[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11450-11456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1830
                JOBS AND GROWTH TAX PLAN TO PRODUCE JOBS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chocola). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to 
revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, every time that I walk 
into this Chamber I am awed and I am overwhelmed, when you think of the 
history that has taken place here in this Chamber, in this hall, and 
the speeches that have also been proclaimed and stated within these 
walls.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I heard some really eloquent speeches as well, 
some spectacularly eloquent speeches, some of them criticizing the job 
proposal that this House has passed, the job proposal plan that the 
President has proposed.
  I also heard, Mr. Speaker, some great examples of not letting the 
facts get in the way of the rhetoric. I have seen some wonderful 
examples here as to how to just disregard the facts and let us go 
forward with the rhetoric and hope that you can confuse people, Mr. 
Speaker.
  But the American people, Mr. Speaker, are not easily confused. The 
Jobs and Growth Tax Act, which is really based on the jobs and growth 
plan that we passed last week, is a comprehensive approach to creating 
jobs. We heard criticism after criticism after criticism of that plan; 
but what you will notice is that not once, not once, was a proposal 
spoken about, an alternative proposal, that created jobs. No. They 
criticized the plan that creates jobs, and, in its stead, proposed 
absolutely nothing. Again, the American people witnessed that here 
tonight.
  Yet the plan that we passed provides, for example, tax relief to 
American families and immediately eliminates burdensome and unfair 
taxes that provided huge obstacles to economic growth and job creation.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) worked awfully hard to get 
through this House a plan that will create over 1.2 million jobs 
throughout the entire country by the end of next year. This was a 
specific proposal, not rhetoric. That is a specific proposal that this 
House passed. It creates, as a matter of fact, 45,000 new jobs in the 
State of Florida that I represent; next year, 45,000 jobs. Yet, Mr. 
Speaker, we heard no other proposal; just criticism, criticism of a 
plan that creates 1.2 million jobs.
  This plan that we passed that our dear friends in the minority love 
to criticize, and, yet, I repeat, have nothing to show other than 
criticism, this plan would put $550 billion in economic stimulus and 
job creation in this country.
  Then I heard something that I keep hearing time and time again, and 
it must be something that the Democratic Party's PR machine has told 
them to repeat time and time again, again regardless of the facts. They 
keep saying, oh, the plan that the House passed, the President's plan, 
cuts taxes on the rich.
  Let us again speak of the facts. I know that my dear friends on the 
Democratic side hate when you bring up the facts. They do not like the 
facts to be used. They do not want to permit the facts to confuse the 
rhetoric. But I think it is important to bring up some of those facts.
  The rich? Cut taxes on the rich? Twenty-three million small business 
owners will benefit from tax rate cuts in order to stimulate job 
growth; 23 million small business owners are going to have their taxes 
cut. Those are not the rich, those small business owners. Again, the 
facts, Mr. Speaker.
  The tax cut, for example, on dividend income and the capital gains 
tax cut will provide relief for the 50 percent of Americans who have 
invested in the stock market and 70 million Americans who own homes. 
Those are the facts.
  Yet what we have heard tonight, all the criticism, all the critiquing 
of the President's plan, of the plan we passed, with nothing else, no 
proposal, no alternative proposal, is just criticism based on innuendo, 
not based on the facts.
  Again, the President's job and growth plan, what we passed here in 
the House, will provide 1.2 million jobs next year. Those are the 
facts, not the rhetoric.
  The energy bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) spoke 
of here last week with me on the floor of this House will provide 
750,000 new jobs. But yet both those initiatives our friends from the 
minority party object to; and they object to them but have no decent, 
good proposal, as opposed to what we have done. This is a good plan, 
because it does provide jobs.
  I was wondering, I see that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kennedy) is here; and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the 
gentleman. Maybe he can try to shed some light on some of the facts, 
not on just empty rhetoric, some of the facts: why it is important that 
we do not just sit idly by and hope the economy gets better; why it is 
important to incentivize this economy; why it is important to go 
forward with the President's plan, with what this Congress passed, to 
make sure the millions of Americans can find good jobs; why it is 
important to not just sit back and pretend that things are okay, they 
are going to get better, and the solution is maybe to raise taxes; why 
it is important that we move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman can shed some light as to some of 
the rhetoric that has been heard before here tonight which does not 
conform with the facts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I wholeheartedly agree with what the gentleman is saying. 
This focus should be on jobs. Our focus as a Congress should be on 
creating jobs.
  A lot of what we have heard earlier today is talk about extending 
unemployment, and we certainly have. Our hearts go out to those that 
are unemployed. But if you talk to those that are unemployed, what they 
really want is a job, and that is what we have to talk about, that is 
what we have to act on, that is what we have to create.
  They have not talked a lot earlier in their discussions on the floor 
about what they are going to do to create jobs. As the gentleman 
mentioned, they do not have a plan to say here is how we are going to 
create jobs.
  Our plan that we did pass last week will create, according to 
estimates, 1.2 million jobs. I know a little bit about jobs. I spent 20 
years in the business

[[Page 11451]]

world creating jobs, keeping people employed; and I know what are some 
of the things that can help encourage that and what are some of the 
things that can hurt that. So our focus needs to be what can we do as a 
government to nurture an environment that creates jobs.
  The gentleman spoke of the energy bill. That is clearly part of it. 
The gentleman spoke about many of the provisions in this bill, in this 
bill we passed for jobs and growth, which will indeed create jobs and 
growth.
  The economy has suffered. We went through a period where we had not 
only a bust in the telecom bubble, but soon following that, 9/11, which 
set the economy back, and the threat of terrorism and the concern with 
our efforts to free a people from oppression in Afghanistan and do the 
same thing again in Iraq.
  We are now suffering from concern over SARS and other diseases that 
are threatening our economy and threatening people and threatening 
lives around the world. All these put a lot of pressure on our economy, 
put a lot of pressure on the ability to create jobs; and now more than 
ever, our focus needs to be on the facts and how do we create those 
jobs.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reclaiming my time for a second, as 
the gentleman knows, I am new in Washington. This is my first year. One 
of the things that has surprised me a little bit is the ability by some 
Members, very eloquently, to just espouse things, yet with no facts 
whatsoever, and sometimes even distorting some facts that are used.
  The gentleman mentioned something that is very important. There has 
to be a proposal. In other words, if we want to create jobs, which is I 
think the emphasis of this, clearly of the President and the majority 
of this Congress, we have to put something forward that creates jobs.
  One of the ways to create jobs, and that is a bipartisan goal, we 
have agreed to that, I think, one of the ways you create jobs is by 
cutting taxes, making sure the people can keep more of their money.
  Another way I think we can create jobs is by controlling government 
spending. Yet, since I have been here, I have never heard one moment 
where our friends from the other party have ever asked for controlling 
government spending.
  Every time I turn around, they are asking for more government, bigger 
government; more bureaucracy, more money for that bureaucracy; more 
taxes from the people for that bureaucracy. That is a common theme I 
have been hearing in these debates.
  I was wondering if the gentleman could shed some light on how does 
creating a larger government, more bureaucracy, more taxes, how does 
that help create more jobs for the American people.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I think that is a big issue we are dealing 
with. There are two different world views. There is a world view that 
says having the government spend more creates jobs, with the idea that 
somehow we here in Washington know how to do that. As a businessman, I 
can tell you, this is not where the jobs are created. They are created 
back home by small businesses.
  I would like to go back to the facts, because so often much of the 
rhetoric on the other side is lambasting the job creators and 
lambasting any efforts that we have to encourage those job creators to 
create jobs. That is what this bill does.
  If you think about what bonus depreciation does, going from 30 to 50 
percent bonus depreciation, the extra ability to expense immediately 
investments in equipment that drives jobs, that is critical to 
providing those jobs.
  Also the bill that we passed last week will increase the amount that 
small businesses can deduct from $25,000 to $100,000, the amount they 
can deduct in the first year. This is so vitally important. As I talk 
to so many small businesses around the State, they tell me this is 
something that can get me to go out and buy that piece of equipment 
that will allow me to add jobs to my business.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. One of the things that I keep 
hearing, and the gentleman just mentioned small businesses, which is a 
big part of this economic stimulus-job creation package, it is to 
provide relief for small businesses. That is where most of the jobs are 
created, in small businesses.
  In the State of Florida it is even more dramatic. The numbers are 
staggering, the number of jobs created by small business. That is the 
entire economy of the State of Florida.
  But we hear when we want to cut taxes on small business owners to 
help small businesses do well, to incentivize them to spend more money, 
to hire more people, to create more jobs, you hear that we are cutting 
taxes on the rich. Yet, when you look at the proposals from our good 
friends on the minority party, the Democratic Party, everything that 
they do seems to be trying to raise taxes on working Americans.
  By the way, many of those working Americans are now struggling, which 
is why it is important to pass this package. But yet their proposals 
seem to be, and I have them here, seem to be raise taxes on the working 
people, on the hardworking Americans, who are having a hard time paying 
the mortgage and rent, who are having a hard time staying employed. 
Some of them have actually lost their jobs. Yet they want to raise 
taxes on them.
  It seems in many cases just to create larger bureaucracies up here in 
Washington, DC. I do not think one has to be a brilliant economist to 
realize when you are further taxing people and you are creating more 
bureaucracy in DC, that does absolutely nothing to help the economy. 
What it does, it actually helps stagnate the economy; it hurts the 
economy. It makes sure that the economy does not grow.
  Again, the gentleman has been here longer than me. Is that just a 
normal theme for them, that they always use these blank statements when 
we are asking to or suggesting or trying to cut taxes on small business 
owners, that they say those are the rich?
  The small business owners in my district, the district that I 
represent, it is not my district, that I represent, are not rich. They 
are struggling. They are struggling to pay their employees, to pay for 
their health care, to keep that business, those small businesses, 
alive. To call those people rich people and say that cutting the taxes 
on those people is cutting the taxes on rich people, and, at the same 
time what they want to do is raise the taxes on the working people of 
this country, to create a larger bureaucracy, how is that good for the 
economy?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. It is a recurring theme, as the gentleman 
mentioned, that we somehow here in Washington have all the answers; 
that we can create jobs in some way by just taxing people more, 
bringing the government more money. And we are overhead; we are 
overhead. We are a cost to all those small businesses out there. We are 
the big ``headquarters in the sky'' that does nothing but send the bill 
to them and say send more money; we need more money.
  We do not need more money, but small businesses do. And it is true 
that too often we demonize small businesses. Too often we say the 
answer is to throw more penalties their way.

                              {time}  1845

  Things like this $100,000, being able to deduct it immediately is 
thought of as a tax cut for the rich, but let us think about what that 
means. That means rather than having to expense over 4 or 5 or 7 or 9 
or 25 years, it can be deducted immediately. As a finance guy who 
worked in business and who has gone through the calculations, I can 
tell my colleagues, that will change businesses' decisions as to what 
they invest in.
  And what could that be used for? I just started to go through my own 
history. My first job was picking strawberries, and if we think about 
our agricultural businesses, what they could do with $100,000. There is 
the harvesting equipment. That allows them to produce more product, to 
feed more people, to increase our economy.
  After I had the opportunity to pick strawberries, I graduated to the 
local

[[Page 11452]]

bakery in town, Meisner's Bakery in Pequot Lakes. With that $100,000, 
you could buy a new oven or a new steamer or a new area to increase 
your production of doughnuts or whatever. And that is going to add 
production, it is going to add jobs to a community.
  After I got finished at the bakery, I had the opportunity to rent 
boats at a boat marina. Somebody who is doing that can add boats to 
their fleet so they can be renting more.
  After that I had the opportunity to be at a gas station and pump gas, 
but they also had a little retail store there with fish and bait and 
all that stuff. A retail store like that could add fixtures, could 
expand space and, therefore, grow its sales and add jobs.
  I can go on and on and on through the jobs that I have been in, and 
one can visually picture what could happen with that extra ability to 
deduct that $100,000 right away rather than over a long period of time, 
how that could motivate businesses to invest and how that investment 
could increase jobs. Sometimes we do not hear about that from the other 
side. We just hear about lambasting of those business people that are 
taking the risks, that are investing in something that does not have a 
certain future, but it is that entrepreneurial risk-taking that creates 
jobs in this country, and that is what we need to encourage.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the 
things that we have to note as well is that we keep hearing that 
government can give these small businesses, is going to give them 
something. It is not the government's to give. That is the people's 
money. What we are talking about is allowing hard-working people to 
keep a little bit more of their money; in other words, for the 
government to take less of their money. But when we talk about that, we 
hear that, oh, it is horrible, because it is going to cost government. 
We are going to be giving away these things. Excuse me? Giving away?
  I think that is part of where we have a huge ideological difference, 
a philosophical difference. It is not government's money to give away. 
What we are saying is that government is going to take less money of 
the small businessperson, of the small business. He is going to take a 
little bit less money, just a little bit less money, take a little bit 
less so that that person, that small business, can reinvest it in their 
business.
  The gentleman mentioned some great examples to create more jobs. I 
know that for some people, that is a theory. That is a theory. Why do 
we have to create more jobs? Let us just criticize the President. They 
have done that from day one about every issue; whether it is the war to 
liberate Iraq, they criticize the President. They do not criticize him 
that much anymore, but they sure were criticizing because it is the 
thing to do, just criticize the President.
  Now they criticize this job creation plan, and they say that, well, 
we are going to give these people, these small businesses, money. No. 
What we are saying and what the President is saying is it is the 
people's money, it is not government's money. The government should 
allow those small businesses, those individuals, to keep some more of 
their money so that they can use it back home, in Florida, in 
Minnesota, and in Texas, in Wyoming. And they tend to do it much better 
than we do, than government does, because we tend to waste a lot of 
money. Allow them to keep some of their money, and that will create 1.2 
million jobs in 1 year.
  But some people say, well, it is only $100,000. It is only $100,000 
that we are going to cut, it is only $10,000, it is only $1,000 that 
businesses are going to be able to reinvest. I guess that think that 
they have better plans for that money in D.C. But I am, frankly, a 
little shocked.
  I have been doing a little research about some of the waste up here. 
Our dear friends on the Democratic side hate when we talk about waste 
and fraud and abuse. But I have been doing just a little research. I 
have not spent a lot of time on it because the gentleman knows I just 
got here recently, but I found some very interesting things.
  Just one issue, for example. Government purchase cards and travel 
cards wasted approximately $97 million annually. But let me tell my 
colleagues what some of those really bright things are that we should 
take more of the people's money for. This is the kind of thing that we 
need to tax people more for, to spend it on some of these things. This 
is $97 million worth of escort services, jewelry, clothing from 
Victoria's Secret, Macy's, Nordstrom, Calvin Klein; taxpayer money to 
buy a dog for an individual. Taxpayers' money was spent on pornography 
for some employees, on expensive luggage. There was one incident of one 
dinner for $2,100 at Treasure Island Hotel and Casino.
  That is why we need to raise more taxes. Take it away from the hard-
working American men and women, bring it up here to D.C. so we can 
spend it and waste it on some really good things such as this: designer 
leather goods from a prestigious store, Lego toys, expensive 
sunglasses, beer, wine, and cigars.
  There is also, do we remember the travel cards? That is a separate 
issue altogether. That was used for, well, for interesting places I do 
not really want to mention. Some of these things I really would rather 
not talk about, including some gentlemen's clubs, some plastic surgery, 
down payments on a home. So that is why we have to tax the American 
people more, because Washington knows how to spend the people's money 
better; oh, yes, on a down payment for a home for a member of the 
bureaucracy. That is why we have to take more of their money, on 
cruises. No, no, no, no. Wait a second.
  The reason that some of us, the gentleman from Minnesota and others, 
have been speaking about waste, fraud and abuse, because it is not a 
laughing matter, because this is hard-earned money. This is money that 
government takes from the American people and then misspends it. 
Government does some really good things with taxpayers' money as well, 
but we throw a lot of it away. And for anybody to say that government 
is so efficient, so well run, so lean and mean that we have to take 
more of the hard-working American people's money, people that are 
having a hard time because the economy is not as good as we would like 
it to be; for us to take more of their money to spend it up here as 
opposed to what we want to do, which is allow them to keep more of 
their money so that they can spend it on some of the issues that the 
gentleman mentioned, on their families, on creating wealth within their 
businesses, of creating more jobs within small businesses, I think is 
absolutely ludicrous.
  But these examples are not new. We have been hearing about waste, 
fraud and abuse for a long time. So again, I am having a hard time. I 
know that the gentleman, like me, believes that we need to incentivize 
this economy, but since the gentleman has been here longer, maybe the 
gentleman has heard some of the words of wisdom from the other side 
stating how raising taxes on hard-working Americans, particularly when 
they are having a hard time, helps create jobs. I do not buy it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. And I do not buy it either. And I agree 
with the gentleman as it relates to the people out there creating jobs. 
Hard-working families know a whole lot better how to spend money to 
create jobs and to provide for their families than we ever will here in 
Washington, and the gentleman's many examples just proved the point.
  Mr. Speaker, amongst the wisest words I have heard here was during my 
freshman year we had a speaker come in, a George Will, who some of my 
colleagues may have had the opportunity to read his columns, and he 
tried to make things understandable for us, because sometimes it is 
hard to understand some of the verbiage that we hear. He said, you will 
find that on most issues, that the battle of ideas is between freedom 
on one side and people telling you that you need them here in 
Washington to keep bringing the gravy train to you, or, said another 
way, dependency, we are going to cultivate dependency. And if my 
colleagues listened tonight, they heard that.
  We have heard the other side say, you need us here, because without 
us

[[Page 11453]]

here, we will not be able to keep you dependent on unemployment rolls; 
whereas I think what our statement is saying, yes, we will take care of 
unemployment, and yes, we have extended, and we both voted for that, 
and we both will again when that need is there. But that is not our 
main focus. When we get up in the morning, our focus is how can we give 
the economy more freedom, small businesses more freedom, families and 
small businesses more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets so 
they can take that freedom and they can go out and create jobs and 
create a more prosperous America for all of us.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by the way, I have 
been very impressed with the quality of the speeches. Sometimes the 
rhetoric is really, really good. I mean, there is some great eloquence 
on the floor of the House. We heard some great eloquence today bashing 
the plan to create more jobs. We heard that tonight. We have heard 
eloquent speeches bashing the President's plan to create more jobs. We 
have heard eloquent speeches bashing and bashing and bashing. We also 
heard, the gentleman will recall, very eloquent speeches from our 
friends on the Democratic side bashing when we were talking about 
trying to cut wasteful spending. They just hate that. They hate when we 
talk about that.
  I mentioned some examples, but I want to make sure that nobody thinks 
that, well, because when we add that up, it is only $100 million. Some 
people say that. We have heard that here, it is only $100 million.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Only $100 million.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Only $100 million. Ask the American 
people if that is just only $100 million on some pretty sad things. But 
it gets worse than that. And when we talk about these things, we get 
bashed by the Democrats. When we talk about, for example, we were 
mentioning facts before, and it is important to not just spew rhetoric, 
but bring in some facts to the discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot account for, and we need 
to listen to this, the Federal Government cannot account for $17.3 
billion it spent in the year 2001; $17 billion unaccounted for. Yet 
some criticize us when we talk about let us have some accountability. 
Let us not misspend. Let us look at ways that we can save some of this 
money. Mr. Speaker, $17 billion is not peanuts. That is a lot of money 
unaccounted for.
  The Federal Government made $20 billion in overpayments in the year 
2001; $20 billion in overpayments, on people that were not qualified or 
things that should not have been funded. The Department of Housing and 
Urban Development made $3.3 billion, and I repeat, billion, with a B, 
billion dollars in overpayments in 2001, accounting for 10 percent of 
the Department's budget; 10 percent in overpayments, in waste. Yet some 
will tell us that there is not enough money up here; that we need to 
raise taxes on hard-working Americans; that we should not incentivize 
the economy by letting more hard-working Americans keep some of their 
money, no, because there is not enough money in D.C. Oh, of course not, 
when we misspend 10 percent of the Department's budget.
  But some will tell us the answer is, no problem. Do not worry about 
that. Let us just squeeze the American taxpayer a little bit more, a 
little bit harder, because you know something? It is okay, they will 
not mind, or they cannot yell loud enough, so let us squeeze them a 
little bit louder, a little bit tighter.
  No, no. It is time that we do not squeeze them anymore, so that we 
allow them to keep more of their money so that they can spend it and 
they can create jobs.
  If the gentleman will allow me, I would like to mention a couple of 
other examples. The Department of Agriculture was unable to account for 
$5 billion in receipts and expenditures; $5 billion. Medicare 
overpayments, overpayments totaled $12 billion in 2001; $12 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has passed a Medicare 
prescription drug plan without raising taxes. We have done it. 
Actually, the House did it last year as well, but the other body 
refused to do so, but now we have done it again, and we are going to 
pass it again. Well, do we want to find where some of the money can 
come from? There is $12 billion in overpayments. That is money that is 
not going for the elderly that need it, that is not going for the 
elderly that deserve it, that is not going for the elderly who have 
paid into it.

                              {time}  1900

  No, that is just waste. That is just waste. And that is unacceptable. 
That is immoral. Totally immoral. So, yes, we are going to do it.
  There has been a lot of rhetoric for 40 years; the other party has 
been talking about it. It took the Republican majority to pass it, and 
we have passed it again in the House, and we are going to do that; but 
we need to make sure that this kind of waste stops, stops, because that 
is our hardworking Americans who are paying for it. The food stamp 
program pays approximately $1.3 billion in overpayments each year. What 
can we do with that $1.3 billion for health care, for education, for 
defense, to incentivize our economy? A lot.
  And yet when we talk about these things, our friends on the 
Democratic party get upset. They say you cannot do that; you have to 
tax the American people more. Do not look at fraud, waste and abuse. 
Just tax the American people more. More than $8 billion is lost in 
erroneous earned income tax payments each year and again the list goes 
on and on and on, and we are not talking small amounts of money. If we 
were speaking about small amounts of money, that would be no excuse. We 
still have to stop it, because it is not government's money. It is the 
people's money, but what is even worse is we are talking about billions 
of dollars in misspent, misused, lost money. And some want to tax the 
American workers, tax the American family more to do more of this? I do 
not understand it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I do not understand it either. And the 
waste, fraud and abuse cries out for a razor-sharp focus on what can we 
do to scale away those costs that are burdening our economy. And we can 
get back to a sound fiscal picture only by sparking this economy with 
the kind of tax-relief jobs proposal that we passed and by controlling 
that spending with a razor-sharp focus, as they say, on waste, fraud 
and abuse.
  They know how to spend money better back home in Florida and back 
home in Minnesota than we do in Washington. They do not put up with 
that. They will drill to the bottom of those issues and find out what 
was causing it and uncover the waste, fraud and abuse, and get it out 
of the system.
  But what could they do, for example, with the dividend and capital 
gains reductions that we have passed? When I studied economics, they 
told me it was investments that drive jobs. It is when you invest in 
the economy, that is when you drive jobs. Where do those investments 
come from? Those investments come from savings. And this bill 
encourages savings by reducing the double taxation on dividends, and 
they are excessively high compared to many other countries' tax that we 
have on investment income. We should be taxing income at its source, 
but when we discourage investment and have the very low investment rate 
that we have here in America, we are hurting our economy. And who is 
receiving most of those dividends? I think it is important to point out 
it is primarily seniors that are receiving those dividends. And they 
have paid taxes on that in the business. They have paid taxes all their 
lives. Why are we charging them this double investment?
  We have a concern here with having good fiscal responsibility. One of 
the big benefits of the dividend and capital gains proposal we have 
talked about is that by encouraging more businesses to be giving their 
dividends back to shareholders, you will be having less cash stockpiled 
in the company. That will be better for us keeping track and holding 
our businesses accountable. It is also going to make the balance 
between debt and equity less tilted towards debt. Right now we have 
such

[[Page 11454]]

higher tax benefits for fully deductible debt on interest on debt; and 
yet on dividends coming out of a business, we are taxing them twice 
unfairly. By getting that balance more in line, you are going to really 
have a stronger, sounder capital structure, more equity in our 
businesses so they can withstand downfalls without having to lay off 
employees.
  Again, our focus here is what can we do to create jobs. How can we 
run our ship more efficiently here by scaling back on waste, fraud and 
abuse so that we have to take less out of the pockets of small 
businesses and hardworking families and let them get on with the 
business of America, the business of creating jobs, expanding the 
economy and taking care of our families.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Absolutely. You mention a specific 
issue that, by the way, is in the bill that we passed which would 
create jobs. Another thing that would create jobs that is also in the 
bill that we passed, and by the way, it would also save, it would 
provide relief for 92 million Americans, 92 million Americans, an 
average of $1,083 in the year 2003, allowing them to keep more of their 
money. That would put more than a hundred million dollars into the 
economy of our country over the next 12 months, creating jobs, turning 
over that economic engine.
  You mentioned a little while ago that the way to get out of the 
deficit, by the way, to pay for the essential service that we all want 
to pay for, including what the Republican majority is doing with, for 
example, the prescription drug coverage under Medicare, is to expand 
the economy. That is not to raise taxes to the point where people 
cannot pay them and you destroy business. It is to grow the economy. 
One way to grow the economy is, again, by allowing the 2 million 
Americans, now I know, I know, some of our friends on the Democratic 
side will say, those are rich folk.
  You are going to cut $1,083 in the year 2003 on 92 million Americans. 
Those are rich folks. I wish, by the way, there were 92 million rich 
people in the United States. Those are not the facts. But that will 
allow Americans to keep more of their money, to spend more of their 
money, to invest more of their money, to put it into their businesses; 
and that alone is a hundred million dollars into the economy that right 
now is being sucked in, this huge sucking sound that goes from every 
single city, town, village in our country of money coming up here to 
D.C. to do with it as we know the government does with it, including 
some of the things that we mentioned.
  The plan that we passed also would see the tax burden eliminated 
entirely on 3 million moderate-income families. Three million moderate-
income families would pay zippo, zilch, nada, zero. Those are rich 
people? No. Those are working families. Those are working families.
  How about the child tax credit that will be raised from $600 to 
$1,000? Tell me that is not something that has to happen. Tell me that 
is not something that the American people deserve. Tell me that is not 
something that the American people can do better with their money than 
us in D.C., with the bureaucracies, and the size of this government, 
again, 23 million small businesses would, again, in H.R. 2, the bill 
that we passed, House Resolution 2, by having more capital to expand on 
their businesses. That is what this country needs. And I know that some 
are content to think, no, we should not do anything. We should just 
kind of pretend that things are okay. They will complain here on the 
floor, but they will not propose anything that creates any jobs.
  I am so proud to have been able to support this package that actually 
will create, just create so many jobs for the hardworking people of 
this country. I do not know about the area that the gentleman 
represents, but in the State of Florida, the area that I represent, 
people are concerned. People want jobs. People want to work. People 
want to have good high-paying jobs. And they are looking for government 
to do something to incentivize this economy, not to just sit back and 
pretend that things are okay. I am pretty sure it has got to be the 
same where you are.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. It is the same in Minnesota. And you were 
right, the jobs proposal that we have passed, as we have spoken of, 
focuses that help to our job providers on encouraging investment. That 
is what creates jobs. And as it relates to helping out and providing 
more money in the pockets of hardworking families, it focuses that in a 
very appropriate way.
  The gentleman spoke of the per child tax credit, and I would also add 
the marriage penalty. As someone who has 23 years-plus of marriage 
under his belt and four teenagers to help pay for, I want to make sure 
there are not disincentives to keep you from enjoying both of those 
treasures of life, marriage penalty is something we have to get rid of, 
and getting rid of it now as this bill does is critical. We charge 
people when they walk down the wedding aisle more for getting married. 
We tax marriage. They get a little extra gift from Uncle Sam saying, 
Here is your bill. On average before we passed our tax relief in 2001, 
$1,400 more on average just for being married.
  Families are the foundation of our society, the foundation of our 
economy. Why we do that is beyond me. And accelerating this marriage 
penalty relief so that it is eliminated today is something that is very 
powerful in this bill. The per child tax credit, those that have 
children know how expensive they are to raise; how we put a lot of 
blood, sweat, and tears into them. Yes, and we need to, and there is 
nothing more rewarding. But we also have to put a few dollars out for 
their education, for their food, for their clothing; and we benefit 
greatly as a country from the youth having this increase in the per 
child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. Now, that is something that is 
very important to do and a very important part of this tax relief jobs 
bill that we just passed.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. You also get taxed when you die. 
When you die you get taxed again on money you have already paid taxes 
on, by the way, to the government. So it is one tax after another tax 
after another tax. It seems some people are never satisfied. There is 
never enough that we can take away from the American people; and that 
has to stop, that attitude, that philosophy, that approach, that 
culture. We have to change the culture from a culture of just grabbing 
as much money as we can from the taxpayer and spending it whichever way 
we can, regardless of the waste, of the fraud and abuse, to a culture 
of responsibility, a culture of real responsibility.
  Again, we misspend so much money. It is not only we misspend money 
but it is the bureaucracy we create that forces the American people to 
spend a ton of money. For example, the IRS, which by the way spent $8.9 
billion administering the Tax Code.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. That is just the IRS, not all the expense 
that businesses have had and families have had in order to fill out 
some of the most complicated tax forms in the world.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The numbers are astounding. 
Americans, hardworking Americans spent $135 billion complying with the 
Tax Code. And yet the other side insists on raising taxes. And, again, 
let me bring up some facts because I want to make sure we bring up the 
facts. I have got three proposals that the other side had. I sit on the 
Committee on the Budget, and we discussed these at length in the 
Committee on the Budget. We also discussed them at length, some of 
them, on the floor. One of them, the CBC/Progressive Caucus tax 
substitute, that is the substitute to what we are doing which is a plan 
to incentivize the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their 
money so they can spend it, invest it, creating more jobs. This plan 
raised taxes, increased taxes by $44 billion in 2004, by then $420 
billion over 5 years and $875 billion over 10 years. And, by the way, 
it also cuts defense spending at the same time. So they raise taxes, 
but they cannot fund or did not want to fund defense; and we know how 
important that is.
  This was, of course, the Blue Dog budget proposal that was discussed

[[Page 11455]]

here on the floor. And I was here for that debate which basically has 
no support to increase, to get the economy going; but it balanced the 
budget by raising taxes.
  What a concept. Think about it. The economy is not doing too well so 
you raise taxes to balance the budget. This proposal would have raised 
taxes by $124 billion in 2006 to 2011. These are their proposals. Here 
they are. And then, of course, you had another one which raised taxes 
by $128 billion over 10 years and had much more in government spending 
as well. Let us just spend more. Let us spend more money, send more 
money to the bureaucracy in D.C. But then they will say when we say, 
no, we have to look at fraud and cut fraud, abuse and misspending of 
money, they say, oh, but you are cutting essential services. We have 
heard about the cuts in, for example, Medicare. I have heard that on 
the floor of this House many, many times. We heard it tonight. We will 
probably hear it later on tonight and the day after and the day after.

                              {time}  1915

  In fact, when we look at the facts, what is in the bill, in Medicare, 
it is a 7.2 percent increase in Medicare. There is no cut. It is an 
increase. It is a rather substantial increase in Medicare.
  Then Medicaid cuts, I have had people talk to me about Medicaid cuts. 
I have gotten e-mails, how come we are cutting Medicaid, we are so 
nasty and rude, how come we are cutting Medicaid. Let us look at those 
cuts of Medicaid in our budget. It is a 9 percent increase in Medicaid. 
There is not a cut there. It is a 9 percent increase. Washington is the 
only place in the world where a 9 percent increase is said to be a cut. 
Nine percent increase is a 9 percent increase. The facts are the facts. 
Here it is. Yet we have heard that before, I am sure, accused of 
cutting Medicaid.
  Then, of course, we are cutting education. That is why we have to 
raise taxes, because we are cutting education. If we do not raise 
taxes, we have to cut education. Oh, really? Except that it is a 6 
percent increase in our budget in education spending, a 6 percent 
increase.
  Oh, one that I have heard time and time again, and this one is 
annoying because of trying to use veterans, saying that we are cutting 
veterans, funding for veterans. That is just not true. It is a 10.7 
percent increase for 2003. It is a 10.7 percent increase. That is not a 
cut.
  They do not exist. It is not there. It is not true, but again, some 
will say, do not let the facts confuse the rhetoric. Do not let the 
facts confuse the issue.
  The facts are that the plan that we passed, the plan that is very 
similar to the President's plan, provides for jobs, creates jobs, keeps 
more money, allows the American people to keep more of their money. It 
is not a gift from government. It allows the American people to keep 
more of their money, provides increases in spending for the essential 
services like Medicaid, Medicare, education, veterans services. It does 
so in a responsible fashion, and those are the facts.
  Again, I assume, though, that my colleague would probably tell me 
that that is nothing new, right, saying that a 10.7 percent increase is 
a cut. That is something that I guess the other side is used to saying 
quite a bit.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. We hear it all the time, and the gentleman 
mentioned that the facts often get distorted, and they get distorted to 
try to say and try to convince us in all cases that we need to spend 
more on X, Y or Z, and we have the benefit of many of our constituents 
coming in and speaking with us, and if they represent a category of 
spending, it needs to go higher. If they represent a business, we need 
to do something for their business, I have to tell my colleague, to 
increase the activity in that business.
  I have to tell my colleague, one of the strongest confirmations that 
I have for his earlier statements about the complexity of the Tax Code 
and the burden of that Tax Code upon our economy, on our families, is 
that the one group that sort of stands out from all the rest is when I 
speak with my fellow certified public accountants. A certified public 
accountant that helps in preparing those tax returns one might think 
would want the Tax Code to be more complex so they can have more 
business, but they are all to a person telling me, whether I am 
visiting them in their one- or two- or three-person firm in a small 
town in Minnesota or otherwise, they are saying we have got to reduce 
the complexity of this Tax Code.
  This Tax Code reduces the trust that people have in their government. 
It takes away far too many of our resources to devote to something that 
does not do anything for our competitiveness as a country.
  One of the areas that they often single out as being just really out 
of control is the alternative minimum tax, and the alternative minimum 
tax was put in many, many years ago with the intent of making sure that 
we all paid taxes, and was targeting those at the very top, but they 
never changed the dollar amount, and the years and the decades have 
passed, and now it is being not just a burden of an additional cost to 
people where it is being unfairly applied, but the complexity of it in 
having to pool so many moderate to middle-income to lower-middle-income 
families into it is astoundingly burdensome.
  So I am also pleased that part of what we did in the relief that we 
passed last week was to increase the AMT exemption so that the other 
provisions were not causing more people to be dumped into this quagmire 
of a mess with AMT.
  We do need to invest in our priorities, and we are in our budget, as 
the gentleman so eloquently pointed out, but we also need to reduce the 
burdensome elements of our taxes and our tax preparation and get a 
simplified form, which this AMT relief is moving us in that direction.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman, and I know that we do not have a lot of time left, and I 
would like to see if I could ask my colleague to give us a bit of an 
update, because one of the bills that I am really excited about is one 
that he has sponsored dealing with health care.
  Health care is such a crucial issue, the cost of health care. The 
cost of health insurance is really getting to the point where it is 
unobtainable to many American families, and we cannot survive without 
health insurance. And we hear a lot of people cannot afford health 
insurance, and we have what I think is a model piece of legislation. 
And I know we do not have a lot of time, but if the gentleman could 
just briefly let us know about that bill that my colleague has been so 
generous to allow me to cosponsor and work with him. I think I would 
like to hear a little bit about that.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my 
colleague has helped me cosponsor my fair care legislation to help with 
addressing the uninsured, and he is absolutely right. When we go out 
there and talk to small businesses and employees, the availability of 
insurance is critical.
  What are we doing with insurance right now? We have a growing number 
of uninsured that are being provided for through the emergency rooms of 
our hospital, the most expensive way we can treat them. Federal law 
requires that emergency rooms need to treat everybody, including the 
uninsured. Where does that cost come from? That cost comes to us from 
higher Federal, State and local subsidies, but also higher insurance 
premiums, which drive up the uninsured pool even further, and we get in 
a vicious cycle.
  I am pleased the gentleman has been so supportive of our fair care 
bill that gives the uninsured the same tax benefits that we that are 
employed have. When one is employed, they get help from their employer. 
That help that they give for their health insurance does not come to 
them as taxable income. They are getting a tax benefit.
  My bill would, which my colleague has nicely helped cosponsor, gives 
$1,000 per child tax credit per person, $500 per dependent, up to 
$3,000 per family, and this is the way where we can help that uninsured 
in a way that

[[Page 11456]]

will give them more choices and really benefit us all through lower 
insurance premiums and more accessibility. But we have done so much 
more for helping with that vital thing that is constraining jobs.
  The medical malpractice reform that we both supported and passed 
earlier this year in the House will take away those excessive 
settlements that have been driving medical professionals out of the 
business and again driving up the costs of health care. We have many 
other provisions to help, but this prescription drug bill that, as the 
gentleman mentioned earlier, we passed in this body twice would take 
away an expense that has just been so burdensome in a way that is 
affordable to us, and we can do it in our budget, and it keeps seniors 
from having to spend their lifetime savings for life-saving 
prescriptions. But that is, again, another way that we can help keep 
the costs of insurance from being driven up.
  The energy bill we passed earlier and, as my colleague knows, I have 
spoken on earlier is so critical to this economy because nothing hurts 
or helps the economy more than the cost of energy and making sure that 
we have affordable energy, that we are not dependent on foreign 
sources, that we can grow more alternative sources here as well as 
encouraging efficiency and conservation are provided there. That is a 
critical bill, and I know I am working very hard as we are on the roads 
in the transportations bills.
  We met earlier today on an airport improvement plan and making sure 
we are investing in that infrastructure that is so very critical to our 
economy. And I am also pushing another proposal on fast lanes to free 
up the ability of local and State governments and maybe private 
enterprises to move forward and help put extra lanes in our interstates 
that without we are congesting traffic and closing down our economy.
  There is so much that we are doing, and we do have a razor-sharp 
focus on jobs. What do we need to do to create jobs? That is our focus. 
It is not to complain. It is not to talk about the problems in America. 
It is to say America has always risen above those problems, and we have 
risen above those problems and succeeded and gotten to a point of 
leadership in the world not because we have taxed more and brought more 
dollars to the Federal Government, but because we have relied upon and 
trusted and given more freedoms to hard-working entrepreneurs that are 
taking risks, that are creating jobs, and letting families keep more of 
their hard-earned money because they know best how to take care of 
themselves.
  I appreciate the gentleman bringing these very important issues 
before the Chamber and our fellow colleagues and look forward to 
working with him to continue the type of policies that we have already 
been able to successfully achieve so far in this Congress and hopefully 
will have more to come.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota for coming here today and shedding some light 
on the facts; not showering with us rhetoric, but getting to the facts, 
speaking about the facts. He is absolutely right. We did pass 
legislation to create jobs, and so we are not complaining. We are not 
just spewing rhetoric. We have results here, and that is a huge 
difference between, I think, the two sides.
  And I again thank the gentleman for his work on health care. I thank 
him for his work on the budget and transportation. And yes, I think we 
have to be very proud that we are not going to sit back and just let 
things happen. We are going to do everything in our power to 
incentivize this economy so more Americans can have more high-paying 
jobs, because that is what really it is all about.

                          ____________________