To provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is an appropriate rule providing for 1 hour of debate for consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of 2003.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, taxes now claim a greater share of the median two-income family's budget than food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. That just is not right. Families need the flexibility to dedicate their hard-earned resources towards their most pressing concerns. While some may need more money to help pay off their debts, others may need extra money to pay tuition for their child or to invest for their retirement.

The same can be said for small business owners, the entrepreneurial backbone of America. They should be empowered to allocate their resources however they see fit, whether it be hiring more employees, reinvesting, or expanding their business in order to create jobs.

The point is, people should be making decisions on how to best spend their hard-earned dollars, not the government, nor should government punish them with job-killing, unfair taxes.

Today's legislation is not just about tax relief; it is about creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The fact is jobs do not create themselves. And we, in this Congress, have both the ability and responsibility to help create those jobs. Through his consistent and immediate attention to growth and prosperity for working Americans, the President has once again guided Congress to foster job creation and ease the outrageous tax burden on working Americans. Under his direction, we will be helping countless Americans achieve a greater parity in the Tax Code and realize the fulfillment of employment.

No one knows the current job struggle like my constituents and fellow New Yorkers across the State. For my part of the State, which never shared in the economic boom of the 1990s, job growth remains the number one priority. And this type of positive impact is what this and so many other parts of our country need.

On average, over 30,000 new jobs will be created in New York every year for the next 5 years. Instead of an unemployment check, these workers will get a paycheck that they want and they deserve.

The bill recognizes that we cannot create employees if we do not work with employers to create jobs. For example, small businesses will have an option of immediately deducting up to $100,000 in expenses, a significant increase over the current $25,000 deductions. Because most small businesses pay taxes as individuals, accelerating the top rate reduction means lower taxes for small business owners. This means that millions of entrepreneurs will have more money to spend on employees, supplies, or expansion efforts.

The conference report also drastically reduces the dividend tax burden, making stocks more valuable and increasing expected rates of return. By lowering the rates of dividend and capital gains, people will be more willing to invest because they will pay less tax on the returns to their investments.

What this bill also recognizes is the need for an immediate infusion of direct aid to States facing dire fiscal crises. Budget shortfalls and sharply rising Medicaid costs have crippled local governments, restricted access to vital services, such as health care, that our constituents greatly rely on.

By coupling State relief with tax relief and job creation, we can alleviate the strain on State revenues, and further stimulate the economy with direct aid to our States and localities that need it most.

Whether creating jobs, relieving the tax burden, increasing investment, or fostering State and local stability, this bill acknowledges the need for all-encompassing approaches to growing the economy.

Mr. Speaker, former President Ronald Reagan once said the current Tax Code is a daily mugging. This is not what our political science teachers meant by participation in government. Let us not rob the American people of their hard-earned money. This country was founded upon individuals who stretched their imaginations, fostered ingenuity, and broke their backs for freedom and justice. Americans throughout history have not toiled resiliently just to fork over all their earnings to the Federal Government. This was not the intent of our forefathers, nor should it be ours now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule as well as the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my memory serves that at the time, had we not done the tax cuts that we passed in 2001, we might have been in a deeper recession, a slower economy. And, quite frankly, that was part of the stimulus that has moved us to a shallow recession. In moving forward with this tonight, my hope is the economic stimulus will continue to advance.

Quite frankly, I think the Republican agenda, led by our President, has done the job, and I am hoping that we can continue moving on that agenda. I will be happy to take that record to the voters of this land and let them make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting to the heart of it. The heart of it is that the left is filing in here to talk about we need bigger government and more spending. We need more of that central Federal Government.

And the debate will happen after this rule is passed of those who want to see a tax cut, those who want to put that money back in the American people's pocket. And then we will begin to look at some of the facts in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, a married couple with two children, an income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of $1,133 in 2003. That is a decline of 96 percent.

In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. And 68 million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338; 45 million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786; 34 million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549; 6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558; 12 million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401; 23 million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209; 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act.

I will repeat that again. Mr. Speaker, 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act. Half of the tax relief package in 2003 is directed to the child tax credit, expanding a 10 percent bracket eliminating the marriage penalty, accelerating the marginal rate cuts, and ensuring that middle-class families do not face AMT. Ten million seniors will receive some type of dividend income, will be able to make their golden years more secure by keeping more of what their dividend income is.

When I have this vote cast for this rule and then when I vote on the underlying legislation, I am happy to take those facts back to my district and stand before my constituents. Do Americans want more Federal Government and bureaucrats creating programs, or do they want that money in their pocket for them to make that decision?

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

For a point of a question.

Mr. Speaker, I also saw a poll that says that the American people want a tax cut. And, quite frankly, as the President traveled the country in the week that we were on recess, he raised the polling numbers for that tax cut by 10 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I stated a number of facts of how many millions of Americans benefit from this plan. I realize it was my party that started the graphs and bringing those very scientific presentations before us. I respect listening to the gentleman as he brought some of those today, but there are two important messages that I know I have been taught and trained by my constituents when I go home each week that is drilled into my graph of my mind and my views here.

One is: Keep and create jobs. That is what this bill does.

The other is: Tax cut now. That is what we are going to have the opportunity to vote on.

There is going to be a great debate after this rule on the Thomas tax bill that he will present, but the reality is, at the end of the day, we are going to pass that legislation and we are going to help people go back to work.

We have also done some important things with the unemployment insurance today. We are moving forward. It is a good Bush agenda. It is an agenda that the American people want, and they are going to have it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is not a new debate for me. I came from the New York legislature. I listened to liberals every day tell me how government was going to solve all of New Yorkers' problems. I will not go through all those facts of the millions and millions of Americans that benefit from this bill as I cited earlier, but I want to remind my colleagues of one simple fact: A married couple with two children and an income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 by $1,133 in 2003. It is a decline of 96 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from

Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I cannot speak for the gentleman's constituency as a whole, but I know there is one constituent down there who wants a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are nearing the end of our hour debate on the rule, and we have heard a number of different viewpoints. But I want to remind the colleagues as they look at the rule that gives us an opportunity to move forward on a tax cut and also a $20 billion stimulus to our States and localities. The child credit increases our child credit to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004. Families will receive a child credit check this year for up to $400 per child. It accelerates the expansion of the 10 percent bracket for 2003. The marriage penalty relief begins in 2003, individual rate cuts where we accelerate the 2006 individual rate cuts scheduled to 2003. The individual increase of AMT exemptions where that will be increased by an amount of $4,500 for single persons and $9,000 for joint filers.

But I look at jobs and small businesses. I have come up through the elected route of legislative bodies from county to county to State, our Federal Government. All of my working adult life I have been a small businessman. When I go back home to those Chambers of Commerce and, yes, it will not be Waco, Texas, or Crawford, Texas. It is going to be Clarence, New York, or Amherst or Batavia, Greece. I am going to talk about the fact that in small business that they have the opportunity to expense at $100,000 versus $25,000. Not because I thought so, but because they told me, as small businessmen and women, that is what they needed. That is what they needed to first retain their jobs, that is what they needed to grow jobs.

And, by gosh, the Congress heard them, the President heard them, and there is a new law of the land that this Congress will enact tonight. That small business expensing increases the amount that they can expense from $25,000 to $100,000.

Some of you are going to go home to the Chambers of Commerce, and I hope, as they get a chance to look at that, you can answer the question: ``You are right. I have heard your call across the America, and I am going to do that $100,000 expensing in the vote I cast here tonight.''

And in dividends and capital gains, I hear all this class warfare on the rich. Where I come from and in that real estate business I owned for 25 years, I knew a lot of working men and women that built a little capital gains in that second property they owned or the double that they rented out up the street,

and they just want an opportunity to have that money come back to them versus the government gobbling it up for more government programs to give you a solution of how to spend the money versus sending it back to the American people.

This debate is, as we pass the rule and moving on to the debate, we will hear a lot from the left. We will hear a lot from those who cast that 1993 vote to have the largest tax increase in America's history defend it then and then defend it tonight. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not care how we cut it. The American people want to create jobs and jobs growth, and they know tax cuts are the route to get there.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay for it by giving it back to the American people. Will there be deficits? There are deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I believed when I voted for a $726 billion tax decrease, for tax cuts, that we would have moved our economy even faster. I believed it when I did $550 billion. I am supporting $350 billion with the other things we are doing today for an economic stimulus package because I believe it will create jobs, and those jobs and earning power will more than keep our country running, if we do not let the big spenders in Congress spend our money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my two posters are really simple, as I said before: Create and Keep Jobs and Tax Cuts Now.

I want to say that this is not a partisan thing. It is either you believe that bigger government and more government spending is how we solve our problems in America, or you believe it is the people's money and you give it back to them. It is important to really note that in the bipartisan aspect of reality, either you believe one or the other. As President Kennedy said, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates now.

Mr. Speaker, if we move ahead on this rule and we move ahead on the underlying legislation, we are going to do just that; and that is what America wants, that is what they deserve. And I think in every poll in America that has been cited in every different direction here, the bottom line is the people, and I go home every week and I know, want to create jobs, and they are going to do it by our cutting taxes, and that is what we are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, let us have a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, at quarter to eleven, the shades of darkness have fallen, and we have to ask ourselves a question, at least I do: Is the other side not particularly competent? Is that why we are here this late at night, as we always are on major pieces of legislation? Or have

they intentionally put us here late at night so no one will watch this on television, so the American public will not know what is going on?

I will complete my statement, and then my friend, the chairman, will have plenty of time to respond.

I understand, but my friend will have plenty of time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, it is more than a coincidence that the major pieces of legislation that this Congress does are always done late at night when not very many people are watching. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, the House will pass and send to the Senate the ``Leave No Millionaire Behind Tax Act.'' Yet at the same time around the country millions of Americans are looking for work.

This country is still suffering from the second Bush recession in just over a decade, the third Republican recession in the past 20 years. The Federal deficit is spiraling even higher. The public debt is growing. Every penny of this tax bill have will to be borrowed. But Republicans in Washington, from the President on down, are busy patting themselves on the back for successfully pulling off another rip-off of the Federal Treasury.

Make no mistake, that is all this conference report is, a welfare package for the very wealthy and a big fat bill for future generations. When you borrow money, you generally have to pay it back. This conference report is the latest attempt to give the average American's Social Security payments and their Medicare payments to a small elite group of very wealthy individuals.

Republicans have argued among themselves about how much this bill costs, but it hardly matters because they are basically making up numbers at this point. After all, the Senate Republicans attached a number to their tax bill last week and then had to admit it was $70 billion too low. And this week House the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), was in the newspapers bragging about how easy it is to fudge the numbers to make their tax plan look less expensive than it really is.

They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax bill, but they will not extend unemployment benefits to every American who continues to look for work with no success. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax cut, but they kick 1.4 million veterans to the curb and out of the VA health system. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax cut, but they cannot hide a record $400 billion deficit.

Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush became President, some 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs. Unemployment is the highest it has been since the last Bush administration, and only Herbert Hoover lost more jobs than George W. Bush has. Of course, President Bush still has a year and a half to go to top the Great Depression President in this contest.

Mr. Speaker, the stock market is down. Republicans have driven America's deficit so high that the Bush administration's own Treasury Department has twice asked to raise the debt limit so they can borrow more money. Not only does the administration need to borrow more money, they want to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, the largest increase in the history of the debt limit. This is not a record to be proud of, Mr. Speaker. This is not a record to run for reelection on, Mr. Speaker. It is a record of shame.

After all, 2 years ago, the Republican majority in the House did not sell their economic package as a budget buster. But they were wrong. And they are wrong today. The ``Leave No Millionaires Behind Act'' will not create jobs or stimulate the economy, any more than Part I did 2 years ago. But it will drive this country deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans to pay for more tax breaks for the richest few. The true cost of this particular bill is closer to a trillion dollars than to any fake numbers Republicans trot out today.

That trillion dollars is about what the administration and the Republican leadership want us to raise the public debt by so they will not have to face up to the failed economic policies before the next election. The Republican leadership wants to force that record-setting debt limit increase through the Congress, along with this tax bill, while they skip town and leave millions of Americans who cannot find work in the lurch. This is reprehensible behavior, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not behavior that surprises Democrats one little bit.

We have a responsibility to govern with the needs of the present and the future in mind. This tax bill thinks of neither the present nor the future in a responsible manner. What the President and the Republican leadership are advocating is a failed economic paradigm that will borrow against the future to pay a few millionaires today, and the Republican Party does not have a clue how they are going to pay this money back and keep this government solvent.

That is why we have to defeat this rule and this conference report. Until someone makes President Bush and the Republicans stop ruining the economy, they will keep raiding ordinary taxpayers to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy. This is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. You know it and I know it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who has a very interesting description of the bill.

I have a table here, table 5.1, ``Conference Agreement on Jobs and Growth

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.'' This table has some very interesting information in it. An American who makes a million dollars or more would get $93,530 of tax cuts on the average. If you make between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, you get $15 a month. If you make between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, you get a little bit less than $30 a month. Let me just comment, the gentleman is trying to say this is a wonderful thing for people in the lower income brackets.

I suggest to Members that the great spread here of $93,530 for the millionaires and $15 a month for the fellow or woman making between $20,000 and $30,000 and less than $30 for the family of between $30,000 and $40,000, I am not sure what the gentleman is trying to say here.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I am just proposing that we not try and tell them they are getting a really good deal here, that they are getting a really big tax cut, because the people who are getting the really big tax cut are the folks who are the millionaires, and the average folks out there are just getting a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have been listening to the gentleman from New York and, of course, he offers a false choice. He says, do you want tax cuts or do you want bigger government? The people that I talk to do not want a government that puts them in debt. They do not want their children and grandchildren to be paying, having to bail out the country for this tax cut that is being passed this year because of the size of the debt that this is causing. No, they do not necessarily want bigger government, but they do not want that debt hanging over their children and grandchildren for several generations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, that is sunset almost immediately. They may get that for a year or two, and then it is sunset.

I do not have enough time, but I just observed that the gentleman says, oh, we are going to do this thousand dollars, but they take it away in the next year or two.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Is the gentleman talking about the multimillionaire who lives in Crawford, Texas? I think that is who he was talking about. I do recall that the net worth of the resident in Crawford, Texas, is somewhere around $15 to $20 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider H.R. 2156, a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that would require the administration and the Congress to do something about the budget disaster their economic policies are creating.

The Rangel bill attempts to avert the train wreck Republican economic policies are steering us towards. His bill would permit a temporary debt limit increase of $375 billion, on the condition that the administration and Congress come up with a serious plan to balance the budget by the year 2008. The Rangel bill would give the Republicans the opportunity to show some real leadership on economic issues.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not keep the House from considering the conference agreement. What a ``no'' vote will do is allow the House to consider the Rangel balanced budget proposal as a separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the debt tax is not a tax we can repeal or sunset. This vote is the only opportunity the House will have to show some real economic leadership and consider the Rangel balanced budget plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 2156 be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this, I hope, is going to be an evening and a day that we will all remember as legislators. It is true that the majority tries desperately hard to bring these bills up in the middle of the night so that sunshine will never see what it is.

It is also true, it is also true that conferences do not mean what they used to mean. It means after a dozen Republicans get together in some room somewhere and decide what they want to do, they then come around and pass out a paper and ask you to sign it.

So I have been accustomed to that on the Committee on Ways and Means. But guess what, a lot of Democrats on this side have been saying forget all of this $726 billion and $550 billion and $300 billion. This is all a game they are playing, and they said that this bill was so full of gimmicks, that the Republicans were trying to fool the American people because we said that this was really a trillion dollar tax cut. And my friends over there started booing and saying this was so unfair and that we were just distorting the numbers.

Well, there is one person in this House that when he says something, people do not point their finger at him. They say the man makes a lot of sense. He is a straight shooter, and he is respected by both sides of the aisle.

Now, I do not normally read statements, but since it involves the Speaker of this great House, I thought it might start off the debate on a high level rather than wait for just the heavy people to come down at the end of debate and start talking about how we should salute the flag and do the right thing. And this is a bill that we have worked on and we have done it within the budget.

Now, it says here that House Speaker Hastert told the Congress Daily Thursday that the final package incorporates key features of the House- passed bill and positions Congress to pass much greater tax relief in the near future. The $350 billion number takes us through the next 2 years basically, Hastert said. Hastert, meaning the Speaker of this august body. But it also could end up being a trillion dollar tax bill because the stuff, that is what the chairman was working with, because the stuff is extendable.

That is the fight we are going to have, and it is not a bad fight to have. This goes on and says, Congressional Journal, Hastert said the final package is front loaded and will boost the economy in the short term but it includes nearly all of the content of the House's original bill. Now, I do not know how far in debt you guys want to take us, but listen, because this is important stuff. This is history-making stuff.

Now, this is what the Speaker said about this bill. That at the end of the day it is not 350, it is not 550, it is not 726. It is a trillion. But guess what? It gets better, to show you just how deep they would want to get us in the hole. I never knew they hated Social Security and Medicare that badly. But at the so-called conference, there was a period of time that I was the only Democrat there on the House side beside the minority leader. The chairman came in later. And so there was opening statements made before the conference report was just passed around to sign. And our distinguished majority leader said, while we are doing this bill and you have done a lot of good work on it and praised the Republican leadership and the House and Senate, he said, before this year is over we will be coming back to pick up the rest of it to make certain we get another trillion.

Now, I mention these names because the only thing that they did not mention was that they were going to borrow the money in order to give the rich these tax cuts, and they want to stick the rest of society with paying the interest on the money that they are borrowing at the expense of the Social Security system. I am so happy and pleased that at the end of this day that we do not have to point fingers and say that it is gimmicks that you are doing or you are trying to hoodwink the people because if the Speaker said it, and you applauded it, so therefore I do not have any apprehensions; and if the majority leader came back and said, you are coming back to raid us again and

you applaud that, well, thank God for your honesty in what you are doing.

And one day somebody is going to ask, when this deficit just grew, when the programs were collapsing, when people were just paying more interest on the debt than all of the programs that we have together, all of the discretionary programs, they may ask, and just what were you doing when this happened, when you shifted the responsibility for paying taxes to the working people that do not have the exclusions that you provided today?

So to the Republican leadership, thank you for making our day. I thank the Speaker for being so honest and saying what these people have done; and to the leader, come back again for the next trillion dollars and maybe some day soon the American people can see what you are doing to them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), an outstanding, hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the House Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North

Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the head of the Democratic Steering Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman from Louisiana. It certainly did go down because they stole the money out of the Social Security trust fund in order to make it go down. So he scores there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is a whole lot to this bill I did not see, but if that wife is going to benefit from the marriage penalty and she is not working, this is an exciting tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is really great if someone can get in the 15-percent bracket and not have a job. The IRS is really working overtime.

But I know you are not really trying to take care of these people. Basically, this is a Republican plan that came

long before the gentleman became chairman of the committee. It has very, very little to do with taxes. It is just the Republican belief that the Federal Government should not be in the business of providing service to American citizens, that they should just take care of national defense and to provide the wealth and protection for the investors. And for those people who are less fortunate, they should rely on local and State governments. For that reason, we find this enormous increase in taxes for working people that work in our cities and work in our States.

We also find our charitable organizations in deep trouble as the Federal Government will be providing less assistance to them in Medicaid and Medicare. And even our heroic veterans who come home will find that the benefits will be sharply reduced for them. Leave No Child Behind? Take a look at the budget and see how many people are left behind.

We know that some of these programs have been described as ``third rails.'' We do not want to touch them. Leave Social Security alone. But at the end of the day, when we see that you borrowed all of the money that you can and that our great Nation is now paying interest on the debt that you have caused not only tonight but you promise that you will come back again and again and again and we will find ourselves in more debt, we will be okay, those of us in this Chamber. But what about our children and our children's children? Do we not owe it to them to at least provide the same type of America that our fathers and grandfathers provided for us?

What happened with the surplus that we have? How did we have such a tremendous swing from $5 trillion there with our hopes and our dreams where we could do something? What do you leave us with now? A deficit as far as we can see, programs that we will never be able to initiate? And what will you say? The money is just not there?

You say that this tax bill is going to create jobs. Why do we not pull the Record about what you said the last time you came with a $1 trillion tax bill and find out where are the jobs that you promised then?

We know there is a philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. We believe the people should be served, and not just the investor class.

Is it class warfare? You bet your life. But you declared it against the working people.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to respond to the query that was put forth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise to say that this has been a great day for us. We have been able to pass out, in a bipartisan way, with an overwhelming vote, a spectacular defense authorization bill. We have been able to deal with one of the most pressing needs out there by extending unemployment benefits to those who are really hurting. And now we are dealing with what truly is the number one priority for us economically, and that is we are going to be putting into place a measure which is designed to create jobs and increase economic growth in this country.

I am looking at the clock. It is now 6 minutes before 11 p.m. Now, I know my friend from Texas has described this as the dead of night. But I have to say that it is 6 minutes before 8 p.m. in California, and I suspect that there may even be a broader audience following the debate at this hour across the Nation than there might be at noon following a debate that takes place here in the House of Representatives.

I also have to say that I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who are anxious for us to complete our work and get this done so that we can create jobs for the American people, which is what this measure is going to do.

Now, I am very proud to be a Republican, and by virtue of being a Republican, I was born to cut taxes. And I am proud, I am proud of the fact that we are putting this measure into place. The ``Leave No Millionaires Behind Act'' was a great line that I heard. I thought that was very creative. But if we are using it on the model of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I guess it should be broadly bipartisan. And, frankly, this is a measure which cuts taxes for virtually everyone who pays taxes.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question. And what I will say is that, frankly, as we look at the numbers, 1 percent of the American people provide 37 percent of the tax revenues that are paid in this country, and 5 percent of the American taxpayers provide over 52 percent of the tax revenues.

But what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again, is that this measure will cut taxes for virtually every American who pays taxes. And I am so excited about the fact that it cuts taxes not only for those job creators by dramatically increasing expensing for small businesses, by bringing about the kind of increased depreciation which is very important and necessary, but also I am enthused about cutting the top rate on the capital gains tax.

I am very privileged to have worked for years and years and years here. In fact, I have a bipartisan bicameral Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus. And guess what? This measure creates a zero capital gains, and not for those who are in the highest income tax brackets, not for those who are out there creating huge numbers of jobs, but this measure will, in the year 2008, establish a zero capital gains tax rate for whom? For those who are in the 10 percent tax bracket and those who are in the 15 percent tax bracket. And, Mr. Speaker, it also provides a zero tax in the year 2008 for those who have dividend income. And there are many Americans who fall in that category.

So we are achieving, with passage of this measure, a zero capital gains rate for those who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum. And, yes, we are, in fact, cutting it for those in the higher end as well. We are cutting it from 20 percent to 15 percent.

We also know, as we look at the broad cross-section of the American people who are going to be benefitted by this expanding and making permanent the marriage tax penalty, that that relief is very, very important. Also expanding the child credit up to $1,000, another very important provision, will be helpful to middle-income wage earners in this country. So while I hear this measure described by my friend from Texas as only benefiting millionaires, that is an absolutely preposterous description of this very important legislation.

I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud of the fact that we have stepped forward, acknowledging that there are real challenges that our States are facing. My State of California has, tragically, a $38.2 billion deficit. And what is it that we do in this measure? We step up to the plate and provide $20 billion in assistance for those States that have come to us and talked about the very important needs that they face.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we have done the right thing. We are going to lay the groundwork to provide a tax-defined effort to create jobs and growth in this country. This measure deserves strong bipartisan support. The President of the United States stood here at the Capitol this morning and said he looks forward to signing this bill.

While it is not exactly what we wanted from the beginning, we have said that we are excited about the fact that the argument has been over what the size of the tax cut will be, because we know that when our friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority the debate was so often over what the size of the tax increase would be.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the lines about the desire to keep these dollars in the pockets of the American people because they have earned them. We all know that is the case; but we also have to realize that these proposals which have come forward from the other side of the aisle to increase taxes, which is the proposal that we had last week that came from that side, would do nothing to create jobs and encourage economic growth.

In fact, as my friend from New York has so eloquently said, it would have exacerbated the economic challenges that we face. The downturn began in the last two quarters of the year 2000. That was before President Bush was elected President of the United States. Since that time this Nation has faced all three of the factors that the President outlined in his campaign that indicated that he possibly would have to lead into deficit spending: war, recession, national emergency.

No one needs to have September 11 redefined for them. We all lived through that right here in the Capitol; and tragically, many of us lost friends on that day. We also have just gone through a war liberating the people of Iraq, and we know it has been very costly.

We also know, as we have looked at this deficit, the real problem is the fact that we have seen a slow economy. How is it that we are going to generate the revenues to deal with these very important priorities that we have? It is to generate a flow of revenues that we need.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

That is a very good question. I think what I have basically said was this downturn began in the last two quarters of 2000. I did not say whose economy this is or is not. I would say we are all in this together as the American people. We all together stood outside the Capitol as Members of Congress following the tragedy of September 11. We all have been faced with the war with Iraq, and we have all been faced with a downturn that began in the last two quarters of 2000, and we are struggling to emerge. We are struggling to get this economy back on track.

That is why the measure that we passed in 2001 which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) was talking about did play a role in mitigating the economic downturn. Virtually every economist indicated had we not passed that measure, the problems would have been worse than they are today. I believe that passage of this measure will go a long way towards creating the kind of revenue flow that we need. As I was saying, every single time we have cut the top rate on capital gains, we have seen an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

We saw it when John F. Kennedy did it and when Ronald Reagan did it. We doubled the flow of revenues to the Treasury during the 1980s when Ronald Reagan brought about that reduction. In fact, we saw a 500 percent increase in the flow of revenues when the top rate on capital gains was reduced from 28 to 20 percent in 1981.

Unfortunately, in the 1986 tax bill, we saw that rate go back up. That 500 percent increase in the flow of revenues that came by unleashing that potential that was there, unfortunately we saw a diminution of it once we increased that rate.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are going to observe a dramatic increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury once we put into place this measure that cuts for most Americans the rate from 20 to 15 percent, and for those in the 10 to 15 percent bracket, reduces it to a great big zero.

When I think about those at the lower end of the spectrum, I think about those individuals who are starting their businesses, maybe have a home that has appreciated, they want to be able to have the chance to create jobs and get onto that first rung of the economic ladder.

This measure is designed to create the opportunity for people to do just that. This is a very good start. It is a good piece of legislation. I am very proud of the work that has been done by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means, our colleagues in the other body, and of course President Bush in providing stellar leadership for this, as well as Speaker Hastert who has constantly pushed in the direction of trying to reduce that burden.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, does he propose that that American who is earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, does he propose that they receive a $93,000 tax cut? Is that what the gentleman is proposing?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate, I do want to thank the staffs, the majority staff, the minority staff, and the institutional staffs for something that has to happen before the Members can stand before the Speaker and the House in the Chamber and the American people and debate measures in front of us; that is, do an enormous amount of paperwork, double-checking to make sure that what is the desire of the House and Senate actually is produced in the document.

It happens on every bill that comes up. It especially happens on a very difficult and complex conference report, and I do want to acknowledge the tremendous service that our staffs perform for us on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that, as is the wont of legislative bodies, one of the easier ways to gain enough votes to pass a measure is to tend to listen to what people believe are either their needs or wants, collect that in an amalgam, and move forward.

It is my real pleasure to tell the Members of the House that if they have read the text, they will search in vain for any particular provision that is attributed to any particular Member of either body. In the vernacular, this is a clean bill.

I say that because it is very difficult to get people to look from the individual to the collective. That is, when we are talking about reducing something like people's taxes, it is oftentimes very, very difficult to look to the larger, more fundamental societal needs.

And I know we will have a very vigorous and healthy debate on this issue, and everyone will use numbers on both sides. All I request is primarily out of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and listening to the debate that went on on the rule, one individual would stand up and say this was less filling because it only was going to last for 3 years and then it was going to disappear. Only to be followed by another speaker who said this really tastes great because it is going to cost a trillion dollars, and it is going to last an entire decade.

Now, really, I do not care whether you feel it is less filling and it is only going to last 3 years or it tastes great and it is going to last for a decade; but for those of us who also want to participate, you ought to pick one way or the other. When you are arguing on both sides of the same argument, it is a little difficult to really shed light for the American people what this is all about.

If someone is going to watch this debate and they have a child under 17, there is one irrefutable fact. In calendar year 2003, $14 billion is going to be sent to those Americans with children under 17. They are going to be sent checks. They are going to be sent by the middle of July and by August. They will have that money in their hands. If they have children, one single aspect of this aspect of this bill, and we will go on and debate a number of other aspects, this bill puts money in Americans' hands immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, what I really heard in that quote, which I did not hear after it was said, was the Speaker said, And we are really going to have to fight for it because that is exactly what occurs.

We want to help Americans by letting them keep their own money and we are going to have to fight you to do it, because you want to hang on to their money just as hard as you can.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have a very limited playing deck. I am surprised this early in the debate they have already played the class warfare card.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I said they had very few cards in the deck. We may see several come up during the debate, but they just played the class warfare card once again.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the remaining time on either side?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very responsible member of the Washington delegation and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, the goal of this bill, and other bills we will pursue in the future, is to promote economic growth. Increasing retirement savings will promote economic growth by contributing to our Nation's capital stock. Of course we will monitor the way in which annuity sellers adjust to the new, more efficient financial product market conditions that H.R. 2 will create. As we proceed, we can determine whether adjustments are justified.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in case there are any students actually out there in the audience. I believe, if anyone wants to check an almanac, the election of 1960 resulted in the election of President Kennedy with less than 50 percent of the vote and there was some concern about whether or not a recount would reduce that. The argument that somehow there was a significant wave of votes simply is not accurate any more than most of the structures.

Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), I yield myself 10 seconds. I am just concerned that if people are really worried about not having enough taxes, I understand you can voluntarily write a check to the Treasury and at least you will feel real good about making sure that more of your money stays in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, now another view from the State of Connecticut. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I really do wish some Members, and we do not often do this, although we vote on it every day, would read the Congressional Record, especially the day that we debated the tax bill in this House for the first time. Because included in that Congressional Record was a historic first. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed this tax bill, and they said it was going to create jobs, more than 900,000 jobs over the next several years. Read it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do so try to explain to some folks here apparently that currently in the Tax Code, if we have two people in the 15-percent bracket, their combined tax obligation, and they are both single, is less than two people in the same tax bracket that are married. There is no requirement under current law that they both work. One cannot work and one can work. But when they are married, they are filing a joint return. In filing a joint return, they actually pay more in taxes than they do with two single returns.

And I make this statement with some shock and awe that the ranking member of the tax writing committee apparently does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman understands that when President Reagan became President, under the Constitution the purse strings are controlled by the House of Representatives, and the Democrats were in control of the House.