have payroll and Federal excise taxes a 
refund through expansion of the earned income tax credit.
  Under the alternative, families with children who earn less than 
$65,000 will receive equal or larger tax breaks than under the Bush 
proposal.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Speaker, show me a budget that will meet our domestic needs, and 
then we can begin serious consideration on a tax cut bill.
  But don't force a vote on a tax cut bill that is being proposed 
outside of a budget and is destined to harm our children. I did not 
come to Congress to saddle my two boys with a debt burden they did not 
create.
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard over the past four years to balance 
the budget and pay down the national debt. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill, and support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Fossella).

                          ____________________