[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9724-9732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1836, 
       ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 153 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 153

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     section 104 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002. 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 motion to dispose of an amendment 
     between the houses on H.R. 1836. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI 
     shall not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or 
     conference reports thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
House Resolution 153.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 153.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read and further provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration. Further, the rule 
provides that 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 motion to dispose of an amendment between the 
Houses on H.R. 1836.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the home stretch. We are in the final stages 
of bringing about real tangible tax relief to all Americans. With 
surpluses at an all-time high, and the fiscal responsibility to match, 
it is time for a refund.
  In testimony earlier this year before the House Committee on Ways and 
Means, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill presented the following 
argument: ``Through hard work and ingenuity, Americans have created a 
booming economy that has spread prosperity around the world. 
Individuals have created new technologies that have made our industries 
more productive and have improved the standard of living for millions 
of Americans. We have no business continuing to collect more in Federal 
taxes than the cost of the services the government provides. It's not 
the government's money, it's the people's money, and we should return 
it to them as quickly as possible.''
  Current high rates punish low-income Americans by creating a 
disincentive to get ahead. We punish thrift and hard work and the 
innate desire in all Americans to strive to do better, to realize the 
American Dream. For example, under the current Tax Code a single mom 
making $25,000 a year pays a higher marginal tax rate than someone 
making $250,000 a year.
  Taxes now claim a greater share of the median two-income family's 
income than food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. And 
Americans are spending a greater percentage of income towards taxes 
than at any time since World War II, essentially comprising the largest 
share of the gross domestic product. In the land of equality, where is 
the fairness in that?
  This tax package provides relief to every single taxpayer, removing 
millions of Americans from the tax roll all together. This plan is 
predicated on the idea that a sensible tax policy will generate high 
rates of long-term growth. Reductions in marginal tax rates, will 
encourage greater work ethic and provide more inducement for taxpayers 
to save, invest, and build business enterprises.
  Families need the flexibility to dedicate their resources towards 
their most pressing concerns. While some may need more to help pay off 
their debts, others may need extra money to pay tuition for their child 
or to invest in their retirement. The point is, government should not 
be making these decisions for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to my colleagues and 
the American people on this measure twice before. While its details 
have most certainly changed, it includes every aspect of President 
Bush's tax cut proposal. Most important, its essence remains the same: 
needed tax relief for working Americans.
  When I first stood before the House back in March, I spoke of a 
constituent of mine, Paul Meloon of Batavia. A husband, father, and 
teacher, Paul

[[Page 9725]]

warned that, ``The people 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.''
  To Paul and his family, and millions more like him, I say simply 
this: We have heard your demand, and we are acting on it. Historic tax 
relief is on its way. America, this is your money, and you know how to 
spend it best. I am asking my colleagues to help give you this refund 
you have asked for.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and the 
ranking member, my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), 
for their hard work to make desperately needed tax relief a reality. 
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give America what they need and 
what they have earned: responsible, common-
sense tax relief. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0700

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I really wish that I had three little shells to put up 
here on my podium with a pea under one of the shells, because that is 
what you need to follow this tax bill. They have done something 
extraordinarily ridiculous just for starters, and I would like to kind 
of talk about that before I go into my full statement.
  Now, let us say you are a person that wants the estate tax repealed. 
I have gotten a lot of calls like that from people in my district. They 
repeal the estate tax for 1 year. 1 year. Let me say this again. You 
have to die in the year 2010 to be able to pay no estate tax. If you 
die in 2011, you have to pay the estate tax just the way it is today. 
They sunsetted their repeal of the estate tax in the year 2010. So you 
have got a 12-month window to die if you want to avoid the estate tax. 
Between now and then, of course, they gradually raise the exemption, so 
if you die between now and 2009 you do not have to pay quite as much in 
the estate tax and if you die in 2010 you do not have to pay any estate 
tax. But if you have the good fortune to live until 2011, you pay the 
full estate tax exactly as it is right now.
  Now, let us say you were looking forward to the rate reduction. Right 
now you have a 39.6 percent rate, you are a wealthy taxpayer, and then 
over a period of the next few years that rate gradually drops down to 
35 percent. But viola, in the year 2011, it goes back to 39.6 percent. 
That applies, of course, to the other provisions in this bill, too. A 
very, very strange and peculiar way to legislate.
  Why did they do this? They did it because they could not make the 
numbers work. If you extended this stuff beyond 2010 and you did not 
sunset it, these numbers do not work. You bust that $1.35 trillion cap. 
All of this has been a game to live within the $1.35 trillion cap that 
was set in the budget resolution.
  Now, you can argue as to whether the $1.35 trillion cap amount is a 
good amount to be cutting taxes. Everybody would like their taxes cut. 
I would like my taxes cut. I also would like the government to be able 
to preserve Social Security and Medicare and not use up the money that 
we need for Social Security and Medicare in order to give the richest 
Americans a tax cut. I also would like the government to be able to do 
a lot of things. I would like the government to be able to have a 
prescription drug plan for our seniors and I would like the government 
to have enough money to fund our national defense and I would like the 
government to be able to fund this wonderful education bill that we 
recently passed but which everyone on that side knows cannot be funded 
under the budget resolution we passed because of the size tax cut that 
we are being asked to vote on today.
  As I said, I wish I had those little shells that you have at a 
carnival show, because that is what this is all about. This is a game. 
This is a game the Republicans are playing with the American taxpayers 
and they are not being honest with them. Again, if we are going to cut 
taxes, let us have a tax cut that makes sense, that goes to middle-
income taxpayers, that does not go primarily to the wealthy, and let us 
have a tax cut that the American people can afford so that we can do 
those other things that we all say we want to do. But let us not engage 
in a charade. This is a charade at 7:03 a.m. on Saturday morning, after 
the conference committee dealt with this all night and they suddenly 
produce something in the wee hours and then we get a little time, maybe 
an hour to look at it, to try to understand it and to cast one of the 
most momentous votes that we are going to be called to cast during this 
session. People have not had adequate time to study this document. But 
the folks on the other side are not engaged in providing adequate time. 
They do not want us to be able to really understand it, but I think I 
understand it enough and we do have a little summary that was provided, 
summary of provisions contained in the conference agreement for H.R. 
1836, provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  If you look at that summary on page 13, you will see what I was 
talking about. I want to read this to you. It says, Roman numeral IX, 
Sunset. I want to read it to you just so you know I am not making this 
up. You could not make this up, Mr. Speaker.
  ``To ensure compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
conference agreement provides that all provisions of the bill generally 
do not apply for taxable plan or limitation years beginning after 
December 31, 2010.''
  In other words, now you see it, now you don't.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for a while. The American 
people need to be dealt with on the level. I do not always agree with 
the things that the other side wants to do. That is what politics is 
all about. But I believe we should be honest with the American people. 
I do not think we ought to be telling them we have given you this 
wonderful tax cut but King's X, it all goes away in 2010, and you 
better die in the year 2010 if you want to avoid the estate tax because 
if you happen to plan foolishly enough and happen to hang around until 
2011, you are going to pay the full estate tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly lengthy statement that I want to submit 
for the record which details all of this. But the hour is early, or 
late, depending upon your perspective and a lot of my colleagues would 
like to talk about this particular conference report. And so, Mr. 
Speaker, at this time, I urge my colleagues to try and understand what 
we are being asked to do today and to understand how ridiculous and 
ludicrous this approach is and how shortsighted it is for the American 
taxpayer, because we are denying the American taxpayer the needed 
resources for our government to preserve Social Security and Medicare, 
to provide education funding, to provide for our national defense, and 
to do the other things we all agree should be done so that we can 
provide a very large tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans during the 
next 10 years and then change it all at that time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I listened to my distinguished colleague talk about his view of 
having been part of what the left has been on a growing government, a 
bigger government, more spending. While I have not been in this body a 
lengthy time, I have been elected now over a quarter of a century, and 
I have learned at the town and the county and the State level as well 
as right here on the Federal level, if you leave a pile of money on the 
table, it is going to get spent.
  The simple fact is that even after we pay down America's debt, 
strengthen and secure Social Security and Medicare, improve education 
and bolster America's defense, we still have enough left over to 
relieve overtaxed and overburdened American families. We are going to 
do this in the light of day today. We are going to do it with a 
bipartisan vote, I am willing to predict,

[[Page 9726]]

as this rule is passed and we move forward with the debate on the tax 
bill.
  But there is also no question that in 1993, the majorities of the two 
houses and the then President of the United States imposed the largest 
tax increase in the history of America. It is also true right now that 
we are paying more taxes now than any time since World War II. The 
bottom line is that this agreement, a consensus worked out by 
Republicans and Democrats in this House and in the other body, has 
brought a result of compromise, what this bill is that is going to be 
coming up before us today. I urge passage of the rule and onward with 
the tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it took so many years for the other body to 
come up with some plan to jeopardize Social Security and Medicare, 
these programs that the American people have come to rely on for so 
many, many years, the pride and the dignity that older folks had that 
they did not have to depend on their children and their grandchildren 
for survival.
  We knew a long time ago when Mr. Stockman was here with President 
Reagan that it was not a question of just fiscal irresponsibility, it 
was not a question of tax cuts. No President has to campaign around the 
country to encourage the people to support a tax cut. No, the American 
people knew exactly what was happening. It is, ``Get the money out of 
Washington. Why? Because they will spend it. This is your money. This 
is not the Congress' money.''
  Well, whose is the deficit? Is that the Congress' deficit or does it 
belong to our Nation? Is this what we want which we had after Reagan, a 
country that was spending more money on interest on our debt than 
paying for health care? And what about the cases that we have of the 
education program, the prescription drug program, all of the things 
that were adopted during the President's campaign but we do not hear 
anything about that today. No, the real question is that in 10 years, 
all of this is over. Whatever benefits anyone receives under this tax 
bill, it is over. Because the Republican accountants and tax writers in 
the middle of the night came up with the strangest gimmick of all. It 
is called sunset. And so the big balloon at the end of this tax cut 
means an increase in taxes. I hope someone figures it out, because the 
entire bill is sunsetted in the year 2010, and it means that whatever 
the tax rates are today, they come back. But something else happens. 
Over 40 million American people will be eligible for health care 
because they are senior citizens, and they will be eligible for Social 
Security at the very time that the revenues will not be there. And God 
forbid if the surplus is not there, then what do we do? We have one of 
two choices: We can increase taxes, and those of us in 1993 who thought 
that was the right thing to do because we wanted to get on with the 
deficit, we wanted to protect Social Security, we wanted to protect 
Medicare but to do this we had to vote for the Clinton tax increase, 
and we lost 52 Members by doing the right thing. Everyone wants to 
enjoy the benefit of a surplus, but very few want to pay for the 
surplus. It means sound fiscal policy. Now we are going back to the 
days of old. I only hope the rule is defeated so we do not do this to 
our Congress, we do not do this to our country, and we do not do this 
to the American people.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I believe the 
other side is a little embarrassed about this product and they do not 
have too many speakers. We have a lot of speakers and we are going to 
take our full time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a bill that almost none of 
us have seen, a $2 trillion plus bill. And where is it? I am not 
shocked, but I am deeply saddened. The House majority here is hell-bent 
on this bill even if it means replunging us into the fiscal hell of the 
deficits of the 1980s.
  What you have done is to use the gimmick of all gimmicks. You lop off 
the 10th year. Who is ever going to believe this is real? Who is ever 
going to believe this is a $1.35 trillion bill when you ignore the 
10th? We do not have the bill, let alone the real analysis, let alone 
any critique by the so-called Joint Tax Committee.

                              {time}  0715

  Common sense says that if one adds the tenth year, they are going to 
add $200 billion. This is a $1.6 trillion bill, plus the increased 
interest; $2 trillion plus. Some of my Republican colleagues have the 
gall to get up here and talk about a House consensus. The gall. And 
somebody thanks the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for joining 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) when I do not think he 
was in any of the discussions.
  This is a masquerade. They have added a little bit of sugar amidst a 
potful of fiscal irresponsibility, fiscal irresponsibility, and they 
can't hide that by taking one year off. Why do they not take a second 
year off and make it smaller yet?
  They are hurdling this country potentially over a cliff. They are 
fiscally irresponsible, and it does not matter if they bring this up at 
1:00 in the morning, which was their original intent, or 7:00 in the 
morning. The daylight will show they are fiscally irresponsible, 
playing with fire, gambling the future of this country, education, 
prescription drugs. Three hundred bucks a month in pills will cost 
seniors more than the 300 bucks people might get, as important as that 
is to some families. When one looks at this altogether, my Republican 
colleagues are fiscally irresponsible. They are repeating the sins of 
the 1980s times two.
  I urge we defeat this rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, tax relief and tax fairness is not a Republican 
solution. It is a combined House solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am not embarrassed by this bill. No one 
should be embarrassed by this bill. I think Congress should be 
embarrassed for what we have allowed to develop over many periods of 
years. Anybody in America can see that most Americans, in fact, do not 
even like the government. They do not even want to be involved with the 
government. They see the government as a separate entity that hopefully 
is going to send them their Social Security check and maybe will not 
audit them or cause them any problem.
  This nexus that should exist because it is our government does not 
exist anymore, and the genesis of it is right here in the House floor; 
the politics in the Congress. Politics of division, minority versus 
majority, old versus young, worker versus company, man versus woman. Is 
it any wonder the country is screwed up?
  Look, income taxes started out headed right to the Supreme Court and 
were struck down as unconstitutional and, my God, I believe they are 
still. If one looks at the original language and the common sense of 
America, income taxes are not what the American people ever wanted, nor 
were they designed to be that which was intended by the Founders.
  I give credit to the majority party. Taxes in America are too high 
and they are trying to reduce them. Yes, there are some things the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is doing I certainly can vote for, 
that is for sure, and I commend him for the fight that he has taken, 
but taxes are too high.
  We should not be penalizing those who marry. My God, we reward people 
who do not marry. Is it any wonder that we have so many illegitimate 
children? We subsidize illegitimacy. We reward dependency with a Tax 
Code that every businessman is in partnership with. They must look at 
the Tax Code before they decide they are going to make an investment. 
Beam me up.
  Thank God. It may not be perfect, but this is a good bill for 
America. I stand here today and say, yes, I am

[[Page 9727]]

going to vote for it and I am going to vote as long as I can to 
continue to refine and improve the Tax Code of this country.
  There should be no disconnect between the American people and our 
government. It is our government and, quite frankly, there are many 
things being done in this bill that we the Democrats should have done 
and we should have done them a long time ago. But there is one thing 
that all Congress should do, and that is take the American people and 
the American government and put them back together again as one unit. 
This is a good place to start.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to leave here and go home and participate 
in Memorial Day celebrations all across the country honoring those who 
have made our country free, who have stood down the challenge of 
fascism in World War II, stood down the challenge of Communism by 
prevailing in the Cold War.
  What I had hoped my contribution to the future of this country would 
be would be not in the national security area, they have already done 
such an excellent job there, but in terms of promoting the fiscal 
health of this country, leaving us more financially secure for our 
children than we ourselves have in this country with the passage of the 
bill the majority has brought forward. I now deeply regret that that 
will not be possible.
  We will not pay off the national debt to the fullest dimensions 
possible. We will not fully be in a situation to preserve the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds.
  Three quick points of analysis on this bill. Is it fair? The top 1 
percent gets 37 percent of the break. The bottom 60 percent get a mere 
15 percent. That is not fair. It is not fair in any way, shape or form.
  Does this bill make sense? This is the phase-ins and phase-outs of 
this bill. This bill is a matter of here today, gone tomorrow. It is 
the most screwed up bill we have ever seen in terms of bringing taxes 
in and phasing them out. Marriage penalty phase-in starts in 2005; 
fully phased in by 2009, repealed in 2010. Estate tax, it is there in 
2009. It is repealed in 2010. It is back in 2011. College tuition 
deduction starts in 2002, phase-in in 2003; fully phased in 2004 and 
2005, and then it is repealed. AMT relief, it is there in 2001. It is 
there through 2004 and then it is repealed.
  One needs certainty in the Tax Code so they can plan, and this is 
anything but certain.
  Does this bill allow for any other national priorities? This bill has 
been constructed so that it explodes in the next 10 years. $1.3 
trillion, it will actually be more than that, about $1.6 trillion in 
the first 10 years to $4 trillion in the second 10 years, just at the 
time baby-boomers move into retirement and the cost of Social Security 
and Medicare escalates.
  There is nothing in the measure before us for the additional defense 
spending we know is going to be coming, and there is insufficient 
allocation for the resources we are going to need in education.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, on this early Saturday morning, on the East Coast, 
perhaps some folks are blurry-eyed and perhaps a little frustrated. 
Perhaps they remember the words to the great country song, That Is My 
Story and I Am Sticking to It, even though the facts would suggest 
otherwise. In lieu of incendiary rhetoric, let us just go back to the 
central concept of what we will do in this Chamber today and it is 
something that I think interestingly has gained bipartisan support.
  We have overcharged the American people. We have asked them to pay 
too much of their paycheck in taxes, and now we are simply giving them 
a very modest refund. It is not perfect. It is not overly ambitious. It 
is not risky. In fact, it reaffirms what I think people of goodwill on 
both sides of the aisle want to do; to understand the truism and the 
basic wisdom of letting parents and families provide for themselves 
while maintaining a social safety net and the long-standing commitments 
that Americans have come to depend on, and indeed we have seen this as 
a bipartisan initiative through the years.
  Forty years ago, President Kennedy reminded us a rising tide lifts 
all boats in terms of fair and equitable tax relief. Twenty years ago, 
President Reagan made that point.
  This is a bipartisan measure, and to the extent there is waling and 
gnashing of teeth and setting off of false alarms, I understand that 
good people can disagree but I believe in the final analysis, Mr. 
Speaker, people will come to understand that what we do today for the 
American people is to take a first significant step for letting them 
put their financial houses in order and in the process putting our 
entire economy back in order.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it takes no courage to vote for this bill 
today. All it takes is a capacity to ignore the greatest opportunity we 
have had in a generation to really fundamentally improve the quality of 
public services for every American family. It is incredibly short-
sighted.
  We have two choices here today. We can either take every dollar of 
available surpluses available for the next 10 years, or close to it, 
and use that money to provide individual gratification through the Tax 
Code primarily for high income people, or we can make that tax cut 
modest enough in size so that we leave enough money on the table to 
fundamentally fix long-term our preexisting obligations in the area of 
Social Security, in Medicare, and in education.
  It is incredibly short-sighted and we will regret this moment more 
than any action that we have taken in the last 17 years.
  As far as the appropriations are concerned which will follow, we will 
probably be able to put enough patches on the innertube to get the car 
down the road for 2 or 3 miles for one year but in the outyears this 
package also destroys our ability to rebuild our science base. It 
destroys our ability to put our dollars where our mouths were just a 
few days ago on the education bill. It destroys our ability to really 
do something to deal with the fact that 40 million people in this 
country have no health insurance.
  This essentially says that in terms of providing quality public 
services, we are satisfied with the status quo and will remain so for 
the next 10 years.
  We can do better. We should have done better. If the majority party 
in this House had given anything but lip service to the idea of 
bipartisan cooperation, we would have done better. This deserves to be 
put together in the dead of night because that is the only way that 
this package looks good. This is the biggest mistake that we have made 
since 1981, and it destroys our ability to say to people at the end of 
this decade that we guaranteed them a secure retirement, we finally 
brought justice to this country on the health care front and we indeed 
did do things that were transformational with respect to education.
  All of that long-term is gone. So congratulations for the short-term 
thinking that this bill represents. It is a typical 2-year election 
vehicle which weakens the country long-term.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here at 7:30 in the 
morning on a Saturday passing a bill that will help Americans.
  We have heard a lot of conversation this morning about deficits on 
the other side of the aisle, and they probably know a lot about them 
because they created them through their 40-year rule.

[[Page 9728]]

  They talk about Social Security and restoring it. Well, the other 
side borrowed from Social Security for generations to pay for ongoing 
government spending.

                              {time}  0730

  Yes, we had deficits, and I have heard the blame cast on Ronald 
Reagan. However, the majority party at that time was Democrats who had 
to bring to the floor the bills that the President offered to the 
American public. Bills do not just become law because the President 
says so. The exercise over the last couple of weeks demonstrates that 
the President can merely recommend to Congress. But I am delighted to 
see that the Senate, some Democrats, some Democrats seeking reelection, 
are, in fact, supporting this package, because it is a balanced 
approach.
  Mr. Speaker, we can talk about dead of night, deals cut in the 
midnight hours, but we are here on a Saturday on a Memorial Day weekend 
to ensure that the American public recognizes that we are looking out 
for their interests. Yes, we can increase education funding, as we did 
on this House Floor last week, and the bill passed in a bipartisan 
fashion. Yes, we can increase national security; and we can increase 
money being spent on the environment, as we are doing in Florida on the 
Everglades. Yes, we can shore up Social Security, and we can restore 
the fiscal health of Medicare. And we can do that all within the 
confines of the budget and the tax package being voted on here on the 
floor today.
  What we need to recognize, though, and we have said it many times on 
this House floor is that the money we are talking about, in fact, 
belongs to the people not on the House floor, but the people watching 
us speak this morning, the American taxpayers who work every week and 
on Fridays they come home and hope they can enjoy time with their 
families. But no, they often have to work one and two and three jobs to 
make ends meet and pay taxes well past April. In fact, into May we are 
paying taxes: excise taxes, unemployment taxes, property taxes, State 
taxes, sales taxes, income taxes. You name it, it is taxed. Today we 
are here to give just a little bit of a break over 11 years to the 
American consumer, over 11 years. One would think the conversation 
today would indicate we are throwing it out in buckets this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a balanced approach. This is a good approach. 
This provides some real return to the American public. Money back this 
year, lump sum, to single taxpayers, single parents, married taxpayers.
  So let us salute this final agreement made by some great Members of 
this body, both here and on the other side of the aisle; and let us 
salute the American public, because they have been waiting a long time 
for some relief.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida claimed 
inaccurately that Ronald Reagan had a Democratic Congress. In fact, for 
6 of the 8 years under Ronald Reagan, the Senate was Republican, so he 
was not faced with a Democratic Congress.
  I would have to say, however, that the gentleman's economics makes 
his history look good. He says under this tax scheme we will have 
enough for Medicare to restore it. In fact, that is the heart of what 
we are talking about. People talk about the money belonging to the 
people, and of course, it does.
  People have two sets of needs. They have needs that can best be dealt 
with individually, but they also have needs that can only be dealt with 
if we do them together.
  In my own district, I am often asked about funding for Superfund, for 
transportation, for law enforcement. All of these are being cut in the 
President's budget. The President tells people that he cannot afford, 
under his budget with this tax cut, to provide any help on prescription 
drugs for people who make more than $17,000 a year. He canceled, 
because of the need to pay for the tax cut, the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination program that provides police officers to be in the public 
housing projects.
  In fact, we have a terrible crisis in the provision of medical care, 
nursing homes, and home health care agencies. Hospitals all over the 
country are in difficulty, and it is getting worse. We underpay the 
hard-working people in these facilities. We have a terrible nursing 
shortage because women are no longer coerced into nursing; and now that 
they have a better choice of professions, we are not paying enough to 
attract them.
  This bill takes away from the people the funds that they could use to 
adequately fund Medicare, a prescription drug program, nursing homes, 
long-term care. None of those can be addressed without the revenues 
that this bill does away with.
  Now, I do understand that it sunsets the tax cuts. That is odd. When 
the Republicans were facing Bill Clinton as President, they said if 
they got in power, they would sunset the Tax Code. Apparently they 
misunderstood themselves, because this bill does not sunset the Tax 
Code, it sunsets the tax cuts.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a real plot here in this Tax Code. In 1981, I 
do not think Ronald Reagan understood what he was doing. It was said 
for a long time that the Democrats are the party of tax and spend. The 
Republicans of the 1980s and 1990s turned out to be the party of borrow 
and spend. From George Washington through Jimmy Carter, the national 
debt that was accumulated for 200 years when Ronald Reagan took office 
was a little under $800 billion. The next 12 years of Republican 
Presidents and half that time, a Republican Senate, that national debt 
more than quadrupled to $4.3 trillion. David Stockman admitted why. He 
said they knew what they were doing, because only by deliberately 
creating multi-hundred billion dollar annual deficits can you 
politically withstand the demand of the American people for more health 
care, for decent numbers of nurses in the hospitals, for shoring up 
Medicare and Social Security.
  And what does this tax cut do? It is deliberately designed to create 
multi-hundred billion dollar annual deficits in the future, $4 trillion 
of tax cuts in the next decade if it does not sunset, so that we will 
be able to stand on this floor 10 years from now or 6 years from now 
and say, we have to cut Social Security benefits, we have to increase 
the retirement age, we have to cut back on Medicare, we cannot think 
about prescription drugs for Medicare, we cannot build the highways and 
bridges and roads we need, we cannot put the money into education, 
because we have a $300 billion annual deficit this year.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this tax cut, because the people 
who are doing it really do not believe that government ought to fund 
Social Security or Medicare or prescription drugs under Medicare and 
all the other things, because the purpose of this tax cut and the 
effect of it will be, because it is so huge and we are told we have 
these huge surpluses for 10 years; 10 year surplus projections are 
about as reliable as 10-year weather projections.
  If we pass this, we are deliberately creating multi-hundred billion 
dollar deficits in order to justify cutbacks in all of the programs 
that the people of this country want.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise at 7:40 in the morning on a Saturday morning to get this work 
done, to get this work done as Americans are going to work all over the 
country. Those who have the day off may be watching what we do and 
wondering how it is going to impact their family. The truth is that 
American families can spend their money for the benefit of their family 
in almost all instances better than the Federal Government can.
  We are going to hear a lot, not only today, but in the future, and 
just did,

[[Page 9729]]

about the projections of revenue. We never hear revenue projections 
questioned when we talk about spending. We only hear revenue 
projections questioned when we talk about giving the money back to the 
people who are sending it in. There is a tax surplus; and even after we 
return this much of that tax surplus, there is still not only money 
left to grow the government at a rate much faster than inflation, but a 
contingency fund beyond that and money to secure the trust funds in 
ways that did not happen here for 29 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we are balancing the budget, we are letting government 
grow at a rate that many Americans would argue is too high, it is 
higher than their businesses are able to grow, it is higher than their 
home budgets are able to grow. But what we are doing today is giving 
the tax surplus, the money we have said in every projection of Federal 
spending we would need, back to the families that are sending it in.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do. This is the right day to 
do it. This gives the American people the ability to plan what they can 
do for their families, how they can create jobs and growth in their 
small businesses. This bill will pass today, it will make a difference 
in America. It is what we should do.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is about 7:30 in the 
morning on Saturday morning; and there is no complaint by those of us 
who choose to work for the people of the United States in being here. 
There is a question about whether or not democracy equates to 
participation. I wonder why the ranking member of our caucus and the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means failed to be included 
in a participatory fashion to be able to design a tax plan that will 
respond to all Americans. Instead, what we have is a tax plan that 
feeds the top fifth of wage-earners or wealth-owners of the United 
States, some 1 percent of those, the richest, are the ones that are 
getting some 36.9 percent of this tax bill.
  I beg to differ with my colleague who says that if we cooperate and 
collaborate, we cannot get a balance between the budget and spending. 
In 1997, we put forward under the Clinton administration in this 
Congress a balanced budget. I would have stood here today and supported 
an economic stimulus, one that would have been about $40 billion, the 
same $300 check and $600 check for married couples and $300 for singles 
that they are going to get if they file their taxes for the year 2000. 
That is a reasonable response to give to the American people.
  But it is not reasonable to tell them that they are getting a 
marriage penalty deduction when it takes effect in 2009, 2010. It is 
not reasonable to suggest that they are getting estate tax relief, 
particularly when we could have done one that would have been more 
reasonable, if they would know that they have to wait to die in 2010, 
between 2010 and 2011.
  This way, as we spend this money, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the 
money for the enormous education bill when we said ``leave no child 
behind.'' Dollars are needed to invest in special needs children, to 
invest in title I and to invest in paying our teachers. We have no 
money at the end of this process, because it sunsets, to pay for 
Medicare and Social Security or energy research and development. There 
is no money to run the government as the people of the United States, 
Mr. Speaker, would like us to do. I wish we could have done this 
together with a reasonable tax cut for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report process 
because it is a violent abuse of the House rules, the rights of the 
minority, the people of the United States, and the entire Congressional 
budget process.
  Since this budget first started moving through Congress, the minority 
has been shut out of the process, and our voices silenced. Once again, 
members of the minority are being forced to vote on a conference 
agreement without having had time to review or study it. It is shameful 
that members of Congress should be expected to vote on something as 
important as the budget for the entire nation which touches each and 
every American, without actually knowing what's in it.
  Mr. Speaker, this manipulation of the rules and departure from 
standard House procedure has the effect of silencing the voices and 
usurping the rights of millions of Americans, all for the sake of a tax 
cut that overwhelmingly serves the wealthiest of Americans.
  I cannot believe, after all that has been said of bipartisanship and 
compassionate conservative idealism, that the majority would pass up 
this rare opportunity to work together with the minority of this House; 
the people's house; to come together for all of the American people. 
President Bush promised to be every American's President. I call on 
Congress today to truly represent all Americans, and support a budget 
that is fair for everyone. Sadly, this budget before us is not the one.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad day for the tax-and-spenders. 
They have had a terrible morning. It has sort of been like giving birth 
to a porcupine. But most of the suffering is over and at least until 
June 5, the people of this Nation will have an opportunity to have some 
of their money returned.
  Part of the problem they had, Mr. Speaker, is they did not hear the 
roar. They did not hear the roar. Most of my colleagues were out on 
that rainy day like this morning when we inaugurated George W. Bush on 
the west side of the Capitol building and some people did not hear the 
roar. I remember everyone politely applauded after George W. gave 
different lines in his inaugural statement, but the people on the 
platform, the elected officials, some of them did not hear the roar. 
They all applauded politely. But when the President was giving his 
inaugural remarks, he pledged a tax cut. He pledged to give people back 
their own money and there was this huge roar and there was silence 
among the politicians, because some people did not hear the roar.
  So this morning we have an opportunity, today we have an opportunity 
to hear the roar, to give back a little bit of the money to the people 
who are out there today and tomorrow working, saving, earning, and 
sending that money, that hard-earned money to Washington. Some people 
heard the roar.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).

                              {time}  0745

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are all entitled to our own 
opinions, but we are not all entitled to our own facts.
  The facts will show in fact that since President Clinton took office, 
every one of his budgets was less than the Republican Congress, which 
came in in 1995 actually appropriated. So I think what this is all 
about is trying to save us from ourselves, from the Republican 
standpoint.
  They are in control of the White House, they are in control of the 
House, but now what they want to do is to foist upon the American 
people a true bait and switch tax bill. This is unbelievable. If it did 
not sunset at the end of 10 years, it would cost $4 trillion for that 
next 10 years.
  So what do we do? We assume that we are taking savings, and that 
enables us to have deep tax cuts for the first 10 years.
  Let us look at those deep tax cuts. The estate tax, for example, that 
does not even do a good turn for the very rich. They have to wait 10 
years before it is phased in, and then it sunsets in 2010. So in 2009, 
that is the death bubble year. That is the time they sell their 
inherited assets, but there is still a tax-free step-up in basis for 
capital assets in 2009. That is not up until then.
  People with real money realized what a step-up basis is. They realize 
this does very little for them, and in fact it does not take care of 
the gift tax.
  When we look at the marriage penalty, as the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) said earlier, the marriage penalty starts in 2005. 
It is fully phased in in 2009. In 2010 it is repealed. How can that be 
a high priority?
  When we look at the pension plan, we all voted in favor of it. That 
does not

[[Page 9730]]

become effective until the latter part of this decade.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill for the American people. It is 
bait and switch. When they see what was foisted upon them, they will 
know that the right vote is no on this.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are all entitled to our own 
opinions, but we are not all entitled to our own facts.
  The facts will show that every year that President Clinton was in 
office, and the Republicans were in control of the Congress, the 
Republicans spent more than the Democratic White House asked for. But 
now, hypocritically, this Republican Congress is trying to deceive the 
American people into thinking that we can have it all, all the tax cuts 
we want and all the government we need.
  This tax cut bill is unbelievably irresponsible. If it did not sunset 
at the end of 10 years, it would cost $4 trillion for the next 10 
years. The only way to get the money for that $4 trillion of lost tax 
cut revenue is to take it out of the Medicare and Social Security Trust 
Funds just as we did to pay for President Reagan's 1981 tax cut.
  So what do we do to hide this unavoidable raid on the Social Security 
Trust Fund? This bill terminates all the tax cuts at the end of the 
first 10-year forecast period.
  Let us look at those deep tax cuts. The estate tax, for example, does 
not even do a good turn for the very rich. They have to wait 10 years 
before it is phased in, and then it sunsets the next year. So in 2009, 
that is the ``death bubble'' year. That is the only time they can sell 
their inherited assets, because there is still a full tax-free step-up 
in basis for capital assets in 2009. After 2009, the step up basis is 
reduced.
  People with real money realize what a step-up basis is. They realize 
that for most of the next decade this does very little for them, and in 
fact it does not take care of the gift tax.
  When we look at the marriage penalty, as the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) said earlier, the marriage penalty starts in 2005. 
It is fully phased in in 2009. In 2010 it is repealed. How can that be 
a high priority?
  The Alternative Minimum Tax takes back \2/3\
of the benefits of this tax cut for taxpayers through the 99th 
percentile of income, but only takes back 11 percent of the tax cut for 
the top 1 percent of taxpayers and the top 400 taxpayers don't have to 
give up anything to the AMT.
  When we look at the pension plan, that we all voted for that does not 
become effective until the very latter part of this decade.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill for the American people. It is 
bait and switch, when they see what was foisted upon them, a false 
promise, they will know that the right vote is a no vote on this. It 
leaves $3\1/2\ trillion dollars of debt as well as our retirement costs 
to our kids' generation to pay. Yes, this surplus revenue is our money, 
but the public debt is also ours, it's not our kids' and it's not fair 
to stick them with it. This phony unfair bill should be defeated.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the people in this body 
who put together what I believe is a very well-balanced and well-
thought-out tax relief proposal.
  I believe it is very important for people to recognize at the very 
beginning that this amount of taxes, $1.35 trillion in revenue, is 
provided in tax cuts only after every other part of the Federal 
government is funded. In fact, in total, the Federal budget is funded 
at almost 5 percent of an increase.
  I think it is very important that we have been responsible in funding 
the other elements of our government; in fact, giving an 11.5 percent 
increase to education, setting aside Social Security surpluses, setting 
aside dollars for Medicare, paying down over the next 10 years, the 
period of this budget, $2.3 billion in debt owed to the public.
  I think it is also very important, Mr. Speaker, to recognize what 
people want around the country now. People want, for one thing, a lot 
more control over their dollars. That is what we are giving them in 
this tax relief proposal. I want to speak briefly to one provision that 
I am very interested in; that is, the repeal of the death tax or the 
estate tax.
  The estate tax right now is at the point of putting a burden of up to 
55 percent on the backs of people who are basically folks who have 
bought a home, put money into it for years, provided responsibly for 
their retirement. This tax rests on the shoulders of middle-income 
people.
  On this estate tax relief, we will find that in the first year, 2002, 
the rate goes down from 55 to 50. It decreases over the next 9 years. 
We get rid of this death tax in 9 years. January 1, 2010, the death tax 
is gone. Immediately, the rate of deductibility rises to $1 million. 
This is a huge change from what we had before. I think that the 
American public is getting a very good deal with this tax relief bill.
  On the death tax, we are sitting there with a farm we have had in the 
family for generations. The time comes when the owner dies, and within 
9 months one has to pay in cash up to 55 percent of the value of that 
property. What does a farmer do who is cash poor and land rich? He 
sells his land, often creating a situation where the land does not 
produce enough to support that family.
  The same thing has happened over and over in my neck of the woods, 
Washington State, with timber properties, and the community loses. This 
is a very bad thing.
  So we have taken into consideration small businesspeople, middle-
income people, folks who own farms, people who want to keep businesses 
in the hands of their families. We have made it easier for them to do 
that. Everything will phase out by the year 2010, January 1.
  I do not know why they are complaining about this. They should have 
done it years ago. Now we have done it. It is a great plan. I want 
everybody to get behind it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  To my friend, the gentlewoman from Washington, I would only point out 
that while the estate tax is repealed in 2010 and 2011, it is back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the others, and it is 
interesting. They have told us the deficits of Reaganomics are so bad 
that they try to blame the Democratic Congress. We are told that if 
there is a large pile of money left in Washington, D.C., it will be 
spent. They are right. There is $2 trillion in the Social Security 
trust fund, and this Congress will spend it on tax cuts for the wealthy 
and on missile defense.
  But in years to come, people will look at the back of their tax 
returns and they will see a huge AMT, alternative minimum tax, added to 
their tax bill. They will remember a bill that was written at midnight, 
and they will believe that all the tax benefits went to those less 
worthy and more wealthy than themselves.
  They will be right. Look at what this bill does to the upper middle 
class. It throws them into the alternative minimum tax. With the change 
in the Senate, we will not be in a position to fix that. We have almost 
no AMT relief in this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I knew we were on the precipice of triple-
digit deficits, a national debt in the trillions, and destructive and 
profound dislocations throughout the American economy.
  David Stockman, David Stockman, admitted the knowledge that he had as 
he presented the 1981 economic program to the Congress. As it was 
proposed and submitted to the Congress, it was the same rhetoric that 
we have heard about giving Americans back their money.
  That is good rhetoric. It is politically attractive rhetoric. But we 
are fiduciaries of that money. They collectively give us that money to 
apply to the needs of their country and of themselves and of their 
families.
  In the 1980s, the debt that we created was also theirs. As a result 
of the creation of that debt, they today pay billions, billions of 
their dollars in interest, and receive essentially nothing in return 
except what a previous generation bought with that money.
  This is a sad day, as was 1981, because, like David Stockman knew, it

[[Page 9731]]

will be the result of profound dislocations in America in the days 
ahead. Defeat this rule. Defeat this bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule. I stand in 
support of this legislation. I stand in support of this commonsense, 
balanced package of tax relief that will pass this house with 
bipartisan support today.
  If we think about it, if we look at the big picture, this does make a 
lot of common sense. We have, thanks to the fiscal responsibility of 
this Congress, and particularly this House, we have a projected surplus 
over the next decade of $5.6 trillion, a tax surplus of extra money. 
This package takes less than one-fourth of that tax surplus and uses it 
to help the average family in America, a $1.3 trillion tax cut.
  Our friends in the news media will of course try to determine who the 
winners are here. Clearly, the biggest winner is the taxpayer. The 
winners in this room are also those Republicans and Democrats who have 
worked together to provide tax relief for working families.
  I particularly want to commend my Democratic friends, those on the 
other side of the aisle, who set aside partisanship to work together 
with the President and with the Republicans to help families by 
lowering taxes.
  I also want to salute the President, who made education and tax 
relief the number one and two priority of his agenda for his 
presidency, because this week we passed his education proposal, and 
today we are going to send to his desk for signature into law his tax 
cut proposal. This is clearly a big victory for President Bush.
  But who does it help? Clearly this tax cut helps everyone. If anyone 
pays taxes, they will receive relief. Under this proposal, the across-
the-board tax cut helps every American taxpayer.
  All of us are concerned about the direction of the economy. The 
President inherited a weakening economy, and we are all committed to 
find a way to help ensure that we can boost this economy. Clearly the 
tax rebate, $300 for a single, $600 for a married couple, will put some 
extra cash in the hands of taxpayers so they can pay off some bills, as 
well as have extra spending money to meet the needs of their family. 
That clearly will help our economy.
  I also want to note that this legislation helps bring about tax 
fairness. We have often talked in this House about the need to address 
the marriage tax penalty. Beginning in 2002, next year, we begin 
providing relief for the married tax penalty suffered by 28 million 
married working couples who pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes 
just because they are married. Low-income couples who participate in 
the earned income tax credit will see their marriage tax penalty 
relieved.
  Lower-income families who do not itemize but use the standard 
deduction to pay their taxes will see marriage tax relief. And middle-
class families who itemize their taxes because they own a home will see 
marriage tax relief.
  It is a commonsense package. It deserves bipartisan support. I am 
proud to stand here in support of the biggest tax cut we have had in a 
long time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I heard mentioned several times about 1981. 
I was seated on the other side of the aisle in 1981. The time and 
circumstances are totally different than today.
  I remember quite well the budget then was based on deficits. Today we 
have surpluses. The economic assumptions used in building that budget 
were in excess. They were very liberal type assumptions that David 
Stockman put there. This budget is based on conservative estimates, and 
we are basing it on surpluses, not on deficits.
  We are paying more taxes today as a percentage of the GNP since World 
War II. I think our people, the taxpayers, are entitled to a refund. I 
think this is not the last day in this Congress. There are a lot of 
things that can happen. We will probably tweak different things along 
the way in the next decade.
  Is everything in the tax bill that I like? No. The chairman knows 
that, the leadership knows it. We are not covering everything we should 
be, but we need to be trying to provide the opportunities for economic 
and job growth, and this bill would do that. I think it will spur the 
economic growth of this country.

                              {time}  0800

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the countdown to real meaningful tax reform 
for America. It has been said by myself and other speakers today, 
Americans are spending a greater percentage of their income toward 
taxes now than any time since World War II, essentially comprising the 
largest share of the gross domestic product. In the land of equality, 
where is the fairness in that?
  This tax package provides relief to every single taxpayer, removing 
millions of Americans from the tax roll altogether. This tax plan is 
predicated on the idea that a sensible tax policy will generate high 
rates of long-term growth.
  Reductions of marginal tax rates will encourage greater work effort 
and provide more inducement for taxpayers to save, invest and build in 
business enterprises. America, this is your money, and you know how to 
spend it best. I am asking my colleagues to give you the refund you 
have asked for.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give America what they need and 
what they have earned: responsible, com-

monsense tax relief. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 177, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 148]

                               YEAS--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton

[[Page 9732]]


     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--177

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Clayton
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Doggett
     Gillmor
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Isakson
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     King (NY)
     Lipinski
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Moakley
     Oberstar
     Ose
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Scarborough
     Skelton
     Towns
     Walsh
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wynn

                              {time}  0823

  Mr. SANDLIN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 148, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 148, 
due to difficulties associated with my travel logistics, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________