[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1994-1995]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the state of our Union is not sound. 
Millions of Americans and their families are not secure in their home, 
not because of some new wave of crime or because of some immediate and 
compelling threat from Iraq or other hostile foreign nations, but 
because so many have lost their jobs, or many fear the loss of their 
job or lay-off in the near future.
  One point seven million jobs have been lost since January 2001. The 
number of people unemployed for more than 6 months has tripled in the 
last 2 years. One point three million more people have fallen into 
poverty in the last 2 years, the first increase in a decade.
  Bankruptcies are up 23 percent in the last year. Forty-four million 
Americans have no health insurance. The government surplus has 
evaporated. We have a huge and growing deficit as far as the eye can 
see. Social Security lockbox has been broken open and pillaged, and the 
trust funds are being spent on day-to-day operations of the government. 
The Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund, which insures the pensions of 
Americans in case their company or plan should fail, is broke. It has 
spent its entire reserves in the last 2 years.
  State budgets are the worst since the Great Depression. We are in a 
domestic economic crisis. That is pretty clear, but the question 
becomes what is the President going to propose? It appears that he is 
going to propose more of the same.
  When the President was a candidate, we had a large surplus and a 
booming economy. He proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. When the 
President was newly elected, we had a faltering economy, and he said we 
still had a surplus, and he proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, and he 
got many of those proposals through. Now he is in his third year as 
President. We are in a recession. We have huge and growing deficits, 
and the President has proposed, surprise, tax cuts for the wealthy.
  His plan is to exempt dividends supposedly because of double 
taxation, except most of the corporations who pay dividends do not pay 
Federal income taxes. They have taken advantage of loopholes through 
Bermuda and other places to not pay taxes. They are not double-taxed. 
That is not the issue, double taxation or fairness. It is to give a 
huge gift to the wealthy.
  The average tax cut for an Oregonian, for my State, with an income of 
$32,000, people who could use a little help, it will be $40. Do not 
spend it all in one place. But the average millionaire tax cut, 
$45,000, those who have already done so well under his previous tax 
cuts, and it will compound the State's financial problems. It will cost 
the States $4 billion, this little dividend gift to wealthy investors, 
and it will cost my State $100 million, a State already in crisis.
  There is no credible economist in the United States of America who 
pretends that this would in any way stimulate the economy, especially 
since the money will not be refunded to these wealthy folks until next 
year even if they choose to spend it in a way that might create jobs.
  Then the other leg of his way to boost our economy is a war. I 
believe many are puzzling over what is this about. Is there this a 
tremendous threat? Well, he has not yet revealed either to me, the 
United States Congress in any of our classified briefings here on the 
floor of the House, or in unclassified briefings or in other materials 
the proof that there is a credible and immediate threat from Saddam 
Hussein.
  We do know that in North Korea they have nuclear weapons. They are 
building more nuclear weapons. They have

[[Page 1995]]

tested long-range missiles. We do know in Iran that they have a very 
advanced nuclear program. Apparently Saddam Hussein does not have one 
at all, and his missiles that he has, so-called, can reach only a 
couple of hundred miles.
  So how is it that this is the most credible and immediate threat that 
we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially thousands 
of American lives, tens of thousands of lives of innocents in a war 
against Saddam Hussein while weapons inspectors are in there, when we 
have gotten what we proposed, which is let us go in there and find if 
he has weapons of mass destruction. Give the process time to work. 
There is no reason to rush to war with potentially catastrophic results 
and one that is certainly not going to help us with these pressing 
domestic problems at home.
  In fact, it is going to rob from that, since the President is now 
talking about a long-term occupation and rebuilding of Iraq similar to 
Japan after World War II despite the fact that, of course, basically 
their culture is not as integrated as that of Japan. In fact, the 
people who live in Iraq do not get along very well. There is a number 
of divisive factions. They have no tradition in democracy, and a long-
term occupation and democracy-building in that area is going to be very 
problematic.
  So the President should focus on real steps to help real Americans 
with their real problems at home and real threats to our domestic 
integrity or our international security. Where is Osama bin Laden? 
Remember, dead or alive? Guess what. He is still alive. He is still 
planning attacks on the United States of America. The President needs 
to refocus his priorities.

                          ____________________