Summary:
All articles in House section
FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACT OF 1999
(House of Representatives - July 22, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages H6203-
H6249]
FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACT OF 1999
The SPEAKER. The unfinished business is the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 2488) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
reduce individual income tax rates, to provide marriage penalty relief,
to reduce taxes on savings and investments, to provide estate and gift
tax relief, to provide incentives for education savings and health
care, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. When proceedings were postponed on legislative day of
Wednesday, July 21, 1999, pursuant to section 2 of the House Resolution
256, 1 hour of general debate remained on the bill.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) each have 30 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Archer).
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very highly regarded and respected member of
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my enthusiastic
support for the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. This bill provides
essential tax relief for every American who wants to secure a better
future for himself or herself and for their children. No other
provision, Mr. Speaker, is as historic in this bill as the elimination
of the death tax.
The freedom to obtain prosperity and to accumulate wealth is uniquely
American; and when unfettered, it is a wonderful thing to behold. Yet,
the current tax treatment of a person's life
[[Page
H6204]]
savings is so onerous and so burdensome that children are often forced
to turn over half of their inheritance to the Federal Government. It is
as wrong as it is tragic, and it dishonors the hard work of those who
have passed on.
Today, Mr. Speaker, less than half of all family-owned businesses
survive the death of the founder, and only about 5 percent survive to
the third generation. Under current law, it is cheaper for an
individual to sell his or her business prior to death and pay the
capital gains than pass it on to their children. This is indeed
terrible public policy.
As a result, Congress has tried over the years to provide targeted
death tax relief to certain people. First, we adopted a unified credit
to protect small estates from taxation. With the rising tide of small
business growth and the proliferation of retirement annuities, however,
many middle class families are being pushed above this exemption.
Secondly, Congress, in 1997, adopted a family-owned business
exemption in addition to provide additional relief to families and to
small family farms. It was a good idea at the time, but this exemption
has proven to be a real boondoggle. It is a boondoggle for attorneys
who must be hired by families trying to navigate their way through the
14-point eligibility test.
I recently asked an estate planner who advises 200 family-owned
businesses how many of his clients qualify for this new relief. His
answer was 10 out of 200. On average, only about 3 percent of family-
owned farms can qualify under this provision. As much as we try, it is
just impossible to duplicate in law the complex relationships that
exist in families in the real world.
It is time to be bold.
The Financial Freedom Act offers the only true relief that will work
to complete the elimination of the death tax. The death tax is not a
tax on wealth, it is a tax on the accumulation of wealth. That is why
it is supported by the Black Chamber of Commerce, who feel that they
have 3 generations to put together a legacy to create their power base
in this society, and the death tax is their enemy. It is supported by
the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the National Indian Business
Council. These groups understand the truly devastating impact that the
death tax has on the pursuit of wealth and power in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Financial Freedom
Act. It encourages savings, investment risk, and the creation of
wealth. It is also time, Mr. Speaker, I believe, to honor our most
fundamental values, not tax them.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, in January of 1995, after 1 year of taking over the
House of Representatives, the Republicans took probably the most
irresponsible act I have seen in my 21 years in Congress when they shut
down the Federal Government for a period of about 2 weeks. We had the
threat of perhaps Social Security checks being withheld, veterans'
benefits being withheld.
I have to say that as I stand here on the floor of the House today,
the tax bill that they have before us and the vote that they will take
in a few hours is the second most irresponsible act that they have had
in the last 5\1/2\ years since they have taken control of this
institution.
If this bill ever became law, and God forbid if it did, we would be
cutting veterans' benefits by some 25 percent over the next 10 years,
we would be cutting education benefits by 25 percent over the next 10
years, we would be cutting Social Security and Medicare, and the
Republicans whom we will be hearing from during the course of this
debate, they have a lockbox that preserves the Medicare surplus and the
Social Security surplus.
That will only maintain the status quo. You will still have a cash
flow problem in the year 2013, 14 years from now. And by the year 2035,
just a generation from now, the whole Social Security system, in fact,
will go bankrupt. That will be the consequence of this legislation.
The legislation also does one other thing, and we have not been able
to get really a distribution table to find out exactly where the
benefits will go, but we do know some things. Over the next 10 years,
people making $300,000 and above, families making $300,000 and above
will get about 50 percent of this tax cut. So we are going to take away
from veterans, we are going to take away from education, and we are
going to take away from Social Security recipients to give to the most
wealthy Americans in this country.
So the fact of the matter is that this bill again is second in the
most irresponsible act that I have seen in my 21 years here, next to
the closure of the Federal Government in 1995.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle), another respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, come on. I would say to my colleague from
California, I mean people out there listening to this, it cannot be as
bad or as good as anybody is saying.
Cutting education benefits. Last night we heard from colleagues
saying, this is really small. It has no impact on my district at all.
In fact, somebody came to the floor and said, my constituents only get
$1 a month. And now we have colleagues coming to the floor saying this
is the most irresponsible, devastating legislation to ever meet the
Congress of the United States. Education benefits will be cut; veterans
thrown out on the street. My goodness, how can it be that good and that
bad all in one bill?
Well, let me suggest to my colleague that it is not that good or that
bad, but it does come down to a fundamental principle that all of us
have to come to grips with.
Number one, whose money is this? Whose money are we talking about? It
is not yours, and it is not mine. It is not the Democrats'. It is not
the Republicans'. It is not the Committee on Ways and Means. It is not
the House of Representatives. This is not the government's money. These
people who work so hard in your district, in my district, to send that
money to Washington, it is their money, number one.
Number two, we are not giving the money back. We are saying, keep it.
We are saying, we believe you are good people in a great Nation who
make better decisions about your daily lives than the government can
for you. And yes, we need some of those resources to operate the
Federal Government, but when we take enough, when we take too much, we
are going to allow you to keep it in the future, because we believe you
spend that money more wisely.
Number three, I would ask the people who are listening to this
debate, and I ask the Speaker and my colleagues to just speak common
sense, what would you do if you had a little bit of extra money. This
is what we are proposing. This is what the bill does. Throwing veterans
out in the street, cutting education. Come on. We heard Medicare; we
heard all of that for so many years. Nobody out there believes that.
Nobody out there believes that. This is a great country. We do not do
that to people.
What we do is we say some of the money ought to go back to people and
just stay there, let them spend it, and the rest of it ought to go to
debt relief. We have an opportunity to pay down the national debt, the
first time since 1969 that any serious attempt at all will be made to
pay down the national debt. Is it enough? No, I would like to pay down
more.
Is this enough tax relief? No. I would love for people to be able to
keep a little bit more. But this is a responsible balance. One-third
tax relief; two-thirds debt relief. I would ask the people that are
listening, does that not make sense, to keep a little bit and pay down
the debt.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New
York for yielding me this time.
I came here in 1981. We had a $749 billion tax cut on the floor, and
the rhetoric I heard was the same. The people need to keep their money.
{time} 1115
We do not need all the money. We need to downsize government. And so
we passed a $749 billion tax cut and we
[[Page
H6205]]
quadrupled the debt on our children and on our grandchildren, because
we did not pay our bills.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush asked for more spending in those 12
years than the Congress appropriated.
My friend says that we want to have people keep the money. That would
be very nice. But guess what? The trigger which does not affect the
middle class, the trigger that does not affect the middle class is that
trigger which says the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and the other
taxes that go to our most wealthy citizens will not be affected if the
debt goes up, because they are locked in. It is only the little guys
who will be adversely affected if the debt goes up.
Situation normal.
The same old same old or, as Ronald Reagan said in that famous
debate, here we go again; on the road to more and more debt, not saving
Social Security, not making sure that Medicare is there for those in
the future.
I would say to my colleagues that debt that they talk about paying
down is all Social Security. Why? Because the trillion dollars that
they use for the debt relief is the on-budget operating surplus. No
money for defense, no money to stabilize and keep secure our economy.
Here we go again. We did it in 1981 and quadrupled our deficit. Let
us not do it again to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), another respected member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Archer), for the opportunity to speak and I congratulate him
on his extraordinary tax bill that we bring to the floor today.
The Financial Freedom Act of 1999 legislation is a huge step toward
restoring the American dream for millions of American families, the
rhetoric on the other side notwithstanding. What they do not get is
that in a market economy, robust economic growth is the most important
catalyst for social justice. A growing economy means greater
opportunity for all and greater access for the American dream.
The Financial Freedom Act will stimulate economic growth by rewarding
savings and investment and reducing the tax burden on the American
economy. It does this by reducing all, all, individual income tax
rates, cutting the capital gains tax, allowing small business a larger
write-off on investments to create jobs and repealing the AMT, the most
anti-growth feature in the current Tax Code.
Mr. Speaker, it would also benefit communities and industries that
have been passed by in the current prosperity. It contains tax relief
for family farms and tax relief for our beleaguered domestic steel
industry. It also calls for the creation of new American renewal
communities in some of our most distressed localities where investment
in old neighborhoods and new firms would be greenlined under this bill
and low-income residents would be given new incentives to save through
family development accounts for the thrifty.
Finally, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, instead of cutting
education funding, makes college more affordable by extending tax
breaks on student loans, permitting private universities to offer tax-
deferred prepaid tuition plans and exempting the earnings of all
college tuition plans from taxation. In doing so, it makes the dream of
higher education more accessible for millions of students in the
struggling middle class.
Mr. Speaker, now that the House Republicans have set aside an
unprecedented $1.9 trillion for Social Security and Medicare, programs
that they looted like Visigoths when they were in the majority. We
embark today on an effort to return some $790 billion to the American
taxpayer, growing the economy, and creating individual opportunity in
the process.
This legislation is much needed and well-deserved tax relief for the
American people. I urge all of my colleagues to set aside the empty
partisan rhetoric and to vote in favor of this important legislation.
Strike a blow for a growing economy. Strike a blow for the middle
class. Vote for this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the
aisle have said that the tax bill reported by the Committee on Ways and
Means is a bill that makes budget priorities clear. These Members are
right. This is a debate about Social Security and Medicare and paying
down the Federal budget debt.
Our priority on the Democratic side is clear. It is saving Social
Security first, fixing Medicare, and making sure the Federal deficits
from the last era do not return under an unreasonable tax bill offered
by the Republican Party.
As we all know, the 1981 tax bill was the leading cause of deficits
we incurred during the past 15 years, but the Republican slogan today
is clear. Extremism in the pursuit of a tax cut is no vice.
This priority is a reckless tax bill based upon uncertain economic
projections and based on unlikely assumptions about Draconian cuts in
the future of government spending: programs like law enforcement, farm
aid, education, veterans programs, to name just a few. They almost
could not even get this tax bill to the floor because the moderates in
their own party are suspicious of where this legislation will take us.
On the Democratic side, we are not saying we are against tax cuts. We
are simply saying, fix Social Security and Medicare first. Leave enough
of a reserve to pay down the Federal debt and then talk about a modest
tax cut initiative aimed at working class Americans, not the wealthiest
among us who are not even clamoring for a tax cut at this time.
Social Security is the Nation's premier program. It is the greatest
achievement legislatively of this century. It has been crucial to the
way elderly Americans have lived during the last 60-plus years and we
have a chance now to protect it. Reject this bill. It is irresponsible
and reckless.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), another respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I think the question in
this debate boils down to one thing: Who do we trust?
I arrived here in 1994, at the end of the 40-year period of Democrat
rule of this House of Representatives. They were running 200-plus
billion dollar deficits and created a $5 trillion debt. Government was
growing at an exponential rate. They were ready and willing to place
upon this country a government program that would have taken us over
the line, a government program called socialized medicine. There was
not enough money for them to spend. They just kept taking it out of
Social Security and Medicare, wherever they could get the money to
create larger government all the time.
To hear them talk about debt reduction is amusing. Talk about
revisionist history. We listened to it last night.
When I came here, I signed a contract, the Contract with America,
that would balance the budget, that would cut taxes, that would reform
welfare, that would reduce the size of government and allow people to
keep more of their money. They fought it every inch of the way.
Yes, there was a government shutdown. Know why? Because the President
would not sign the Balanced Budget Act that he is so wonderfully
willing to take credit for today.
The question is, who do we trust?
They did not get the title ``tax-and-spend'' liberals for nothing. I
think it is a very appropriate title and it still sticks with them
today.
The question is who do we trust? It is like if we believe them, it
would be like asking Jessie James to guard the bank vault for a little
while. I do not think we want to do that. I do not think we want to go
back to 40 years of tax-and-spend liberals.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my friend. I believe in
the
[[Page
H6206]]
Contract with America there was the provision that it is wrong for us
to enact laws that apply to the private sector and do not apply to us.
One of those laws is truth in advertising. If we are going to comply
with that law, this bill should not be called the Financial Freedom Act
of 1999. It should be called the Financial Irresponsibility Act of
1999.
Let us talk about debt reduction. My Republican friends say they are
using two out of every three dollars for debt reduction, assuming there
is $3 trillion in surplus in the next 10 years. There is only $1
trillion in surplus. The other $1.9 trillion is in Social Security and
we all agree that needs to be lockboxed. However, the Republican bill
spends it. We do not have it.
Then they spend the $1 trillion before we even receive it. There is
not a dime for deficit reduction in their proposals.
Truth in advertising. They jeopardize our economy. Then they talk
about the thousands of dollars on a per capita basis that my
constituent is going to receive. Why do they not tell everybody that
that is a 10-year cumulative number? Their tax year of 10 percent does
not become real this year; only 1 percent during the next 3 years. We
have to wait for 9 years for half of that to come into effect. Truth in
advertising. Tell the people what they are doing.
The height of irresponsibility is what happens in the out-years. They
advertise this to be $1 trillion with interest during the first 10
years, but it balloons to another $3 trillion in the next 10 years,
just as the baby boomers are reaching age for Medicare and Social
Security. They cannot do this bill and Social Security and Medicare. It
cannot be done. They spend the Social Security money. They spend the
surplus money twice. That is irresponsible.
Then the Speaker tells us there is a provision in this bill to deal
with the earnings limit, giving our seniors hope they can earn more.
That is not in this bill. Truth in advertising. I know we have a speech
and debate clause that protects us for our truthfulness on the floor,
but let us be honest with our constituents. We have a chance to do it
in the motion to recommit. It speaks to the priorities that we should
be talking about. Fifty percent for deficit reduction; 25 percent for
tax relief; and 25 percent for the other priorities, Social Security,
Medicare, and veterans benefits.
Support the motion to recommit.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer from Michigan.
There is a lot of hogwash and rhetoric being shoveled on this tax
debate. So I challenge, Mr. Speaker, the American people to try to
separate the hay from the chaff.
I came into Congress in 1993. It was a Democratic majority at that
time and what they and the President did first off was increase taxes
by $280 billion over the 5 years of the budget. They used the, $280
billion tax increase to grow government.
Let me report what this tax bill we're discussing today does over 5
years. It reduces taxes $156 billion and reduces the public debate $800
billion.
What happened in 1993 was a slow-down of the economy. Four and a half
years ago, the Republicans took the majority. The first thing we did in
this Congress was have a rescission bill that reduced expenditures. We
have held the line on expenditures. The Democrats have been complaining
that Republicans are too frugal, they are not spending enough money. I
look at the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that he is
going to offer as a substitute, and as it turns out it is a tax
increase.
It is consistent with what the President has suggested. The President
has schemed in his budget that we have a tax increase of $100 billion
and that we expand the spending of government by that $100 billion. If
the papers are correct, the Democrat leader over in the Senate is
suggesting that we use one-third of the surplus to have a tax cut; we
use two-thirds to expand this government. That is the danger. Who
believes if we do not get this money out of town and back in the
pockets of the workers that earned it, Washington politicians are not
going to spend it. Unlike the growing of crops on the farm, the growing
of government is not good. I am very interested and concerned with
paying down the debt. Republicans have been in the majority for 4\1/2\
years. In that time we have cut spending, stopped spending the Social
Security Trust Fund money and balanced the budget. For most every year
that the Democrats were in the majority prior to 1995, they spent the
Social Security Trust Fund surplus on other government programs and
increased the debt of this country to $5 trillion.
In the first 5 years of this tax proposal we pay down the public debt
by $900 billion; $900 billion. Also we are doing more. With the tax cut
we now require that Washington reduce the debt. Now we have a trigger.
I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), I hope the
conferees will proceed with dedication to make sure that this tax bill
assures that we continue our effort to pay down the debt.
{time} 1130
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is a ``do-
nothing'' bill. It does nothing to protect Social Security, nothing to
strengthen Medicare, nothing to reduce our national debt, and next to
nothing to help working Americans.
Mr. Darrell Stinchcomb is a fifth grade teacher in the Atlanta public
school system. Darrell loves to teach and works hard to educate the
next generation. In return, he earns $32,000 a year. Unfortunately,
this Republican tax bill does almost nothing to help working Americans
like Darrell. Under the Republican plan, Darrell would get a tax cut of
just $20 a month, $240 a year. Yet a person earning $200,000 a year or
more would get a tax break of over $9,000. $240 for working people like
Darrell, $9,000 for the richest people in America. That is not right.
That is not fair. That is not just. It is a shame and a disgrace.
Most working Americans will receive little or nothing under the
Republican tax bill. It does nothing, not one thing, to protect Social
Security and Medicare. Nothing, but nothing, to reduce the national
debt. A thousand for the rich, pocket change for working Americans.
That is the Republican tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up in rural Alabama, I was
responsible for raising the chickens. The first lesson I learned was
never, ever to count your chickens before they hatch. This Republican
tax bill spends billions of dollars before we have it in the bank. It
is a mistake. It is irresponsible. It is not the right thing to do.
We finally have an opportunity to protect the future of Social
Security and Medicare, not just for ourselves and our parents but for
future generations. The Republican tax bill is a step in the wrong
direction. It is a step backward. I urge my colleagues to defeat this
irresponsible bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today primarily to thank the
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer), to thank him for having the wisdom and the courage to put
together a tax bill that addresses not just the high-profile popular
calls for tax relief that grab the headlines and provide us politicians
with applause lines, but a tax bill that provides tax relief to the
business community in the United States in a way that will result in
greater availability of capital in this country for investment, more
jobs being created here, and more jobs being saved here.
This is not only a responsible tax cut, it is a needed tax cut if we
want American companies to be competitive in the world marketplace in
the next century.
Look, remember 2 years ago, when we Republicans cut taxes? We were
called irresponsible then by the same people in the opposition party
that are today calling us irresponsible for offering this tax cut.
Remember their words? ``You cannot cut taxes and balance the budget.''
How many times did I hear that? Well, obviously they were
[[Page
H6207]]
wrong then. We did cut taxes and balance the budget. And they are wrong
today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for putting together an
excellent tax cut and for helping American companies and American
workers.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the committee.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for yielding me this
time.
My father and my grandfather, two great public servants, taught me
that Harry Truman was one of the finest presidents in the history of
our country, and I think that that was because he was possessed of such
wonderful common sense. As a matter of fact, he became known for saying
``Let's look at the record.'' And, Mr. Speaker, I think that is what we
ought to do today.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan came to office and promised the Nation a
balanced budget in 3 years. He never delivered on that promise. Not in
3 years, not in 4 years, not in 8 years, not in 12 years of the Reagan
and Bush administrations. As a matter of fact, the opposite occurred.
Because of the huge tax cut which was implemented at the beginning of
his term, we had larger and larger deficits throughout those years,
$200, $300, $400 billion. And, yes, we quadrupled the national debt.
All of the debt, Mr. Speaker, of the United States of America from
George Washington to Jimmy Carter amounted to less than $1 trillion.
And in the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations that went to
over $4 trillion. That is the record.
In 1993, Bill Clinton came to office and he promised to reduce the
budget deficits. He did a lot more than that, Mr. Speaker. He
eliminated them. And now we are having this wonderful debate about what
to do with the extra money. That is the record.
We have a decision to make, Mr. Speaker. We can go with the policy of
the 1980s, which gave us ever-increasing deficits which quadrupled the
national debt, or we can do what I am going to do. I am going to stick
with the winners, with Clinton and Gore and Gephardt and that man
sitting right there, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I am
going to support his program of saving Social Security, saving
Medicare, and reducing the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to support
the Rangel substitute.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time.
I have spent 12 years of my life in this place working with others to
try to get our country's financial house in order and balance the
Federal budget. And as hard as we worked, we really did not see much
improvement until Republicans gained the majority in this House. When
we gained the majority, we saw deficits projected of $100 billion, $200
billion dollars, going out for years and years and years.
Because of our efforts, we have reversed that. And now we have a
budget surplus, projected over the next 10 years, of $3 trillion. Two
trillion of those dollars we are setting aside for Social Security and
Medicare, and we are going to pay down debt. One trillion is the true
surplus outside the trust funds. And that is what we are debating.
I am absolutely convinced my colleagues on the other side want to
spend it. And I believe if we leave it on the table, it will be spent.
Absolutely convinced of it. And then 10 years from now we will have a
higher level of government spending and we will need to deal with
incredible expenditures that will come in the future, and our baseline
will be very, very high.
Instead, we want to cut taxes. Not all of the $1 trillion. It may be,
by the time we are done, $500 to $800 billion. They are tax cuts that
help generate economic activity, and they are tax cuts that help
families, and they are tax cuts that help education and allow us to
deduct for health care. If we leave it on the table, it will be spent;
and our spending base will be that much higher. If we return it in tax
cuts and phase them in over time, I am absolutely convinced our economy
will grow. But if, in the future, we find it does not, we do not have
to implement the entire phase-in.
This is very responsible, and I say this particularly to Republicans:
this is the most important thing we can do to finish what we started.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican leadership's tax bill. This is the wrong policy at the wrong
time that will only add to the national debt at the expense of Social
Security and Medicare. We are debating a trillion dollar tax cut that
is going to grow to $3 trillion in 20 years on assumptions that may
well not pan out.
Nearly 20 years ago, then Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker of
Tennessee called the Reagan tax cut a river boat gamble. I predict that
like that gamble in 1981, this bill, too, if enacted, will result in
increasing the national debt many times over.
It is a shame that after spending years of crawling out of the
supply-side hole the Republicans put us in back in 1981, they now want
to dig a new ditch, and even deeper.
What will this gamble cost in real terms? $3 trillion over 20 years.
What will happen if the non-Social Security surpluses do not
materialize? We will drive the Nation deeper into debt and jeopardize
the future of Social Security, Medicare, and the American economy
through rising inflation, higher interest rates, and a weak dollar.
This is the wrong idea, it is a bad idea, and we ought to defeat this
plan.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. First, Mr. Speaker, the trigger. It is not a trigger; it
is a shot in the dark at the last minute. Let me tell my colleagues
why. It is not tied to the debt but to interest on the debt, gross
interest, that can go up as trust funds increase.
There also can be a perverse result. If there is a recession, there
would be no tax cut. And then when we come out of a recession, a tax
cut.
It applies only to the income tax, not to the other tax reductions.
So what it applies to is the least regressive. One-third goes to 1
percent, another one-third goes to the 9 percent highest income earners
in this country, and only one-third goes to 90 percent of taxpayers. It
is already terrible enough in terms of its regressivity.
One last thing. According to the CBO, the debt subject to the limit
does not decline until 2006, and that assumes no tax cut. So if we look
at this trigger, it may result in no income tax reduction across the
board through the first 10 years. It just does not make any sense.
Secondly, I want to show my colleagues this chart, the explosion in
the second 10 years of a $3 trillion revenue loss. That is the same
period when Social Security surpluses begin to fall, when Medicare runs
out of money in 2015, when non-Social Security budget surpluses begin
to fall.
This is reckless, reckless, reckless. It sells out our ability to act
on Social Security and Medicare for the long run. Vote a resounding
``no'' on this bill and support the motion to recommit as well as the
Rangel substitute bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me add before we begin the colloquy,
that I, too, want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing this bill to the floor. It
has been said, and I agree, this is the most important piece of
legislation that this Congress will pass. The gentleman has reached the
soft underbelly of the tax-and-spend crowd by taking the revenues off
the table and returning it to the American people, and I thank the
gentleman for doing that.
As the chairman knows, along with many others in our conference, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and I have been very
interested
[[Page
H6208]]
in making sure that the tax bill before us includes as much relief as
possible for those American taxpayers who are paying entirely too much
in taxes solely because they are married.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would hope that when the
gentleman from Texas goes to conference on this bill, that he will make
an effort to see the amount of money used to provide relief to these
married taxpayers is significantly greater than the amount set forth in
the House bill.
I also want to join my colleague, Mr. Speaker, in thanking the
gentleman for his leadership on a great package of tax relief and thank
him for his assurances on this issue as well.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARCHER. Well, I would say to both of the gentlemen, Mr. Speaker,
that they have exemplified great leadership on giving couples marriage
penalty relief, and they can be assured that in the conference, with
the concurrence of the Senate, the amount of money designated for
marriage penalty relief will be above the level in the House bill.
I think I also must add that a lot of credit goes to many, many other
Members who have joined with these two gentlemen on this issue,
particularly two members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger).
{time} 1145
I think all of the country can be thankful for all of my colleagues.
Separately, Mr. Speaker, I am including in the Record at this point
an exchange of letters with the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and an explanation of my amendment to
H.R. 2488 making the
reductions in the across-the-board tax rate reductions contingent on
the annual change in the government's interest expenses on the total
U.S. debt.
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, July 21, 1999.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodling: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to further consideration of H.R.
2488, the ``Financial Freedom Act of 1999.''
H.R. 2488 was
ordered favorably reported by the Committee on Ways and Means
on July 14, 1999. Title XII of
H.R. 2488, as reported,
contains nearly 40 pension provisions in the tax code
designed to improve retirement security.
As you know, on July 14, 1999, the Committee on Education
and the Workforce ordered favorably reported
H.R. 1102, the
``Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act.''
The bill, as introduced, was referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and in addition, to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Government
Reform. Titles I-V of the bill, as reported, contain many of
the tax provisions included in
H.R. 2488, and Title VI
contains comparison amendments to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) approved by your Committee.
In order to expedite consideration of
H.R. 2488, you agreed
to refrain from asking the Rules Committee to make in order
an amendment to
H.R. 2488 to include the provisions of Title
VI of
H.R. 1102, as reported. This was based on the
understanding that I would continue to work with you to
include agreed upon pension provisions within the
jurisdiction of the Education Committee in the final
conference report on
H.R. 2488, and that I would not object
to your request for conferees with respect to matters within
the jurisdiction of your Committee when a House-Senate
conference is convened on this legislation.
Finally, I will include in the Record a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter during floor
consideration. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation
in this matter. With best personal regards,
Sincerely,
Bill Archer,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Education and
the Workforce,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1999.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Archer: Thank you for your letter and for
working with me regarding
H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom
Act. As you have correctly noted, Title XII of
H.R. 2488, as
reported, contains numerous pension provisions designed to
improve retirement security. As you also know, on July 14,
1999, the Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered
favorably reported
H.R. 1102, the ``Comprehensive Retirement
Security and Pension Reform Act.'' The bill, as introduced,
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition, to the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
and the Committee on Government Reform. Titles I-V of the
bill, as reported by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, contain many of the tax provisions included in
H.R. 2488, and Title VI contains amendments to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
As you know, I intended to have Rules Committee make in
order the provisions in
H.R. 1102, regarding ERISA; however,
in order to expedite consideration of
H.R. 2488 and with the
understanding as outlined in your letter, I did not make such
a request. I appreciate your work with me to include those
pension provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce in the final conference
agreement on
H.R. 2488. I appreciate your support in my
request to the Speaker for the appointment of conferees from
my Committee with respect to matters within the jurisdiction
of my Committee when a conference with the Senate is convened
on this legislation.
Thank you for agreeing to include this exchange of letters
in the Congressional Record during the House debate on H.R.
2488. Again, I thank you for working with me in developing
this legislation and I look forward to working with you on
these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling,
Chairman.
____
Explanation of Archer Amendment to
H.R. 2488
Reductions in Across-the-Board tax Rate Reductions
Contingent on Annual Change in Government's Interest Expenses
on the Total U.S. Debt:
--The 1 percentage point tax reduction scheduled to take
effect in 2001 remains in place permanently.
--Each year thereafter, the additional tax reduction
scheduled for a specific year is contingent on a reduction in
the government's total interest expenses for the preceding
year. Total interest expenses include interest payments on
all debt subject to the statutory limit. This means both debt
held by the public and trust fund debt.
--Specifically, in order for a tax reduction to take effect
on January 1 of a specific year, the government's interest
expenses must not increase in the preceding year. The annual
change in the interest expense is measured on July 31 of the
preceding year.
--If the interest expense increases, then the next
scheduled phase of tax reduction which would otherwise go
into effect does not take effect until the interest expense
requirement is met in a succeeding year. Preceding rate
reductions remain in place.
--The provision terminates when the rate reduction reaches
10%.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders spent yesterday twisting
the arms of their moderate and fiscally responsible Members to get them
to vote for a tax bill that they have derided all week for its fiscal
irresponsibility.
The papers today report that the House leadership may well have
forced them to risk Social Security, Medicare, and our economy on
fiscally irresponsible, budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthiest
that will cost us more than $3 trillion over the next 20 years.
To do so, Republican leaders seemed to have taken the principle of
budgetary smoke and mirrors to a height unseen since David Stockman
invented the ``magic asterisk'' nearly 20 years ago. And in so doing,
Republican leaders are not just risking Social Security, Medicare, and
our economy, they are mounting an assault on the common sense of the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, in the dead of night yesterday and this morning,
Republicans may have succeeded in fooling themselves, but the American
people are smarter than that.
Americans know perfectly well that if this risky Republican package
of more than $3 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest becomes law,
Republicans will be making it fiscally impossible to save Social
Security and Medicare. Republicans will be making it fiscally
impossible to pay down the debt and keep interest rates low and our
economy growing and creating jobs. Republicans will be making it
fiscally impossible to help America's senior citizens afford the high
cost of prescription drugs.
As one of our moderate Republican colleagues said of this tax bill a
few days ago, ``The numbers just don't add up, and the projections
don't have credibility.''
Well, we all know and the American people know that they are no more
credible today.
[[Page
H6209]]
Why would Republican leaders force through a package that takes such
risks with our future? What does it say about the priorities of the
Republican party?
Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, it says the Republican leaders are
willing to risk Social Security, Medicare, and our Nation's economy in
order to provide red meat for their right wing extremists.
Vote down this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I want to praise the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) for what he has done in this bill.
Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money for which
they work. I recall the woman who heard the President claim ``more
jobs'' and she said, ``I can believe that, I have three of them.''
Well, we are trying to straighten that out. We have dealth with the
marriage tax, and 42 million Americans--are affected by that--including
6 million senior citizens.
I am concerned not only about the families and the marriage penalty
tax. I am concerned about our grandchildren and, in my case, little
Yoni. I want him to grow up where there is not very much national debt,
and that is exactly what the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) has
provided.
There is a $3.6 trillion national debt held by the public. Under this
bill, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, we are getting that down to
$1.6 trillion. If my colleagues do not think that is progress, then
they have a strange idea of progress. We are doing something for every
single American that is affected and needs a job and works hard and
does not find much to pay the bills.
Vote for this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the ink is barely dry on the projections of the surplus,
and already we have a bill on the floor committing it all to tax cuts.
I think a big share of the surplus should go to tax cuts. But if this
bill becomes law, it will shut out everything else. It will leave
nothing to make Social Security and Medicare solvent, use none of the
surplus to pay down our mountainous debt, reserve nothing for plus-ups
in education or boost in medical research. Even defense gets shorted.
Most of those backing this tax bill say that they are for an increase
in defense spending, but they should read the resolution. The budget
resolution underlying this bill makes room for our tax cuts of $778
billion. It freezes defense from 2004 through 2009.
So before we rush to judgment, bet the farm on these projections, we
ought to ask just how solid are these surpluses.
In less than a year, OMB and CBO have upped their 15-year estimates
of the surplus by $2 trillion. Just yesterday, CBO issued a report
warning, and these are their words, ``decision-makers to view these
projections with considerable caution.''
What they have done is what they have always done. They have assumed
that current law will be carried out, that we will stick to the caps
for the next 3 years, tight caps that were set several years ago in the
PBA of 1997, even though my colleagues know and I know that we really
circumvented them last year and we are not going to stay under them
this year.
If we make the simple assumption that we will simply track inflation
with discretionary spending for the next 5 years, we take $590 billion
out of this $996 billion surplus.
If we then assume that emergency spending has to be factored into the
estimates, and CBO and OMB do not do that because it is unpredictable,
we knock another $90 billion off the surplus. And if we then adjust
that for debt service, debt service they will have to pay because their
debt deal is not paid down, the surplus is somewhere between $150
billion and $300 billion, not $996 billion.
We have another choice, a substitute that would cut taxes by $250
billion. It is the right choice, a fiscally responsible choice. I urge
its adoption in lieu of this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
In the latter half of this century, the profligate spending habits of
the Congress and the Federal Government drove the total Federal debt
from less than $250 billion to an astounding $5.5 trillion.
But now, because recent Congresses have been able to impose some
fiscal discipline on the Federal budget during this period of strong
economic growth, we enjoy the good fortune of operating under a
surplus.
Simply stated, having a surplus means that we are extracting from the
taxpayers more money than is required to fund the operation of the
Federal Government. That means we must refund part of this surplus back
to the taxpayers through a tax cut.
But prudence also dictates that we use part of this surplus to pay
down the debt that was irresponsibly run up by previous Congresses.
I am grateful that the chairman has agreed to insert my debt
reduction amendment into this bill. With my amendment in place, we will
accomplish both of our goals, tax refunds and debt reduction.
The language of my amendment sets this Congress on a course to reduce
the amount of publicly held debt from $3.6 trillion in fiscal year 1999
to $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2009, a reduction of over 55 percent in
10 years.
As a result, the annual interest costs of this publicly held debt
will drop from $230 billion this year to about $100 billion in 2009.
That is a huge savings.
Putting it in simpler terms, reducing the debt and interest this much
will put $700 dollars more per year back in the pockets of each
American taxpayer.
While it took over half a century to run up this debt, we are
committed to cutting it by more than half in the next decade.
Surely, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, some of them
whom were here when their party presided over the accumulation of this
debt, cannot protest with too much credibility that this rate of payoff
is insufficient.
I urge the Congress to vote for debt reduction and smaller interest
payments. Vote for this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, first things first. First things first. Social Security,
Medicare, the first chance in a long time to consider prescription drug
coverage in Medicare, reducing the debt so our children in the future
will not be paying $250 billion yearly just on interest on the size of
the debt. Talk to any family in America. They will will explain that.
They know it. They have a mortgage. They know how much they pay in
interest every year to own that home.
Why are we telling our children we are going to let them continue to
pay for more than $250 billion per year not to retire the debt, the
principal, but just to pay the interest on what we owe as a Federal
Government?
First things first. And then we can focus on providing middle-class
America, working-class Americans, with a tax cut. And they deserve it,
and they will get it. But first things first.
What we are talking about today is nothing but numbers, guesses. I
could flip a coin right now and ask my colleagues if it is heads or
tails and they would have just as much luck knowing what it would be as
what we would know about the future about the Federal budget. It is all
projections.
Six years ago, when I came into Congress, the outgoing President
George
[[Page
H6210]]
Bush and his administration left us with projections saying that we
would have $300 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see into
the future.
Now we are projecting a trillion-dollar surplus over the next 10
years. Let me bring it down even closer. A year ago, we were told we
would have an $80 billion deficit. Five months ago we were told it
would be a $7 billion deficit. Today we are being told it is going to
be a $14 billion surplus.
How can numbers change so rapidly? It is because they are all
projections. It is flipping a coin. In fact, it is more like going to
Vegas. I could go to a crap table and probably do better with the odds
there than with knowing what will happen in 10 years with the Federal
Government.
We are playing with people's money, and we should be prepared to give
it back. But people will also want to be able to retire knowing that
Social Security will be there for them, not just us but our kids.
People want to know that for the first time we have a chance to tell
the elderly it will not be a choice between food and medicine because
we can get them predescription drug coverage that will do so. And we
want to be able to tell our kids, I have three small children, I am
going to be able to retire some of this Federal debt so they do not
have to pay that interest and they can use it to go to college.
Let us be serious. Do not pass this bill. We can do a tax cut but not
like this.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley) another member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.
I heard a lot of people taking credit today for the miracles of a
balanced budget. We will go ahead and give them credit for raising
taxes in 1993. They said that is what led to a balanced budget. We will
take credit for cutting spending, which we believe led to a balanced
budget.
But, my colleagues, we are here to talk about the future of the
United States of America. For 40 years, this place was run on a
bankrupt notion of spend and spend and spend. If I have to hear one
more time on the House floor about the Ronald Reagan bill, I have just
got to tell my colleagues, the Congress was controlled by the
Democratic party in those years. No bill sponsored by the President can
pass without a majority party lifting the bill to the floor.
So, if memory serves me right, that bill was passed by a
democratically controlled Congress. So let us, at least, talk about
fairness, about the rules of engagement, and about what this means to
the average family.
I urge my colleagues to go home over the weekend and talk about the
marriage penalty elimination in this bill. I urge them to talk about
the estate tax relief for family farmers in many districts around
America. I urge them to talk about the tax credit for health care and
deductibility, prescription coverage that was offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas). I urge them to look at some of the
notions of this bill and deny that they have practical application for
every working family in America.
Now, there are disagreements on debt. There are disagreements on the
long-term application. There are disagreements on income. But, my
colleagues, Congress meets every day, every year. We can solve those in
the future, but let us not kill a good bill on the American public's
table today.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York for yielding me the time and for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom
Act of 1999.
In my 12 years of working on tax policy as chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee in Missouri, I thought I had seen just about every
kind of shenanigan tried. This fiscally irresponsible measure tops them
all.
{time} 1200
How do you keep a straight face and look the American people in the
eye when you say you are going to use an anticipated $1 trillion
surplus to reform Social Security and Medicare, then, without blinking,
tell the taxpayers of this great Nation that you are going to give them
nearly a trillion dollars in tax cuts, plus reduce the deficit, and you
will accomplish all of these wondrous feats without cutting programs or
jeopardizing our economy. I do not think the public will be fooled by a
measure which defies logic.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute, to
support the motion to recommit, and to cast a vote to reduce the debt,
save Social Security and Medicare and our economy.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
simply to respond.
Many, many times the speakers on the Democrat side of the aisle have
used the term ``a $1 trillion tax cut.'' They know that is not true.
They think if they say it long enough and hard enough, people will
believe it. They know it is not true. The tax cut is $792 billion. It
is not $1 trillion, but let them keep saying it, because it exposes the
misinformation that is being presented to this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) another respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, why do you not call this game what you
really mean it, finders keepers? That is what you think it is all
about. Look at the credibility of the Democrats back here in
Washington, D.C., not the working man and the working women that happen
to be Democrats out in the country. You got your own special enclave
right here in Washington, D.C. That is, you think you found that money.
Well, Democrats, let me tell you something: You did not find it. It
is those working men and those working women, outside the Beltway, who
have provided this surplus. By gosh, they are entitled to have some of
it back.
Now, you would like the American people to believe you are credible
when it comes to Federal waste and Federal spending. How many of you
Democrats voted for a balanced budget? How many of you Democrats ever
stood up here and cut some spending out of the wasteful programs? Yeah,
not many raised their hand. Two out of the whole group raised their
hands over there. That is the true story. They think it is finders
keepers.
We have a budget here that will save Social Security, save Medicare,
reduce the Federal debt, increase military spending and increase
education and guess what? That is five. One dollar out of six, one
dollar out of six goes back to that working man and that working woman.
It is time you Democrats in Washington, D.C. cared about the
Democrats outside the Beltway and gave up your enclave of finders
keepers.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have really shown their hand
in their late-night amendment to their blockbuster tax bill. They put a
provision in that says that part of the tax cut will not take effect
unless the debt goes down. The truth of the matter is the Republicans
are not interested in reducing the national debt. Their amendment
simply says if the national debt starts going up, we will not have that
big blockbuster tax bill. We have a $5.6 trillion national debt. It is
time to start paying it down.
The Democratic substitute, the Blue Dog motion to recommit, will
allow for paying down that national debt. The Republicans want to
continue along the path of big budget deficits. We need to pay off that
national debt. The party of fiscal responsibility in this debate is the
Democratic Party. We want to pay off that national debt, and it is time
that we realized that only by being fiscally conservative will we ever
have a chance to do it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this historic tax cut bill.
These words are my first on the floor since being sworn in on June 8,
and that is appropriate because this legislation in so many ways is
what I came to Congress to do.
[[Page
H6211]]
I do not just mean cutting taxes. I mean celebrating marriage and
family by attacking the marriage penalty; honoring small family
business by phasing out the death tax which is the death of so many
small family businesses; encouraging economic
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACT OF 1999
(House of Representatives - July 22, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages H6203-
H6249]
FINANCIAL FREEDOM ACT OF 1999
The SPEAKER. The unfinished business is the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 2488) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
reduce individual income tax rates, to provide marriage penalty relief,
to reduce taxes on savings and investments, to provide estate and gift
tax relief, to provide incentives for education savings and health
care, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. When proceedings were postponed on legislative day of
Wednesday, July 21, 1999, pursuant to section 2 of the House Resolution
256, 1 hour of general debate remained on the bill.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) each have 30 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Archer).
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very highly regarded and respected member of
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my enthusiastic
support for the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. This bill provides
essential tax relief for every American who wants to secure a better
future for himself or herself and for their children. No other
provision, Mr. Speaker, is as historic in this bill as the elimination
of the death tax.
The freedom to obtain prosperity and to accumulate wealth is uniquely
American; and when unfettered, it is a wonderful thing to behold. Yet,
the current tax treatment of a person's life
[[Page
H6204]]
savings is so onerous and so burdensome that children are often forced
to turn over half of their inheritance to the Federal Government. It is
as wrong as it is tragic, and it dishonors the hard work of those who
have passed on.
Today, Mr. Speaker, less than half of all family-owned businesses
survive the death of the founder, and only about 5 percent survive to
the third generation. Under current law, it is cheaper for an
individual to sell his or her business prior to death and pay the
capital gains than pass it on to their children. This is indeed
terrible public policy.
As a result, Congress has tried over the years to provide targeted
death tax relief to certain people. First, we adopted a unified credit
to protect small estates from taxation. With the rising tide of small
business growth and the proliferation of retirement annuities, however,
many middle class families are being pushed above this exemption.
Secondly, Congress, in 1997, adopted a family-owned business
exemption in addition to provide additional relief to families and to
small family farms. It was a good idea at the time, but this exemption
has proven to be a real boondoggle. It is a boondoggle for attorneys
who must be hired by families trying to navigate their way through the
14-point eligibility test.
I recently asked an estate planner who advises 200 family-owned
businesses how many of his clients qualify for this new relief. His
answer was 10 out of 200. On average, only about 3 percent of family-
owned farms can qualify under this provision. As much as we try, it is
just impossible to duplicate in law the complex relationships that
exist in families in the real world.
It is time to be bold.
The Financial Freedom Act offers the only true relief that will work
to complete the elimination of the death tax. The death tax is not a
tax on wealth, it is a tax on the accumulation of wealth. That is why
it is supported by the Black Chamber of Commerce, who feel that they
have 3 generations to put together a legacy to create their power base
in this society, and the death tax is their enemy. It is supported by
the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the National Indian Business
Council. These groups understand the truly devastating impact that the
death tax has on the pursuit of wealth and power in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Financial Freedom
Act. It encourages savings, investment risk, and the creation of
wealth. It is also time, Mr. Speaker, I believe, to honor our most
fundamental values, not tax them.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, in January of 1995, after 1 year of taking over the
House of Representatives, the Republicans took probably the most
irresponsible act I have seen in my 21 years in Congress when they shut
down the Federal Government for a period of about 2 weeks. We had the
threat of perhaps Social Security checks being withheld, veterans'
benefits being withheld.
I have to say that as I stand here on the floor of the House today,
the tax bill that they have before us and the vote that they will take
in a few hours is the second most irresponsible act that they have had
in the last 5\1/2\ years since they have taken control of this
institution.
If this bill ever became law, and God forbid if it did, we would be
cutting veterans' benefits by some 25 percent over the next 10 years,
we would be cutting education benefits by 25 percent over the next 10
years, we would be cutting Social Security and Medicare, and the
Republicans whom we will be hearing from during the course of this
debate, they have a lockbox that preserves the Medicare surplus and the
Social Security surplus.
That will only maintain the status quo. You will still have a cash
flow problem in the year 2013, 14 years from now. And by the year 2035,
just a generation from now, the whole Social Security system, in fact,
will go bankrupt. That will be the consequence of this legislation.
The legislation also does one other thing, and we have not been able
to get really a distribution table to find out exactly where the
benefits will go, but we do know some things. Over the next 10 years,
people making $300,000 and above, families making $300,000 and above
will get about 50 percent of this tax cut. So we are going to take away
from veterans, we are going to take away from education, and we are
going to take away from Social Security recipients to give to the most
wealthy Americans in this country.
So the fact of the matter is that this bill again is second in the
most irresponsible act that I have seen in my 21 years here, next to
the closure of the Federal Government in 1995.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle), another respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, come on. I would say to my colleague from
California, I mean people out there listening to this, it cannot be as
bad or as good as anybody is saying.
Cutting education benefits. Last night we heard from colleagues
saying, this is really small. It has no impact on my district at all.
In fact, somebody came to the floor and said, my constituents only get
$1 a month. And now we have colleagues coming to the floor saying this
is the most irresponsible, devastating legislation to ever meet the
Congress of the United States. Education benefits will be cut; veterans
thrown out on the street. My goodness, how can it be that good and that
bad all in one bill?
Well, let me suggest to my colleague that it is not that good or that
bad, but it does come down to a fundamental principle that all of us
have to come to grips with.
Number one, whose money is this? Whose money are we talking about? It
is not yours, and it is not mine. It is not the Democrats'. It is not
the Republicans'. It is not the Committee on Ways and Means. It is not
the House of Representatives. This is not the government's money. These
people who work so hard in your district, in my district, to send that
money to Washington, it is their money, number one.
Number two, we are not giving the money back. We are saying, keep it.
We are saying, we believe you are good people in a great Nation who
make better decisions about your daily lives than the government can
for you. And yes, we need some of those resources to operate the
Federal Government, but when we take enough, when we take too much, we
are going to allow you to keep it in the future, because we believe you
spend that money more wisely.
Number three, I would ask the people who are listening to this
debate, and I ask the Speaker and my colleagues to just speak common
sense, what would you do if you had a little bit of extra money. This
is what we are proposing. This is what the bill does. Throwing veterans
out in the street, cutting education. Come on. We heard Medicare; we
heard all of that for so many years. Nobody out there believes that.
Nobody out there believes that. This is a great country. We do not do
that to people.
What we do is we say some of the money ought to go back to people and
just stay there, let them spend it, and the rest of it ought to go to
debt relief. We have an opportunity to pay down the national debt, the
first time since 1969 that any serious attempt at all will be made to
pay down the national debt. Is it enough? No, I would like to pay down
more.
Is this enough tax relief? No. I would love for people to be able to
keep a little bit more. But this is a responsible balance. One-third
tax relief; two-thirds debt relief. I would ask the people that are
listening, does that not make sense, to keep a little bit and pay down
the debt.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New
York for yielding me this time.
I came here in 1981. We had a $749 billion tax cut on the floor, and
the rhetoric I heard was the same. The people need to keep their money.
{time} 1115
We do not need all the money. We need to downsize government. And so
we passed a $749 billion tax cut and we
[[Page
H6205]]
quadrupled the debt on our children and on our grandchildren, because
we did not pay our bills.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush asked for more spending in those 12
years than the Congress appropriated.
My friend says that we want to have people keep the money. That would
be very nice. But guess what? The trigger which does not affect the
middle class, the trigger that does not affect the middle class is that
trigger which says the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and the other
taxes that go to our most wealthy citizens will not be affected if the
debt goes up, because they are locked in. It is only the little guys
who will be adversely affected if the debt goes up.
Situation normal.
The same old same old or, as Ronald Reagan said in that famous
debate, here we go again; on the road to more and more debt, not saving
Social Security, not making sure that Medicare is there for those in
the future.
I would say to my colleagues that debt that they talk about paying
down is all Social Security. Why? Because the trillion dollars that
they use for the debt relief is the on-budget operating surplus. No
money for defense, no money to stabilize and keep secure our economy.
Here we go again. We did it in 1981 and quadrupled our deficit. Let
us not do it again to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), another respected member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Archer), for the opportunity to speak and I congratulate him
on his extraordinary tax bill that we bring to the floor today.
The Financial Freedom Act of 1999 legislation is a huge step toward
restoring the American dream for millions of American families, the
rhetoric on the other side notwithstanding. What they do not get is
that in a market economy, robust economic growth is the most important
catalyst for social justice. A growing economy means greater
opportunity for all and greater access for the American dream.
The Financial Freedom Act will stimulate economic growth by rewarding
savings and investment and reducing the tax burden on the American
economy. It does this by reducing all, all, individual income tax
rates, cutting the capital gains tax, allowing small business a larger
write-off on investments to create jobs and repealing the AMT, the most
anti-growth feature in the current Tax Code.
Mr. Speaker, it would also benefit communities and industries that
have been passed by in the current prosperity. It contains tax relief
for family farms and tax relief for our beleaguered domestic steel
industry. It also calls for the creation of new American renewal
communities in some of our most distressed localities where investment
in old neighborhoods and new firms would be greenlined under this bill
and low-income residents would be given new incentives to save through
family development accounts for the thrifty.
Finally, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, instead of cutting
education funding, makes college more affordable by extending tax
breaks on student loans, permitting private universities to offer tax-
deferred prepaid tuition plans and exempting the earnings of all
college tuition plans from taxation. In doing so, it makes the dream of
higher education more accessible for millions of students in the
struggling middle class.
Mr. Speaker, now that the House Republicans have set aside an
unprecedented $1.9 trillion for Social Security and Medicare, programs
that they looted like Visigoths when they were in the majority. We
embark today on an effort to return some $790 billion to the American
taxpayer, growing the economy, and creating individual opportunity in
the process.
This legislation is much needed and well-deserved tax relief for the
American people. I urge all of my colleagues to set aside the empty
partisan rhetoric and to vote in favor of this important legislation.
Strike a blow for a growing economy. Strike a blow for the middle
class. Vote for this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the
aisle have said that the tax bill reported by the Committee on Ways and
Means is a bill that makes budget priorities clear. These Members are
right. This is a debate about Social Security and Medicare and paying
down the Federal budget debt.
Our priority on the Democratic side is clear. It is saving Social
Security first, fixing Medicare, and making sure the Federal deficits
from the last era do not return under an unreasonable tax bill offered
by the Republican Party.
As we all know, the 1981 tax bill was the leading cause of deficits
we incurred during the past 15 years, but the Republican slogan today
is clear. Extremism in the pursuit of a tax cut is no vice.
This priority is a reckless tax bill based upon uncertain economic
projections and based on unlikely assumptions about Draconian cuts in
the future of government spending: programs like law enforcement, farm
aid, education, veterans programs, to name just a few. They almost
could not even get this tax bill to the floor because the moderates in
their own party are suspicious of where this legislation will take us.
On the Democratic side, we are not saying we are against tax cuts. We
are simply saying, fix Social Security and Medicare first. Leave enough
of a reserve to pay down the Federal debt and then talk about a modest
tax cut initiative aimed at working class Americans, not the wealthiest
among us who are not even clamoring for a tax cut at this time.
Social Security is the Nation's premier program. It is the greatest
achievement legislatively of this century. It has been crucial to the
way elderly Americans have lived during the last 60-plus years and we
have a chance now to protect it. Reject this bill. It is irresponsible
and reckless.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), another respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I think the question in
this debate boils down to one thing: Who do we trust?
I arrived here in 1994, at the end of the 40-year period of Democrat
rule of this House of Representatives. They were running 200-plus
billion dollar deficits and created a $5 trillion debt. Government was
growing at an exponential rate. They were ready and willing to place
upon this country a government program that would have taken us over
the line, a government program called socialized medicine. There was
not enough money for them to spend. They just kept taking it out of
Social Security and Medicare, wherever they could get the money to
create larger government all the time.
To hear them talk about debt reduction is amusing. Talk about
revisionist history. We listened to it last night.
When I came here, I signed a contract, the Contract with America,
that would balance the budget, that would cut taxes, that would reform
welfare, that would reduce the size of government and allow people to
keep more of their money. They fought it every inch of the way.
Yes, there was a government shutdown. Know why? Because the President
would not sign the Balanced Budget Act that he is so wonderfully
willing to take credit for today.
The question is, who do we trust?
They did not get the title ``tax-and-spend'' liberals for nothing. I
think it is a very appropriate title and it still sticks with them
today.
The question is who do we trust? It is like if we believe them, it
would be like asking Jessie James to guard the bank vault for a little
while. I do not think we want to do that. I do not think we want to go
back to 40 years of tax-and-spend liberals.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my friend. I believe in
the
[[Page
H6206]]
Contract with America there was the provision that it is wrong for us
to enact laws that apply to the private sector and do not apply to us.
One of those laws is truth in advertising. If we are going to comply
with that law, this bill should not be called the Financial Freedom Act
of 1999. It should be called the Financial Irresponsibility Act of
1999.
Let us talk about debt reduction. My Republican friends say they are
using two out of every three dollars for debt reduction, assuming there
is $3 trillion in surplus in the next 10 years. There is only $1
trillion in surplus. The other $1.9 trillion is in Social Security and
we all agree that needs to be lockboxed. However, the Republican bill
spends it. We do not have it.
Then they spend the $1 trillion before we even receive it. There is
not a dime for deficit reduction in their proposals.
Truth in advertising. They jeopardize our economy. Then they talk
about the thousands of dollars on a per capita basis that my
constituent is going to receive. Why do they not tell everybody that
that is a 10-year cumulative number? Their tax year of 10 percent does
not become real this year; only 1 percent during the next 3 years. We
have to wait for 9 years for half of that to come into effect. Truth in
advertising. Tell the people what they are doing.
The height of irresponsibility is what happens in the out-years. They
advertise this to be $1 trillion with interest during the first 10
years, but it balloons to another $3 trillion in the next 10 years,
just as the baby boomers are reaching age for Medicare and Social
Security. They cannot do this bill and Social Security and Medicare. It
cannot be done. They spend the Social Security money. They spend the
surplus money twice. That is irresponsible.
Then the Speaker tells us there is a provision in this bill to deal
with the earnings limit, giving our seniors hope they can earn more.
That is not in this bill. Truth in advertising. I know we have a speech
and debate clause that protects us for our truthfulness on the floor,
but let us be honest with our constituents. We have a chance to do it
in the motion to recommit. It speaks to the priorities that we should
be talking about. Fifty percent for deficit reduction; 25 percent for
tax relief; and 25 percent for the other priorities, Social Security,
Medicare, and veterans benefits.
Support the motion to recommit.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer from Michigan.
There is a lot of hogwash and rhetoric being shoveled on this tax
debate. So I challenge, Mr. Speaker, the American people to try to
separate the hay from the chaff.
I came into Congress in 1993. It was a Democratic majority at that
time and what they and the President did first off was increase taxes
by $280 billion over the 5 years of the budget. They used the, $280
billion tax increase to grow government.
Let me report what this tax bill we're discussing today does over 5
years. It reduces taxes $156 billion and reduces the public debate $800
billion.
What happened in 1993 was a slow-down of the economy. Four and a half
years ago, the Republicans took the majority. The first thing we did in
this Congress was have a rescission bill that reduced expenditures. We
have held the line on expenditures. The Democrats have been complaining
that Republicans are too frugal, they are not spending enough money. I
look at the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that he is
going to offer as a substitute, and as it turns out it is a tax
increase.
It is consistent with what the President has suggested. The President
has schemed in his budget that we have a tax increase of $100 billion
and that we expand the spending of government by that $100 billion. If
the papers are correct, the Democrat leader over in the Senate is
suggesting that we use one-third of the surplus to have a tax cut; we
use two-thirds to expand this government. That is the danger. Who
believes if we do not get this money out of town and back in the
pockets of the workers that earned it, Washington politicians are not
going to spend it. Unlike the growing of crops on the farm, the growing
of government is not good. I am very interested and concerned with
paying down the debt. Republicans have been in the majority for 4\1/2\
years. In that time we have cut spending, stopped spending the Social
Security Trust Fund money and balanced the budget. For most every year
that the Democrats were in the majority prior to 1995, they spent the
Social Security Trust Fund surplus on other government programs and
increased the debt of this country to $5 trillion.
In the first 5 years of this tax proposal we pay down the public debt
by $900 billion; $900 billion. Also we are doing more. With the tax cut
we now require that Washington reduce the debt. Now we have a trigger.
I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), I hope the
conferees will proceed with dedication to make sure that this tax bill
assures that we continue our effort to pay down the debt.
{time} 1130
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is a ``do-
nothing'' bill. It does nothing to protect Social Security, nothing to
strengthen Medicare, nothing to reduce our national debt, and next to
nothing to help working Americans.
Mr. Darrell Stinchcomb is a fifth grade teacher in the Atlanta public
school system. Darrell loves to teach and works hard to educate the
next generation. In return, he earns $32,000 a year. Unfortunately,
this Republican tax bill does almost nothing to help working Americans
like Darrell. Under the Republican plan, Darrell would get a tax cut of
just $20 a month, $240 a year. Yet a person earning $200,000 a year or
more would get a tax break of over $9,000. $240 for working people like
Darrell, $9,000 for the richest people in America. That is not right.
That is not fair. That is not just. It is a shame and a disgrace.
Most working Americans will receive little or nothing under the
Republican tax bill. It does nothing, not one thing, to protect Social
Security and Medicare. Nothing, but nothing, to reduce the national
debt. A thousand for the rich, pocket change for working Americans.
That is the Republican tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up in rural Alabama, I was
responsible for raising the chickens. The first lesson I learned was
never, ever to count your chickens before they hatch. This Republican
tax bill spends billions of dollars before we have it in the bank. It
is a mistake. It is irresponsible. It is not the right thing to do.
We finally have an opportunity to protect the future of Social
Security and Medicare, not just for ourselves and our parents but for
future generations. The Republican tax bill is a step in the wrong
direction. It is a step backward. I urge my colleagues to defeat this
irresponsible bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today primarily to thank the
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer), to thank him for having the wisdom and the courage to put
together a tax bill that addresses not just the high-profile popular
calls for tax relief that grab the headlines and provide us politicians
with applause lines, but a tax bill that provides tax relief to the
business community in the United States in a way that will result in
greater availability of capital in this country for investment, more
jobs being created here, and more jobs being saved here.
This is not only a responsible tax cut, it is a needed tax cut if we
want American companies to be competitive in the world marketplace in
the next century.
Look, remember 2 years ago, when we Republicans cut taxes? We were
called irresponsible then by the same people in the opposition party
that are today calling us irresponsible for offering this tax cut.
Remember their words? ``You cannot cut taxes and balance the budget.''
How many times did I hear that? Well, obviously they were
[[Page
H6207]]
wrong then. We did cut taxes and balance the budget. And they are wrong
today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for putting together an
excellent tax cut and for helping American companies and American
workers.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the committee.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for yielding me this
time.
My father and my grandfather, two great public servants, taught me
that Harry Truman was one of the finest presidents in the history of
our country, and I think that that was because he was possessed of such
wonderful common sense. As a matter of fact, he became known for saying
``Let's look at the record.'' And, Mr. Speaker, I think that is what we
ought to do today.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan came to office and promised the Nation a
balanced budget in 3 years. He never delivered on that promise. Not in
3 years, not in 4 years, not in 8 years, not in 12 years of the Reagan
and Bush administrations. As a matter of fact, the opposite occurred.
Because of the huge tax cut which was implemented at the beginning of
his term, we had larger and larger deficits throughout those years,
$200, $300, $400 billion. And, yes, we quadrupled the national debt.
All of the debt, Mr. Speaker, of the United States of America from
George Washington to Jimmy Carter amounted to less than $1 trillion.
And in the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations that went to
over $4 trillion. That is the record.
In 1993, Bill Clinton came to office and he promised to reduce the
budget deficits. He did a lot more than that, Mr. Speaker. He
eliminated them. And now we are having this wonderful debate about what
to do with the extra money. That is the record.
We have a decision to make, Mr. Speaker. We can go with the policy of
the 1980s, which gave us ever-increasing deficits which quadrupled the
national debt, or we can do what I am going to do. I am going to stick
with the winners, with Clinton and Gore and Gephardt and that man
sitting right there, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I am
going to support his program of saving Social Security, saving
Medicare, and reducing the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to support
the Rangel substitute.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time.
I have spent 12 years of my life in this place working with others to
try to get our country's financial house in order and balance the
Federal budget. And as hard as we worked, we really did not see much
improvement until Republicans gained the majority in this House. When
we gained the majority, we saw deficits projected of $100 billion, $200
billion dollars, going out for years and years and years.
Because of our efforts, we have reversed that. And now we have a
budget surplus, projected over the next 10 years, of $3 trillion. Two
trillion of those dollars we are setting aside for Social Security and
Medicare, and we are going to pay down debt. One trillion is the true
surplus outside the trust funds. And that is what we are debating.
I am absolutely convinced my colleagues on the other side want to
spend it. And I believe if we leave it on the table, it will be spent.
Absolutely convinced of it. And then 10 years from now we will have a
higher level of government spending and we will need to deal with
incredible expenditures that will come in the future, and our baseline
will be very, very high.
Instead, we want to cut taxes. Not all of the $1 trillion. It may be,
by the time we are done, $500 to $800 billion. They are tax cuts that
help generate economic activity, and they are tax cuts that help
families, and they are tax cuts that help education and allow us to
deduct for health care. If we leave it on the table, it will be spent;
and our spending base will be that much higher. If we return it in tax
cuts and phase them in over time, I am absolutely convinced our economy
will grow. But if, in the future, we find it does not, we do not have
to implement the entire phase-in.
This is very responsible, and I say this particularly to Republicans:
this is the most important thing we can do to finish what we started.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican leadership's tax bill. This is the wrong policy at the wrong
time that will only add to the national debt at the expense of Social
Security and Medicare. We are debating a trillion dollar tax cut that
is going to grow to $3 trillion in 20 years on assumptions that may
well not pan out.
Nearly 20 years ago, then Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker of
Tennessee called the Reagan tax cut a river boat gamble. I predict that
like that gamble in 1981, this bill, too, if enacted, will result in
increasing the national debt many times over.
It is a shame that after spending years of crawling out of the
supply-side hole the Republicans put us in back in 1981, they now want
to dig a new ditch, and even deeper.
What will this gamble cost in real terms? $3 trillion over 20 years.
What will happen if the non-Social Security surpluses do not
materialize? We will drive the Nation deeper into debt and jeopardize
the future of Social Security, Medicare, and the American economy
through rising inflation, higher interest rates, and a weak dollar.
This is the wrong idea, it is a bad idea, and we ought to defeat this
plan.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. First, Mr. Speaker, the trigger. It is not a trigger; it
is a shot in the dark at the last minute. Let me tell my colleagues
why. It is not tied to the debt but to interest on the debt, gross
interest, that can go up as trust funds increase.
There also can be a perverse result. If there is a recession, there
would be no tax cut. And then when we come out of a recession, a tax
cut.
It applies only to the income tax, not to the other tax reductions.
So what it applies to is the least regressive. One-third goes to 1
percent, another one-third goes to the 9 percent highest income earners
in this country, and only one-third goes to 90 percent of taxpayers. It
is already terrible enough in terms of its regressivity.
One last thing. According to the CBO, the debt subject to the limit
does not decline until 2006, and that assumes no tax cut. So if we look
at this trigger, it may result in no income tax reduction across the
board through the first 10 years. It just does not make any sense.
Secondly, I want to show my colleagues this chart, the explosion in
the second 10 years of a $3 trillion revenue loss. That is the same
period when Social Security surpluses begin to fall, when Medicare runs
out of money in 2015, when non-Social Security budget surpluses begin
to fall.
This is reckless, reckless, reckless. It sells out our ability to act
on Social Security and Medicare for the long run. Vote a resounding
``no'' on this bill and support the motion to recommit as well as the
Rangel substitute bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me add before we begin the colloquy,
that I, too, want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing this bill to the floor. It
has been said, and I agree, this is the most important piece of
legislation that this Congress will pass. The gentleman has reached the
soft underbelly of the tax-and-spend crowd by taking the revenues off
the table and returning it to the American people, and I thank the
gentleman for doing that.
As the chairman knows, along with many others in our conference, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and I have been very
interested
[[Page
H6208]]
in making sure that the tax bill before us includes as much relief as
possible for those American taxpayers who are paying entirely too much
in taxes solely because they are married.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would hope that when the
gentleman from Texas goes to conference on this bill, that he will make
an effort to see the amount of money used to provide relief to these
married taxpayers is significantly greater than the amount set forth in
the House bill.
I also want to join my colleague, Mr. Speaker, in thanking the
gentleman for his leadership on a great package of tax relief and thank
him for his assurances on this issue as well.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARCHER. Well, I would say to both of the gentlemen, Mr. Speaker,
that they have exemplified great leadership on giving couples marriage
penalty relief, and they can be assured that in the conference, with
the concurrence of the Senate, the amount of money designated for
marriage penalty relief will be above the level in the House bill.
I think I also must add that a lot of credit goes to many, many other
Members who have joined with these two gentlemen on this issue,
particularly two members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger).
{time} 1145
I think all of the country can be thankful for all of my colleagues.
Separately, Mr. Speaker, I am including in the Record at this point
an exchange of letters with the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and an explanation of my amendment to
H.R. 2488 making the
reductions in the across-the-board tax rate reductions contingent on
the annual change in the government's interest expenses on the total
U.S. debt.
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, July 21, 1999.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodling: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to further consideration of H.R.
2488, the ``Financial Freedom Act of 1999.''
H.R. 2488 was
ordered favorably reported by the Committee on Ways and Means
on July 14, 1999. Title XII of
H.R. 2488, as reported,
contains nearly 40 pension provisions in the tax code
designed to improve retirement security.
As you know, on July 14, 1999, the Committee on Education
and the Workforce ordered favorably reported
H.R. 1102, the
``Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act.''
The bill, as introduced, was referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and in addition, to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Government
Reform. Titles I-V of the bill, as reported, contain many of
the tax provisions included in
H.R. 2488, and Title VI
contains comparison amendments to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) approved by your Committee.
In order to expedite consideration of
H.R. 2488, you agreed
to refrain from asking the Rules Committee to make in order
an amendment to
H.R. 2488 to include the provisions of Title
VI of
H.R. 1102, as reported. This was based on the
understanding that I would continue to work with you to
include agreed upon pension provisions within the
jurisdiction of the Education Committee in the final
conference report on
H.R. 2488, and that I would not object
to your request for conferees with respect to matters within
the jurisdiction of your Committee when a House-Senate
conference is convened on this legislation.
Finally, I will include in the Record a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter during floor
consideration. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation
in this matter. With best personal regards,
Sincerely,
Bill Archer,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Education and
the Workforce,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1999.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Archer: Thank you for your letter and for
working with me regarding
H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom
Act. As you have correctly noted, Title XII of
H.R. 2488, as
reported, contains numerous pension provisions designed to
improve retirement security. As you also know, on July 14,
1999, the Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered
favorably reported
H.R. 1102, the ``Comprehensive Retirement
Security and Pension Reform Act.'' The bill, as introduced,
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition, to the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
and the Committee on Government Reform. Titles I-V of the
bill, as reported by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, contain many of the tax provisions included in
H.R. 2488, and Title VI contains amendments to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
As you know, I intended to have Rules Committee make in
order the provisions in
H.R. 1102, regarding ERISA; however,
in order to expedite consideration of
H.R. 2488 and with the
understanding as outlined in your letter, I did not make such
a request. I appreciate your work with me to include those
pension provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce in the final conference
agreement on
H.R. 2488. I appreciate your support in my
request to the Speaker for the appointment of conferees from
my Committee with respect to matters within the jurisdiction
of my Committee when a conference with the Senate is convened
on this legislation.
Thank you for agreeing to include this exchange of letters
in the Congressional Record during the House debate on H.R.
2488. Again, I thank you for working with me in developing
this legislation and I look forward to working with you on
these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling,
Chairman.
____
Explanation of Archer Amendment to
H.R. 2488
Reductions in Across-the-Board tax Rate Reductions
Contingent on Annual Change in Government's Interest Expenses
on the Total U.S. Debt:
--The 1 percentage point tax reduction scheduled to take
effect in 2001 remains in place permanently.
--Each year thereafter, the additional tax reduction
scheduled for a specific year is contingent on a reduction in
the government's total interest expenses for the preceding
year. Total interest expenses include interest payments on
all debt subject to the statutory limit. This means both debt
held by the public and trust fund debt.
--Specifically, in order for a tax reduction to take effect
on January 1 of a specific year, the government's interest
expenses must not increase in the preceding year. The annual
change in the interest expense is measured on July 31 of the
preceding year.
--If the interest expense increases, then the next
scheduled phase of tax reduction which would otherwise go
into effect does not take effect until the interest expense
requirement is met in a succeeding year. Preceding rate
reductions remain in place.
--The provision terminates when the rate reduction reaches
10%.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders spent yesterday twisting
the arms of their moderate and fiscally responsible Members to get them
to vote for a tax bill that they have derided all week for its fiscal
irresponsibility.
The papers today report that the House leadership may well have
forced them to risk Social Security, Medicare, and our economy on
fiscally irresponsible, budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthiest
that will cost us more than $3 trillion over the next 20 years.
To do so, Republican leaders seemed to have taken the principle of
budgetary smoke and mirrors to a height unseen since David Stockman
invented the ``magic asterisk'' nearly 20 years ago. And in so doing,
Republican leaders are not just risking Social Security, Medicare, and
our economy, they are mounting an assault on the common sense of the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, in the dead of night yesterday and this morning,
Republicans may have succeeded in fooling themselves, but the American
people are smarter than that.
Americans know perfectly well that if this risky Republican package
of more than $3 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest becomes law,
Republicans will be making it fiscally impossible to save Social
Security and Medicare. Republicans will be making it fiscally
impossible to pay down the debt and keep interest rates low and our
economy growing and creating jobs. Republicans will be making it
fiscally impossible to help America's senior citizens afford the high
cost of prescription drugs.
As one of our moderate Republican colleagues said of this tax bill a
few days ago, ``The numbers just don't add up, and the projections
don't have credibility.''
Well, we all know and the American people know that they are no more
credible today.
[[Page
H6209]]
Why would Republican leaders force through a package that takes such
risks with our future? What does it say about the priorities of the
Republican party?
Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, it says the Republican leaders are
willing to risk Social Security, Medicare, and our Nation's economy in
order to provide red meat for their right wing extremists.
Vote down this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I want to praise the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) for what he has done in this bill.
Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money for which
they work. I recall the woman who heard the President claim ``more
jobs'' and she said, ``I can believe that, I have three of them.''
Well, we are trying to straighten that out. We have dealth with the
marriage tax, and 42 million Americans--are affected by that--including
6 million senior citizens.
I am concerned not only about the families and the marriage penalty
tax. I am concerned about our grandchildren and, in my case, little
Yoni. I want him to grow up where there is not very much national debt,
and that is exactly what the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) has
provided.
There is a $3.6 trillion national debt held by the public. Under this
bill, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, we are getting that down to
$1.6 trillion. If my colleagues do not think that is progress, then
they have a strange idea of progress. We are doing something for every
single American that is affected and needs a job and works hard and
does not find much to pay the bills.
Vote for this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the ink is barely dry on the projections of the surplus,
and already we have a bill on the floor committing it all to tax cuts.
I think a big share of the surplus should go to tax cuts. But if this
bill becomes law, it will shut out everything else. It will leave
nothing to make Social Security and Medicare solvent, use none of the
surplus to pay down our mountainous debt, reserve nothing for plus-ups
in education or boost in medical research. Even defense gets shorted.
Most of those backing this tax bill say that they are for an increase
in defense spending, but they should read the resolution. The budget
resolution underlying this bill makes room for our tax cuts of $778
billion. It freezes defense from 2004 through 2009.
So before we rush to judgment, bet the farm on these projections, we
ought to ask just how solid are these surpluses.
In less than a year, OMB and CBO have upped their 15-year estimates
of the surplus by $2 trillion. Just yesterday, CBO issued a report
warning, and these are their words, ``decision-makers to view these
projections with considerable caution.''
What they have done is what they have always done. They have assumed
that current law will be carried out, that we will stick to the caps
for the next 3 years, tight caps that were set several years ago in the
PBA of 1997, even though my colleagues know and I know that we really
circumvented them last year and we are not going to stay under them
this year.
If we make the simple assumption that we will simply track inflation
with discretionary spending for the next 5 years, we take $590 billion
out of this $996 billion surplus.
If we then assume that emergency spending has to be factored into the
estimates, and CBO and OMB do not do that because it is unpredictable,
we knock another $90 billion off the surplus. And if we then adjust
that for debt service, debt service they will have to pay because their
debt deal is not paid down, the surplus is somewhere between $150
billion and $300 billion, not $996 billion.
We have another choice, a substitute that would cut taxes by $250
billion. It is the right choice, a fiscally responsible choice. I urge
its adoption in lieu of this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
In the latter half of this century, the profligate spending habits of
the Congress and the Federal Government drove the total Federal debt
from less than $250 billion to an astounding $5.5 trillion.
But now, because recent Congresses have been able to impose some
fiscal discipline on the Federal budget during this period of strong
economic growth, we enjoy the good fortune of operating under a
surplus.
Simply stated, having a surplus means that we are extracting from the
taxpayers more money than is required to fund the operation of the
Federal Government. That means we must refund part of this surplus back
to the taxpayers through a tax cut.
But prudence also dictates that we use part of this surplus to pay
down the debt that was irresponsibly run up by previous Congresses.
I am grateful that the chairman has agreed to insert my debt
reduction amendment into this bill. With my amendment in place, we will
accomplish both of our goals, tax refunds and debt reduction.
The language of my amendment sets this Congress on a course to reduce
the amount of publicly held debt from $3.6 trillion in fiscal year 1999
to $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2009, a reduction of over 55 percent in
10 years.
As a result, the annual interest costs of this publicly held debt
will drop from $230 billion this year to about $100 billion in 2009.
That is a huge savings.
Putting it in simpler terms, reducing the debt and interest this much
will put $700 dollars more per year back in the pockets of each
American taxpayer.
While it took over half a century to run up this debt, we are
committed to cutting it by more than half in the next decade.
Surely, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, some of them
whom were here when their party presided over the accumulation of this
debt, cannot protest with too much credibility that this rate of payoff
is insufficient.
I urge the Congress to vote for debt reduction and smaller interest
payments. Vote for this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, first things first. First things first. Social Security,
Medicare, the first chance in a long time to consider prescription drug
coverage in Medicare, reducing the debt so our children in the future
will not be paying $250 billion yearly just on interest on the size of
the debt. Talk to any family in America. They will will explain that.
They know it. They have a mortgage. They know how much they pay in
interest every year to own that home.
Why are we telling our children we are going to let them continue to
pay for more than $250 billion per year not to retire the debt, the
principal, but just to pay the interest on what we owe as a Federal
Government?
First things first. And then we can focus on providing middle-class
America, working-class Americans, with a tax cut. And they deserve it,
and they will get it. But first things first.
What we are talking about today is nothing but numbers, guesses. I
could flip a coin right now and ask my colleagues if it is heads or
tails and they would have just as much luck knowing what it would be as
what we would know about the future about the Federal budget. It is all
projections.
Six years ago, when I came into Congress, the outgoing President
George
[[Page
H6210]]
Bush and his administration left us with projections saying that we
would have $300 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see into
the future.
Now we are projecting a trillion-dollar surplus over the next 10
years. Let me bring it down even closer. A year ago, we were told we
would have an $80 billion deficit. Five months ago we were told it
would be a $7 billion deficit. Today we are being told it is going to
be a $14 billion surplus.
How can numbers change so rapidly? It is because they are all
projections. It is flipping a coin. In fact, it is more like going to
Vegas. I could go to a crap table and probably do better with the odds
there than with knowing what will happen in 10 years with the Federal
Government.
We are playing with people's money, and we should be prepared to give
it back. But people will also want to be able to retire knowing that
Social Security will be there for them, not just us but our kids.
People want to know that for the first time we have a chance to tell
the elderly it will not be a choice between food and medicine because
we can get them predescription drug coverage that will do so. And we
want to be able to tell our kids, I have three small children, I am
going to be able to retire some of this Federal debt so they do not
have to pay that interest and they can use it to go to college.
Let us be serious. Do not pass this bill. We can do a tax cut but not
like this.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley) another member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.
I heard a lot of people taking credit today for the miracles of a
balanced budget. We will go ahead and give them credit for raising
taxes in 1993. They said that is what led to a balanced budget. We will
take credit for cutting spending, which we believe led to a balanced
budget.
But, my colleagues, we are here to talk about the future of the
United States of America. For 40 years, this place was run on a
bankrupt notion of spend and spend and spend. If I have to hear one
more time on the House floor about the Ronald Reagan bill, I have just
got to tell my colleagues, the Congress was controlled by the
Democratic party in those years. No bill sponsored by the President can
pass without a majority party lifting the bill to the floor.
So, if memory serves me right, that bill was passed by a
democratically controlled Congress. So let us, at least, talk about
fairness, about the rules of engagement, and about what this means to
the average family.
I urge my colleagues to go home over the weekend and talk about the
marriage penalty elimination in this bill. I urge them to talk about
the estate tax relief for family farmers in many districts around
America. I urge them to talk about the tax credit for health care and
deductibility, prescription coverage that was offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas). I urge them to look at some of the
notions of this bill and deny that they have practical application for
every working family in America.
Now, there are disagreements on debt. There are disagreements on the
long-term application. There are disagreements on income. But, my
colleagues, Congress meets every day, every year. We can solve those in
the future, but let us not kill a good bill on the American public's
table today.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York for yielding me the time and for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom
Act of 1999.
In my 12 years of working on tax policy as chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee in Missouri, I thought I had seen just about every
kind of shenanigan tried. This fiscally irresponsible measure tops them
all.
{time} 1200
How do you keep a straight face and look the American people in the
eye when you say you are going to use an anticipated $1 trillion
surplus to reform Social Security and Medicare, then, without blinking,
tell the taxpayers of this great Nation that you are going to give them
nearly a trillion dollars in tax cuts, plus reduce the deficit, and you
will accomplish all of these wondrous feats without cutting programs or
jeopardizing our economy. I do not think the public will be fooled by a
measure which defies logic.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute, to
support the motion to recommit, and to cast a vote to reduce the debt,
save Social Security and Medicare and our economy.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
simply to respond.
Many, many times the speakers on the Democrat side of the aisle have
used the term ``a $1 trillion tax cut.'' They know that is not true.
They think if they say it long enough and hard enough, people will
believe it. They know it is not true. The tax cut is $792 billion. It
is not $1 trillion, but let them keep saying it, because it exposes the
misinformation that is being presented to this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) another respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, why do you not call this game what you
really mean it, finders keepers? That is what you think it is all
about. Look at the credibility of the Democrats back here in
Washington, D.C., not the working man and the working women that happen
to be Democrats out in the country. You got your own special enclave
right here in Washington, D.C. That is, you think you found that money.
Well, Democrats, let me tell you something: You did not find it. It
is those working men and those working women, outside the Beltway, who
have provided this surplus. By gosh, they are entitled to have some of
it back.
Now, you would like the American people to believe you are credible
when it comes to Federal waste and Federal spending. How many of you
Democrats voted for a balanced budget? How many of you Democrats ever
stood up here and cut some spending out of the wasteful programs? Yeah,
not many raised their hand. Two out of the whole group raised their
hands over there. That is the true story. They think it is finders
keepers.
We have a budget here that will save Social Security, save Medicare,
reduce the Federal debt, increase military spending and increase
education and guess what? That is five. One dollar out of six, one
dollar out of six goes back to that working man and that working woman.
It is time you Democrats in Washington, D.C. cared about the
Democrats outside the Beltway and gave up your enclave of finders
keepers.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have really shown their hand
in their late-night amendment to their blockbuster tax bill. They put a
provision in that says that part of the tax cut will not take effect
unless the debt goes down. The truth of the matter is the Republicans
are not interested in reducing the national debt. Their amendment
simply says if the national debt starts going up, we will not have that
big blockbuster tax bill. We have a $5.6 trillion national debt. It is
time to start paying it down.
The Democratic substitute, the Blue Dog motion to recommit, will
allow for paying down that national debt. The Republicans want to
continue along the path of big budget deficits. We need to pay off that
national debt. The party of fiscal responsibility in this debate is the
Democratic Party. We want to pay off that national debt, and it is time
that we realized that only by being fiscally conservative will we ever
have a chance to do it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this historic tax cut bill.
These words are my first on the floor since being sworn in on June 8,
and that is appropriate because this legislation in so many ways is
what I came to Congress to do.
[[Page
H6211]]
I do not just mean cutting taxes. I mean celebrating marriage and
family by attacking the marriage penalty; honoring small family
business by phasing out the death tax which is the death of so many
small family businesses; encouragin
