Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax incentives to encourage economic growth.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 9, 2003 • 11:20 AM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
May 8, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-95, by Mr. Reynolds.
May 8, 2003
Rule provides for debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill (H.Rept. 108-94) shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended, and against its consideration. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
May 8, 2003 • 10:01 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 38.
May 8, 2003
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H3864-3902)
May 9, 2003 • 9:40 AM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 227.
May 9, 2003 • 9:41 AM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 203 (Roll no. 178).
May 9, 2003 • 11:12 AM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 220 - 203 (Roll no. 179).(text: CR H3864)
May 9, 2003 • 11:20 AM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 220 - 203 (Roll no. 179). (text: CR H3864)
May 9, 2003 • 11:20 AM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 9, 2003 • 11:20 AM
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 227 on the floor
TMR
MF
CBR
WMT
CE+19
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 227 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 227 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 227 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), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 227 is a closed rule providing 1 hour of debate for consideration of H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of 2003. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended, and against its consideration; provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, our economy is a global one, dependent on free markets, free trade and free-flowing exchange of ideas and information. But our economy is also local. Its effects ripple through communities throughout America impacting each and every working family. In the final months of the previous administration, America's economy was beginning to slow. President Bush in one of his first major policy initiatives of his new presidency shepherded through the largest tax reduction package in a generation, needed tax relief for working families that this Congress approved in bipartisan fashion. We lowered rates for American workers, made the Tax Code fairer by easing the marriage penalty, and provided an immediate shot in the arm to overtaxed American families and our national economy by providing a well-deserved rebate to some 95 million taxpayers.
The result? The shortest and shallowest recession in America's history.
Then the unthinkable happened. While positive growth registered in the fourth quarter of 2001, the horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11 left our Nation and our economy traumatized, and nowhere was that impact felt harder than in my home State of New York.
Still, our country rallied and produced positive growth in all four quarters of 2002, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. But this calculated growth has not always been readily recognizable across America. The American people demand and deserve an energized economy, complete with expanding job opportunities and investment incentives.
As a logical compliment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, today's bill provides consistent tax relief and growth policies that will generate, on average, 575,000 jobs a year for the next 5 years.
In New York, this will mean nearly 36,000 new jobs every year for 5 years. 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. Plus, it puts more money back in the hands of hard- working Americans. Former President Richard Nixon once said, ``We can never make taxation popular, but we can make taxation fair.''
Two years ago, this Congress started to make the Tax Code more fair, and today we have the opportunity once again to achieve parity and fairness in the Tax Code. For years it has been well-documented that taxpayers in my home State of New York send far more of their hard- earned money to Washington than they get back in Federal programs and services. Frankly, my constituents and their pocketbooks have noticed.
My constituents have expressed their sincere concerns with the double taxation of dividends. Many are middle-class, retired seniors who rely on dividends as parts of their income. This legislation drastically reduces the dividend tax burden, making stocks more valuable and increasing expected rates of return. Stockholders in my district and all across America will have more control over their own money, while at the same time watching it grow at a faster rate.
The effect is twofold: First, to bring fairness to the Tax Code by greatly reducing the double taxation of dividends; second, as dividend paying stocks become more attractive, more potential investors will be brought to the market.
This bill also ensures equal treatment of dividends and capital gains by lowering the rate for each to 15 percent. By lowering the rates on dividends and capital gains, people will be more willing to invest because they will pay less tax on the returns to their investment, and corporate managers may find it more attractive to invest in projects since their cost of capital will decline. When businesses find their cost of capital lowered, it increases the likelihood that they will invest in new machinery, projects and employees. As more people invest, more companies grow and more jobs are created.
Another important component of this job-creating tax relief is our continued effort towards greater corporate accountability. By strengthening dividends, investors will have solid evidence of a company's corporate health, proving the investor's adage that ``profits are an opinion, but cash is a fact.'' By reducing the advantage of paying interest ahead of paying dividends, the incentive for some corporate managers to cook the books will be greatly diminished.
Equally important, this bill accelerates common-sense tax relief for families. By increasing the child tax credit to $1,000 for calendar years 2003 through 2005 and by expediting marriage penalty relief, families will retain valuable resources to help pay for their child's education, make a mortgage payment or help pay off the debt.
As President Bush said, ``If tax relief is good for Americans years from now, it is even better when the American economy needs it today.''
In New York, over 2 million married couples will benefit from marriage penalty relief and over 1.5 married families with children will benefit from the increased child tax credit.
Our country is blessed with a strong entrepreneurial spirit. Under this bill, small businesses will have the option of immediately deducting $100,000 in expenses, a significant increase over the current $25,000 deduction. Because most small businesses pay taxes as individuals, accelerating the top rate reduction means lower taxes for small business owners. That means that millions of entrepreneurs will have more resources to spend on employees, supplies or expansion efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the President has laid out clear goals for a strong, growing economy. Today this body can move one step closer to implementing this plan to create 1.2 million jobs by the end of 2004 alone.
Our country is already facing great challenges, and we must remain diligent in our efforts to tackle what lies ahead. The Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act confronts head on the serious issues before us, boosting employment levels, lowering the tax burden and growing the economy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule, as well as the crucial underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is a tough day when I watch some of my colleagues use kind of a class warfare tactic. I would think I was in a political 101 class when I listened to ``pioneers,'' except I know that the President, when he ran as a candidate from being the Governor of Texas, he took all local money from those pioneers. Not all parties can claim that over the recent decade.
But when we look here, I know something about Grand Prairie taxes where my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, comes from. My wife lived there; grew up there until she moved to New York with me. I know a little about western New York where I reside, but I know a little about Harlem, where the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means resides. They are not rich in my area. They are not rich in Grand Prairie, Texas; and they are not rich in Harlem. But this bill, a typical family of four earning $40,000 will see their taxes go from $1,178 to $45 a year, and 23 million small businesses, whether it is Grand Prairie or Buffalo or Harlem, will be able to create new jobs with new incentives and tax relief under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I did not get here until January of 1999, but I am told since the Republicans took control in January of 1995, every single bill that comes on the floor of this House will have a recommit, and I am here today to tell my
colleagues that this bill will have a recommit so the minority can write it any way they want and it will be up for consideration. We will have a recommit vote, and then we will have final passage, and the will of the House will be done.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip.
Mr. Speaker, I would have to answer the minority whip when we are on my time, and that is I have been reading the minority's press clips since I have been here, and to them it seems to be the biggest deal for mankind what the recommit motion is and how that vote occurred here. So I am confused the gentleman's suggestion today of how restrictive it is, after I read the press releases of so many of the gentleman's colleagues on what they think it is when they moved it before this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the amount of time remaining on both sides?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Regular order, please, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Half of the tax relief package in 2003 is directed to the child tax credit, expanding the 10 percent bracket, eliminating the marriage penalty, accelerating the marginal rate cuts, and ensuring that middle- class families do not face the AMT. 9.9 million taxpayers will not pay the AMT because of H.R. 2. Ten million Americans who are our seniors will directly receive assistance from the dividend return they are going to get in their senior income.
If I were able to signal a message to the White House, I would say, Mr. President, we are on our way shortly to have a rule vote and we are no longer talking about your early ideas, should we or should we not have a tax cut. Mr. President, there is going to be a tax cut when the House concludes its business, I predict, and I predict it will pass by a bipartisan support, just as the one did that the President initiated in 2001.
So as we look here today, we are talking some process, but when I sat in that Committee on Rules meeting last night, over half of the amendments introduced by my Democratic colleagues came forth on how they want to deal in tax planning, not to do away with it.
So today we are moving forward. We are going to have a rule vote, and then we are going to take the bill on the floor, if it passes the rule, and we are going to have an opportunity to debate what the tax policy will be for this country. I believe, not only in my district and my State, but the country wants that money back in their pockets rather than the Federal Government spending it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), one of the great patriots of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker, and I reserve the right to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, our economy is in need of a doctor, but the diagnosis suggests a remedy that is more comprehensive than the Band-Aid approach some of my colleagues suggest. Rather, the economy requires a shock to the system to stimulate a more rapid rate of growth, create incentives to work, save and invest, and encourage more disciplined Federal spending. The prognosis is very promising, but it stipulates immediate attention. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying legislation. A ``yes'' vote delivers money back into the hands of our constituents, the American taxpayers, and sends jobs to our districts.
Mr. Speaker, 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, and include extraneous material.) Mr. Speaker, the rule poses a…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, the rule poses a serious threat to the American economy because it prevents the House from considering anything other than the same old failed Bush economics that have left America with the weakest economy in a generation.
Now, when I am back in my district in Texas, I am often asked a question that is highly relevant to today's debate. That question is, ``Why does the Bush administration continue to insist on more tax breaks for the wealthiest few, while the country is running record deficits?'' So I want to take a few minutes to share with the House the explanation I give to my own constituents.
It all began during the 2000 campaign for President. At the start of that campaign, the Republican candidate from my State of Texas, who now serves as President, made an almost unprecedented decision. He became one of the very few presidential candidates who have ever rejected Federal funding during the primaries. By rejecting Federal funds, of course, he freed himself from the State by State spending limits and, therefore, he was able to outspend his most serious Republican rival for the nomination at a critical point in the primary campaign.
As a part of the decision to reject Federal funds, the Bush campaign established a special group called the ``Pioneers.'' Each Member of this small
elite group agreed to raise at least $100,000 for the Bush campaign.
I submit for the Record a list of more than 5 Bush campaign ``Pioneers'' as compiled by Texans for Public Justice. I also submit for the Record an article from the May 6, 2003, edition of the Washington Post. Its headline reads, `` `Pioneers paved Bush's way with big dollars.' ''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09MY03.011
Lawsuit Reveals 312 New Bush ``Pioneer'' Fundraisers
Austin & Boston: Newly released Bush presidential campaign
documents reveal 312 previously unknown members of Bush's
record-breaking ``Pioneer'' fundraising network. Participants
volunteered to help the campaign circumvent a $1,000 federal
campaign contribution limit by pledging to bundle checks from
family, friends and associates (most Pioneers pledged to
raise at least $100,000). Combined with previous disclosures,
the new data publicly identify 538 participants in the
Pioneer program. Yet the new documents still do not reveal
what each participant raised nor the total amount of Pioneer
money raised. Indeed, there is some evidence that the
campaign has yet to disclose everyone who answered the
``Pioneer'' call.
The new disclosures come in response to a legal challenge
to a provision of the McCain-Feingold 2002 Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act that doubled the limit on individual
contributions to federal candidates to $2,000 and up to
$12,000 in races involving a self-funded candidate.
Represented by the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI),
the plaintiffs, known as ``the Adams plaintiffs,'' argued
that the increased limits would open the floodgates to
donations from the wealthy and make it impossible for
candidates without large networks of maximum donors to run
for office. The Pioneer program is a leading example of the
way that wealthy interests are able to bundle together large
contributions to influence elections. A federal court panel
ruling on May 2 rejected the arguments made by the Adams
plaintiffs.
In response to a September 2002 subpoena from the
plaintiffs requesting complete contribution data and other
information on the Pioneer program, representatives of the
campaign claimed to possess only limited information. For
example, Bush attorneys claimed that they could not locate an
accounting of the total amount of money raised by each
Pioneer fundraiser. Bush lawyers provided only limited
financial data on just 212 of the 538 disclosed Pioneer
fundraisers. The total amount attributed to these 212
fundraisers through some unknown data in the campaign is
$24.9 million, far short of the $60 million to $80 million
that observers suspect that the program raised.
``It's time to end the secrecy over who bankrolled the Bush
campaign,'' said Craig McDonald, an expert witness for the
plaintiffs and director of Texans for Public Justice, a
research organization that has tracked Bush's fundraising
since his gubernatorial days. ``It just isn't believable that
the President's campaign lost most of a $60 million
fundraising list. Has anyone checked Donald Evans' laptop?''
``These documents reveal the disproportionate power gained
by those who can bundle huge sums of hard money for political
campaigns,'' said NVRI Executive Director John C. Bonifaz.
``With the hard money increases in the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act, elite donors such as the Bush Pioneers will
achieve a stranglehold over the electoral process and
ordinary voters will be locked out. This offends the basic
constitutional promise of political equality for all.''
The newly released information and an accompanying Texans
for Public Justice (TPJ) analysis reveals the identities of
previously unknown Pioneer fundraisers. Key facts about the
newly released Pioneer volunteers include:
The campaign credited each of 21 super Pioneers (or
partnerships in which two or three participants shared one
Pioneer tracking number) with raising more than $200,000
through some unknown data in the campaign. Topping the list
are business partners William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds,
whom the new records reveal supported Bush to an extent
rivaled perhaps only by Enron. Sharing the same Pioneer
tracking number, these two Men--who bailed out Bush's
hemorrhaging Bush Oil Co., in 1984 and invested in the Texas
Rangers venture that made Bush a millionaire 15 times over--
delivered a minimum of $605,082.
The largest known single individual Pioneer was Michigan
real estate magnate Ronald Weiser, who was credited with
delivering at least $588,309.
At least 49 of the newly identified fundraisers are Lawyers
& Lobbyists Randy DeLay, brother of House Majority Whip Tom
DeLay.
At least 44 of the just-disclosed fundraisers come from the
Energy and Natural Resources industry, including former
Dynergy CEO Chuck Watson and former El Paso Energy CEO
William Wise, whose companies were battered by Enronesque
allegations of accounting fraud and ``round-trip trading.''
The oil company of Pioneer Ray Hunt has teamed up with
Halliburton to build a gas pipeline through a fragile
Peruvian rain forest that is home to remote indigenous
tribes.
Former Enron chief Ken Lay was credited with raising at
least $112,050.
Two-thirds of the new fundraisers (201) come from Bush's
home state of Texas, followed by 18 from California and 16
from Washington, D.C.
Critics have long contended that Bush's Pioneer disclosures
were incomplete--if not selective. Bush campaign officials
told the media that almost 400 individuals already had taken
the Pioneer pledge by July 1999. An April 2000 article
reported that the campaign had revealed just one-third of the
names that appeared on campaign Pioneer lists obtained by The
Nation. In fact, six of the eleven Pioneers that The Nation
reported by name did not appear in the newly released
documents (all of these happen to be current or former
corporate lobbyists). Prior to the latest disclosure, the
Bush campaign had revealed just 226 Pioneers whom it said had
raised at least $100,000 each.
Materials related to the new Pioneer disclosures made
available at the TPJ web site include:
1. Previously sealed depositions of Bush for President
Committee Finance Director Jack Oliver;
2. A sample of the more than 300 Pioneer tracking forms
produced by the campaign;
3. A campaign spreadsheet tracking 505 Pioneer program
participants (including limited contribution data on 212 of
them);
4. A TPJ-compiled list of all 538 known Pioneer program
participants; and
5. A preliminary TPJ analysis of the newly revealed Pioneer
participants.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
(Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the other side how many speakers they have left.
Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close, but customarily we close by preceding the last speaker on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, because this rule is so patently unfair, I urge every Member of this House, even those who do not care about the integrity of the institution itself, to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider the Rangel substitute, the Rebuilding America Through Jobs Democratic substitute which was voted down in the Committee on Rules last night by a straight party- line vote.
The Democratic plan provides immediate job-boosting help to the economy. It provides fair tax relief by giving working families a break. It does not pander to the wealthiest of the wealthy. It provides a desperately needed extension of unemployment assistance to the millions of people without jobs under George W. Bush. It stimulates the economy by giving tax incentives to all businesses, especially small businesses and U.S. manufacturing.
Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of Republican Pioneers Tax Relief Act. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to consider the Democratic Jobs and Growth Plan; but a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible alternative. Make no mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to consider the Rangel substitute. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
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, this is a day that I do not think our country will ever forget. It is a day of infamy. It is a day that the Republican majority has decided that it is their way or the highway. If they…
Mr. Speaker, this is a day that I do not think our country will ever forget. It is a day of infamy. It is a day that the Republican majority has decided that it is their way or the highway. If they have a bill that they are so proud of, why is it that they believe that the Democrats should not be able to at least reveal what we want to do?
Here we are on the brink in history where we are bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq; but at the same time, we are diminishing it here in the House of Representatives.
This bill that is coming up, the secret Bush tax plan that even the President did not know about, came to the Committee on Ways and Means on Tuesday, we voted for it on Friday and never given an opportunity to bring our bill to the floor. I really believe that it should be shameful that in this House of Representatives that we ever forget what they are doing to the American people.
Some people have just said that if you are not rich, you are not entitled to a tax cut. If you are the working poor, if you are unemployed, you are not entitled to any relief. We truly believe in this House, the people's House, what the majority is doing, they are not doing it to the Democrats who are the minority, they are not just doing this to the House of Representatives and the Congress; they are doing it to America, because they are afraid to allow a different point of view to be heard.
I hope we never, never, never forget this day. I hope when the Democrats get the majority, that they never, never, never do what the Republicans are doing today. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing to the legislative process, but more important than anything else, what they are doing to the good people of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, last evening in the Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said that he would allow the Democrats to bring their substitute to the floor but only under the conditions that no waivers of points of order be made; and then he went further and told the committee, the Committee on Rules, that is, that he did not want any waivers of points of order himself.
So, Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that there is a provision of the Budget Act that makes it not in order to consider legislation in the House that reduces amounts deposited in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is clear that the bill before us today will reduce the amounts deposited into both the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund.
In view of the fact that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has asked that points of order not be waived, is not this bill before us today in violation of that rule?
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to hear you. The House is not in order.
The Speaker is saying that the Committee on Rules waived the points of order that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said last night was not necessary. Is that the ruling of the Chair?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is a day that is going to be remembered in America, in this House of Representatives. A bill has come on the floor. The chairman said he did not want points of order. It is clear that the bill is in violation of the parliamentary rules of this House unless the points of order were waived. It is clear that they planned in the middle of the night to say it is ``their way or the highway.''
It is a bad bill. But to deny Democrats an opportunity for an alternative, knowing that they have the votes, I think has damaged the reputation of this House of Representatives for days and for months and for years to come. Shame on you for doing it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, the staff has given me four violations of the Budget Act, section 401, section 311, and other violations of the House rules.
Am I to assume that the initial ruling of the Chair on the waiving of points of order would apply to all of the violations that Republicans have as it relates to the rules of the House?
Mr. Speaker, will this apply to other violations that the minority is not even aware of now?
I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in view of that protection that the majority gave itself, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House of Representatives.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the majority has waived the points of order on their major tax cut bill, and further that the minority will not have the opportunity to introduce a substitute, under the rule, does the minority have the opportunity to have a motion to recommit?
Will the minority then have the same advantage as the majority in terms of waiving the points of order at least for the 10 minutes that the minority would have on its motion to recommit?
Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are saying that we are entitled to the motion to recommit. The parliamentary inquiry is will the points of order be waived for the minority under the motion to recommit?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health.
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, since so few Republicans want to speak in support of the bill, whether he would consider yielding some time to the Democrats.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from California for whatever he said.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and an outstanding Member of the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), a national leader in his own right, a leader in the Congress, and the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus.
(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and an outstanding Member of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), an outstanding member of the committee and the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in view of the overwhelming interest in America and in the House on this bill, that the amount of time for debate be extended an additional hour.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the chairman of the committee whether he would join with me since he was so cooperative yesterday in the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the conscience of the Congress and a civil rights leader, since the Republicans object to the discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an outstanding member of Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), my colleague and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), an outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, could I get some understanding of the time that is remaining?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a 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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Ohio had the audacity to say what is our idea after they stayed up all night to deny us the opportunity to express our ideas. I am telling my colleagues, in New York they call that hutzpah.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a voice that is heard in the Congress and throughout the United States.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, can I get a reading on the remaining time on this short debate?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
(Mr. MICHAUD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), one of the major drafters of the substitute bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. Speaker, has the Chair ruled on the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford)?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, could I have information as to how much limited time remains.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolutions 227, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax incentives to encourage economic growth, and ask for…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolutions 227, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax incentives to encourage economic growth, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Members should know that we have a statement of administration policy on this bill, and it reads in part: ``The administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 2 and commends the House for including all the elements of the jobs and growth plan proposed by the President.'' I would also like to call Members' attention to today's Congressional Record. In the Congressional Record, beginning on page 3829 is the first analysis of a tax bill by the Joint Committee on Taxation utilizing the power provided to the joint committee by rule XIII. It says in part that ``in accordance with House rule XIII, this document, prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation . . . provides a macroeconomic analysis of H.R. 2.
``The analysis presents the results of simulating the changes contained in H.R. 2 under three economic models of the economy. The models employ a variety of assumptions regarding Federal fiscal policy, monetary policy, and behavioral responses to the proposed changes in law.''
It then goes on on page 3830, 3831, 3832, to examine this bill under those three macroeconomic models, and it explains in detail the models that are used. It says, for example, if Members take the time to look on page 3831 of the May 8 Congressional Record, in part: ``The estimated change in Gross Domestic Product (`GDP') due to this proposal can range at least from a 0.3 percent (an average of $43 billion) to a 1.5 percent (an average of $183 billion) increase in nominal, or current dollar GDP over the first 5 years, and 0.2 to a 1.2 percent increase over the second 5 years.''
This bill, according to the bipartisan professional staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation, says this bill grows the economy. In addition, they say, that up to 900,000 jobs in the first 5 years will be created ``as the effects of the acceleration of individual rate cuts, and the initial increase in investment prevail. Employment increases in the first 5 years because of both the positive labor supply incentive from the individual rate cuts, and the economic stimulus effect of the proposals taken as a whole.'' The bipartisan, professional Joint Committee on Taxation says this bill creates jobs and stimulates the economy.
It probably would be more fun for either side to read the effects of the bill
based upon some particular ax-grinding institute that has a really fair-sounding name that is funded by various organizations because the hyperbole in the way they examine the bill is a whole lot more fun. It is not very realistic, but it is a whole lot more fun.
This is the professional bipartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Tax under rule XIII concluding on page 3831: ``As the simulations indicate, depending on how much temporary demand stimulus is generated by the proposal, the revenue feedback,'' money coming back to the Federal Government by spending money in this bill to cut people's taxes, give it back to them, ``the revenue feedback could range from 5.8 percent to 27.5 percent in the first 5 years, and'' between ``2.6 and 23.4 percent over the 10-year budget period.''
It stimulates the economy, creates jobs, brings more revenue back to the Federal Government. That is what this bill is about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on my time, to respond to the gentleman from New York, I asked that the measures be treated equally and fairly. That was my position. But apparently the Committee on Rules rejected my position, and, notwithstanding the fact that I was trying to support the gentleman from New York, in the opinion of the Committee on Rules, apparently the gentleman's bill was so far out of the normal procedure that they determined not to make it in order.
I had asked that the Committee on Rules treat both bills the same way, and I was denied in my request to the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the committee.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee, for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
I will tell the gentleman he raises an important point, but it is also a part of a larger tax policy problem.
Currently, as the gentleman may know, under the U.S. Tax Code we punish U.S. corporations for being U.S. corporations. Several provisions of our Tax Code put U.S. corporations at a disadvantage versus their international competitors. These flaws in the Tax Code force U.S. companies to move their headquarters overseas in order to compete. We must reform our Tax Code to improve our international competitiveness. The Committee on Ways and Means will be addressing this larger issue in this Congress.
With regard to the specific issue of dividend payments to U.S. citizens by foreign corporations, it is my intent as the legislation process proceeds to craft a solution that treats all American shareholders of either domestic or foreign-owned corporations fairly and equally, while improving the competitiveness of the U.S. Tax Code.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, in examining the number of Members who are enthusiastic on my side of the aisle about this bill, what I am trying to do is figure out a way to allow for senior members on the committee to have a full expression of their support in a particular manner, and there are many other Members of the Republican Conference who are not on the committee and have requested time to speak as well. And what I am trying to do is manage the time in a way that the more-senior members have an opportunity to present the particulars of the bill and that the other Members also have a chance to speak.
So we are going to be working on trying to fit all of the people in.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, it is 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 really have a difficult time understanding the concept that giving people back their own money is greed.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I really do enjoy about the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is that he is consistent. His description of my quote and the meaning of it is consistent with the way in which he presents his version of the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I invite the gentleman from Wisconsin to perhaps read page 3831 of the Congressional Record in which the Bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says that up to 900,000 new jobs in the first 5 years will be created by the acceleration of individual rate cuts and the initial increase in investments prevail.
The gentleman does not want to believe and he has every right not to believe; but, frankly, the facts refute his position.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a member of the committee.
(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, might I inquire about the division of time.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), one of the most senior members of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who understands when someone stands up and says give us more, that is all they ever talk about, just give us more.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. Speaker, we have heard it before, we can afford tax cuts, large increases in national defense and still balance the budget. This is not a new idea. We heard it 22 years ago from President Reagan…
Mr. Speaker, we have heard it before, we can afford tax cuts, large increases in national defense and still balance the budget. This is not a new idea. We heard it 22 years ago from President Reagan and Congress. The result, America's national debt quadrupled in just over a decade.
We heard this idea again 2 years ago when House Republicans speaking today proposed a $1 trillion tax cut and said the national debt will be paid off by 2013. The result, last month those same Republicans had to vote to increase the national debt ceiling in 2013 to $12 trillion, a $6 trillion increase. Result: we have gone from the largest
surplus in American history to the largest deficit in American history in just over 2 years and 2.5 million workers have lost their jobs.
Now those same House Republicans want us to follow their lead once again, asking us to ignore their $12 trillion miscalculation just 24 months ago. It is tempting to be swayed by their siren song of simple solutions, cut taxes by trillions, balance the budget, no sacrifice, no tough choices; and how I wish it were that simple. If it were, we could triple the size of this tax cut today and pay off the national debt tomorrow. The free-lunch philosophy might make for good sound bites, but it is fiscally irresponsible policy.
The Congressional Budget Office, headed by President Bush's, one of his top White House economists, just a year or two ago recently concluded that any economic growth in the administration's tax cut proposals would be offset by the long-term drag effect of massive structural deficits as far as the eye can see.
This is a growth bill all right. It will grow our national debt and the taxes our children will have to pay in interest on that debt for the rest of their lives. Once the economy gets on its feet, $300 billion annual deficits, structural deficits will stifle business growth by soaking up capital and driving up interest costs for buying new homes, cars, running businesses or family farms.
The free-lunch philosophy has not worked in the past, and it will not work today. Vote ``no'' on this fiscally irresponsible bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard it before: ``We can afford massive tax cuts, large increases in national defense and still balance the budget.'' This is not a new idea. We heard it 22 years ago from Congress and President Reagan. The result? America's national debt quadrupled in just over a decade.
We heard this idea 2 years ago when House Republicans proposed a trillion dollar tax cut and said the national debt will be paid off by 2013. The result? Last month those same Republicans had to vote to increase the national debt in 2013 to $12 trillion, a $6 trillion increase. The result? We have gone from the largest surplus in American history to the largest deficit in American history in just over 2 years and 2\1/2\ million workers have lost their jobs.
Now, those same House Republicans want us to follow their lead once again, asking us to ignore their $12 trillion miscalculation just two years ago. ``Let's have more massive tax cuts, increase defense spending, rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, and oh, yes, we will balance the budget.''
It is tempting to be swayed by the siren song of simple solutions-- cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars and balance the budget--no sacrifice and no tough choices. How I wish it were that simple. If it were, we could triple the size of this tax cut and pay off the national debt right a way.
The free lunch philosophy might make for good sound bites, but it is fiscally irresponsible policy. That philosophy quadrupled our national debt in the 1980s and it contributed to our going from the largest surplus to the largest deficit in American history.
The Congressional Budget Office, headed by one of President Bush's top White House economists recently concluded that any economic growth from the administration's tax cuts would be offset by the long-term drag effect of massive structural deficits for as far as the eye can see.
I hear supporters of this tax bill say we could pay for the tax cuts with spending cuts. Well, show me the beef. The truth is that the administration is proposing increases in three of the five largest Federal programs: defense, medicare and interest on the national debt.
It took House Republicans all of 2 weeks to completely retreat from their proposals to cut Medicare by $162 billion, Medicaid by $110 billion and veterans benefits by $28 billion. And, frankly, I hope the House will reject the administration plan to cut highway spending and education funds for military children even while their parents are deployed to Iraq.
The dirty little secret in this process is that the tax cut deal in this bill does not mention the fiscal impact of $795 billion in additional tax cuts proposed by the administration or Congressional Republicans.
So, here we go again. Pass massive tax cuts. Talk tough on spending cuts, knowing full well Congress won't pass those spending cuts. The end result? Exactly what it was in 1981 and 2001--tax cuts paid for by massive borrowing from our children and grandchildren.
This is a growth bill all right. It will grow our national debt and the taxes our children will have to pay on the interest on that debt. Once the economy gets on its feet, $300 billion annual deficits will stifle business growth by soaking up capital and driving up interest costs on houses, cars, businesses and farmers.
The free lunch philosophy has not worked in the past and it will not work today.
If we are to have a tax cut, it should focus its stimulus now, not 10 years from now, it should be fair to average working Americans and it should not do damage to our long-term national debt.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, just like last year when the Democrats did not have a budget, this year they do not have an economic plan. They have a press release that they rushed to the floor today, had it put into…
Mr. Speaker, just like last year when the Democrats did not have a budget, this year they do not have an economic plan. They have a press release that they rushed to the floor today, had it put into legislative language, but it is basically a press release. What does it do? It spends and it taxes. In fact, in the Committee on Ways and Means, half of the amendments that were introduced raised taxes on the American people.
I do not know what economics book they are reading; but not only do we not raise taxes during a recession, but as the gentleman earlier said, it does not cost the government when we talk about tax cuts. Taxes cost Americans. When we leave money in the pockets of the people that earned the money in the first place, that is what is called America. When we tax and spend, that is what is called liberalism.
Unfortunately, that is what we are offered with more today. The Democratic plan increases the debt actually more than the Republican plan. Just like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, the plan for the Republicans increases the debt; we have had the Democratic plan scored over 10 years, and it increases the debt $1.7 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2--``The Jobs and Growth Act of 2003.''
This bill is appropriately named--it provides tax relief to boost economic growth and create jobs. And that is what workers and their families in Iowa and across the nation need today--a stronger economy and more jobs.
We cannot afford to sit back and do nothing. We are rising to the challenge and taking action to get our economy growing again. We will help ensure that every worker who wants a job can be fully employed.
The economy is struggling to overcome a number of shocks that no one anticipated: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; a recession; the ongoing war on terror; military conflicts in Afghanistan and in Iraq; and a bursting of the stock market bubble. We should be thankful that our Nation's economy has been relatively resilient in the face of such shocks. Things could be much worse.
In 2001, we passed tax relief legislation--including $40 billion in tax rebates--that was perfectly timed to help keep the recession from being worse than it was. Last year, we passed stimulus legislation-- ``The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act''--that included business investment incentives and extended unemployment benefits. Without these policies, the economy would be in much worse shape and an additional 1\1/2\ million jobs would have been lost.
But things aren't as good as we want them to be. Our economy has lost 2 million jobs over the past 2 years and the unemployment rate is up to 6 percent. We've had a half million jobs lost in just the last 3 months. Real GDP is growing at only 1\1/2\ percent over the past 6 months. The evidence is clear: We need to adopt policies to help boost our economy and create jobs.
This bill will do that. It will help families in Iowa. It will help businesses. It will promote investment and jobs. It will help to get our economy growing again. It provides for immediate help for all taxpayers, including lower income tax rates, increased child tax credits, and marriage penalty relief.
When it comes to job creation, small businesses are the engine that keeps our economy pumping. Small business investment in Iowa and across the nation will particularly benefit from the higher depreciation allowances that will reduce the cost of new equipment that businesses need to maintain operations and grow. There will be an improved flow of investment funds for new capital investments from the reduction in capital gains and dividend income tax rates.
We've heard various estimates about how many jobs the President's plan would create; or how many jobs a bill at $550 billion, or at $350 billion would create. Or how many the Democrats want to claim from their proposal. What we know is that this bill, H.R. 2, has more tax relief in FY 2003 and FY 2004 than was even included in the President's plan. It certainly has more tax relief than in the Democrats' plan--and more total stimulus, too. The tax relief of this bill will clearly help to create as many or more jobs than either the President's plan or the Democrats's plan--and the numbers we've heard for those plans are in the range of 1 million to 1.4 million jobs. This bill will boost jobs by well over a million jobs by the end of 2004. This legislation will add an estimated more than 9,000 jobs in Iowa just in 2004 alone.
Our plan will promote sustained growth in the economy and jobs. The Democratic plan is like a rug pulled out from underneath the economy. They want to raise taxes by nearly $200 billion. Their plan would kill economic growth and jobs right when growth was getting started.
As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I can say that the $550 billion of tax relief in H.R. 2 is within the revenue and spending levels provided in the budget resolution. In fact, the budget resolution provides for as much as $1.2 trillion of tax relief. And, I can remind everyone that the budget resolution shows a return to a balanced budget. We are in favor of the tax relief that the bill under consideration provides--but we also provide that tax relief with an eye toward boosting the economy and returning the budget to balance.
I urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill--to support growth in our economy and growth in jobs, and all within a framework of returning the budget to balance.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I rise in opposition because the author of this bill is from the great State of California. This bill cuts $850 million out of the State budget,…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I rise in opposition because the author of this bill is from the great State of California. This bill cuts $850 million out of the State budget, a budget that is already bankrupt. That bankruptcy affects every school district in California, every city and county in California, every hospital in California, every police force and fire department in California.
How can Members say at a time when these States are in such financial need we are going to help them by pulling the rug out from underneath them? This tax cut is the worse thing that could happen to the State of California, and it is shameful that a Republican from California is offering it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to read some headlines from my state of California. These
are just from the last few days, but they are illustrative of the kinds of headlines that we have been seeing across our state during the past year: ``Parents scramble to save popular school programs'', the San Francisco Chronicle, May 8th; ``San Jose faces service cuts, fee increases: Budget plan calls for loss of 231 jobs'', San Jose Mercury, May 3rd; ``Budget anxiety--California's teachers worry about layoff'', Los Angeles Times, May 6th; ``Financial crunch hits extra hard'', Monterey Herald, May 4th; and ``Proposed Section 8 changes feared'', Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 2nd.
Across the state of California, both statewide government agencies and local municipalities are feeling the crush of the approximately $35 billion budget shortfall. The state is looking for help. We are asking, much like New York City did in 1975, for help from our national leaders. And, much like Ford did in that day, the President and Republican leaders here in Congress are sending a message to California: G.O.P. to California: Drop dead.
The so-called ``stimulus package'' proposed by Representative Thomas calls for--depending on who you listen to--somewhere between $300 and $500 billion in tax cuts. Included in this package is legislation that would do away with taxes on dividends.
What the President and the Republicans, and even Representative Thomas, a California, have not told you is that this elimination of taxes on dividends will not just affected the amount of revenue coming into the federal government, it will also affect the amount of money collected by the states. The Legislative Analysis office of the State of California has calculated the State will lose approximately $850 million in income tax revenues if dividends are no longer counted as taxable income. $850 million. This will only serve to increase the budget gap that already exists. I am fairly certain the returns to individual California as a result proposed will not be as great as the losses the entire state.
Unlike the Senate proposal. Thomas' proposal does not include any direct assistance to the states. In fact, the President is seeking to cut funding entirely to programs that have been beneficial to California.
The COPs program has been a wildly successful program in the state of California, which provided 437 more police officers on the streets in California last year. What does Bush do? He eliminates the funding from his proposed budget.
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program assists California in jailing alien criminals. What does Bush do? He eliminates the funding in his proposed budget.
Section 8 housing funds for low-income citizens, administered by the HUD, has provided millions of families into housing across the nation. Sure, it's not a perfect program, but the President would like to see the states administrater the program instead. He claims this will save the Federal government money--but it he at all concerned with the costs, administrative and otherwise, but will be passed onto the states as a result?
There is not one penny in this legislation to assist the states. There is not one shred of hope for the state of California, or the nearly 250,000 people who are unemployed, in this bill. How can anyone in the California delegation allow our state to suffer? How can you present them with this kind of legislation and not offer them any kind of assistance? I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and allow the Democratic substitute to be debated--which includes $40 billion in direct assistance to the states. Otherwise, I can see the headlines now: ``State Falls Deeper into Debt''; ``More jobs eliminated''; and ``Schools closing across California.''
Let's change the headlines. Let's do it now, vote down the Thomas bill and consider the democratic alternative immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) spoke about the fact that Democrats have received a motion to recommit for all the years that he is here. For all the years he is here, if we added up all of the motions to recommit that are allowed by the Republican majority, it would not add up to 9 hours of debate. We are given 10 minutes on a motion to recommit. That does not help very much in a free and open society in what is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world. That has been curtailed and democracy loses when we close our rules, and democracy loses here today.
Regarding the substance of the matter, envision that you are profoundly in debt and you have only a portion of the money you need to pay for major expenses coming up. What would you do? Would you, instead of working harder, saving more and paying off your debt as soon as possible, run up your credit card balance with expensive gifts for your wealthiest friends? No. The mere idea is preposterous.
Mr. Speaker, if our economy was growing like it was before last year's obese, obtuse and downright obnoxious tax cut, I would be the first one to support cutting taxes, but our economy is not growing. In fact, it is hurting more that we are in a war, the war on terrorism, and we are not funding our homeland security responsibilities. The President and majority argue that further tax cuts will head off recession because to them tax cuts are a one-size-fits-all solution. The President and the majority have a tax cut obsession.
Stretched over 10 years and designed with wrong priorities in mind, the cuts are not aimed where they can light a fire under the economy. Instead, the Thomas tax plan takes money out of needed social programs and gives it to people who are wealthy. Right now America needs an economic plan that focuses on providing relief to low and middle income families hardest hit by the Bush recession. Instead of making tax cuts for families a priority, Republicans make the increase in the child tax credit a temporary afterthought. The so-called increase in the child credit is like a magic trick, sort of like the marriage penalty, it is there and in 3 years it is gone.
Indeed, America's greatness is based on its willingness to sacrifice today for the freedom and prosperity of tomorrow. This tax cut plan is completely out of touch with economic reality in America. It might as well come out of the Iraqi Information Ministry. We know how truthful they are.
House Democrats are proposing a package that is front-loaded and fast acting, a real stimulus plan that will jump-start the economy. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and on the underlying principle: The bigger the wallet, the bigger the benefit.
Mr. Speaker, the following is the story of Thomas Zogg, one of my constituents that e-mailed me, which is emblematic of the problems we are talking about today.
Dear Congressman Hastings, I wanted to bring to your
attention that while I most certainly appreciate the help I'm
getting from Unemployment, the bi-weekly payment of $550.00
is just not enough.
I was laid off back in August of 2002 and have yet to
secure a job that actually pays enough to survive.
So far, I have had to spend all of my savings, cash in my
retirement plan, sell my car just to make ends and pay the
rent. It's a terrible situation and now that I have nothing
of value left to sell, all of my unemployment money needs to
go toward paying rent.
All of my bills are falling behind, and there is no money
left to buy food. I don't even have any money to relocate
even if I could find a job outside of Florida.
I'm not sure what to do next.
I can't get health insurance, and as a diabetic, and I
can't afford to pay for a doctor's visit to get a
prescription. I can't afford to pay for medication either.
Lets hope it gets better soon or I'll be homeless.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We just heard a representation of what their bill is going to do. We ought to judge the credibility of those representations. The…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
We just heard a representation of what their bill is going to do. We ought to judge the credibility of those representations. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), October 24, 2001: ``This tax plan is the right medicine for our economy. It is the best way to put people back to work and create jobs.''
After we adopted his policy, we have lost 2.7 million jobs in America.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``The Democrats bring to the floor today a tax package that will cost jobs.'' He said that May 27, 1993. That program resulted in the creation of 22 million jobs over the next 8 years and the reduction of the deficit and the creation of 4 years of surplus for the first time in 80 years.
President Bush said of his last tax bill in 2001: ``Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.'' We now have the largest budget deficit in the history of this country confronting us after the adoption of his plan; and we have just increased, through the House, it has not passed the Senate, $1 trillion in additional debt. That is a debt tax.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) talks about the $45 that they are going to pay in taxes, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) does not talk about the additional thousands of dollars that they are going to have to pay on the debt that has been created and the interest that his kids will have to pay.
Mr. Speaker, today this Republican leadership slams the door of democracy in this House in a style befitting a third-rate dictatorship. It utterly ignores the 140 million Americans who are represented by Democrats. While we preach the value and power of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere, the Republican majority is denying it right here in this House right now.
The Republicans have not just refused to give the Democrats an opportunity to offer an alternative to this reckless, unaffordable, and unfair tax bill; they have breached their solemn obligation to let this House work its will, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in 1993 said that was wrong. I heard the quote so many times: ``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
The Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the presidency; and they have corrupted this House with this rule and other rules like it. A closed rule, a gag rule. It does not allow debates, it does not allow alternatives, and it promotes a program that will further decimate the economy of this country and be extraordinarily unfair to middle-income taxpayers while advantaging some wealthy people, not all; and it will be bad for America.
Reject this rule; reject this bill. Let us do fairness for our taxpayers and for America.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I respect the gentleman. He and I served on the Committee on House Administration. The gentleman knows, however, full well, and the American public ought to know, that a motion to recommit, as the gentleman so well knows, is very restricted. And the gentleman knows we cannot offer our substitute under the rules because the Committee on Rules would not give us a waiver.
So saying we have a motion to recommit, which we do, he knows full well that it restricts us in dealing with unemployment insurance, it restricts us in dealing with the sunsets that the Republicans have put on middle-class income workers. The gentleman knows that; am I correct?
Let us forget about the press releases.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act. This bill is going to provide much- needed tax relief for individuals and businesses to help create jobs today, while…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act. This bill is going to provide much- needed tax relief for individuals and businesses to help create jobs today, while generating long-term economic growth for the future.
According to the Heritage Foundation, this bill creates 67,000 jobs in Texas in this year alone. That is great news for those who want a paycheck, not an unemployment benefit.
The bonus depreciation and small business expensing provisions effectively put business purchases ``on sale.'' These provisions are vital to the telecommunications corridor in North Texas, because businesses that have delayed replacing their telecom equipment should find it easier to make these purchases.
Our economy has been driven by consumer spending, and these depreciation and expensing provisions should help jump-start business purchases.
The rate cuts, marriage penalty relief and child credit improvements help families as well as sole proprietorships, for whom the individual tax rate is their corporate rate.
I am glad to have a significant reduction in the double taxation of dividends. This is not necessarily the proposal I would have written, because I believe, like the President, we ought to eliminate double taxation of dividends. But reducing the tax on dividends from an individual's normal tax rate to the 5 percent or 15 percent rate will help millions of seniors who depend upon dividend income for their day- to-day expenses, as well as help millions of other Americans who own stock.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to give this economy a jump-start by passing this bill today.
I rise in support of the jobs and growth tax act.
This bill will provide much-needed tax relief for individuals and businesses to help create jobs today, while generating long-term economic growth for the future.
According to the Heritage Foundation, this bill creates 67,000 jobs in Texas in 2004 alone! That's great news for those who want a pay check, not an unemployment benefit.
The bonus depreciation and small business expensing provisions effectively put business purchases ``on sale.'' These provisions are vital to the telecommunications corridor in north Texas because businesses that have delayed replacing their telecom equipment should find it easier to make these purchases.
Our economy has been driven by consumer spending and these depreciation and expensing provisions should help to jump start business purchases.
The rate cuts, marriage penalty relief and child credit improvements will help families as well as sole proprietorships, for whom the individual tax rate is their corporate rate.
I am glad to have a significant reduction in the double taxation of dividends. This is not the proposal I would have written because I want to eliminate the double taxation of dividends.
Reducing the tax on dividends from an individual's normal tax rate to the 5 percent or 15 percent rate will help millions of seniors who depend upon dividend income for their day-to-day expenses as well as help millions of other Americans who own stock.
I will qualify my support for the dividends portion of this bill due to the fact that it discriminates against Americans who own stock in foreign companies.
Among the thousands of employee-shareholders in my district who would be seriously affected are the employees of Nortel, Aegon, Nokia, Alcatel Ericsson and Gadbury Schweppes.
I want this penalty to be gone the next time we vote on tax relief.
It is time to give this economy a jumpstart by passing this bill today.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this outrageous rule and its outrageous tax cut. We are not even given time to debate this bill. We can have democracy in Iraq, but not here on the House floor.…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this outrageous rule and its outrageous tax cut. We are not even given time to debate this bill. We can have democracy in Iraq, but not here on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. I am angered by the blatant disregard by the Republican majority for the rights of the minority to offer an alternative. On top of that, we have just 1 hour of debate on this bill that will reduce Federal revenues by at least $550 billion. Not only are the views of the minority members being squashed, but the American people are being denied the opportunity to hear a frank and open debate about the future direction of their country. There is democracy in Iraq now, but not on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
I am also saddened. Saddened by the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of them good friends, have abandoned fiscal discipline. They have embraced tax cuts as a panacea for all our ills. They have made a conscious decision to enjoy their cake now and saddle our children, grandchildren and great-children with debt.
Oh how times have changed. In 1995, the Republican Majority Leader, Mr. Delay. said ``By the year 2002, we can have a Federal Government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.'' I don't often agree with the gentleman from Texas, but on this point I am with him 100 percent.
Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will provide immediate assistance to the 8 million unemployed Americans.
Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will provide immediate assistance to States that are being overwhelmed by budget crises of their own.
Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will provide immediate assistance to small businesses which are the job creators.
Democrats have a fiscally sound bill that will give the majority of Americans tax relief right now.
Republicans offer a plan that has been tried, tried, and tried again. Each and every time it has failed. Giving the wealthiest a tax cut does not spur economic activity. Wealthy people save the extra money. Middle class and low-income families spend the extra money. But, what we have before us today is a whopping permanent tax cut for the rich and a meager temporary tax cut for the rest of us.
Mr. Speaker, I also have some fear in my gut right now. I fear that we will leave many, many children behind because of this foolish tax cut policy. I fear that one again seniors will be forced to choose between paying their rent and buying prescription drugs so that Republicans can provide a boondoggle of tax cut to 1 percent of Americans. I fear that the bipartisan effort that led to a balanced budget and actual payments toward eliminating our national debt has been squandered in a frenzy of demagoguery.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop. Take a breath. Think about what you are doing. Vote against the rule. Vote against this bill. Don't write out a bill, stuff it into an envelope and mark it to be paid by the next generation.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us be clear, this is not a $550 billion tax cut. Take out the phony sunsets, the false expiration dates, and it is easily over a trillion dollars. By our calculation,…
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us be clear, this is not a $550 billion tax cut. Take out the phony sunsets, the false expiration dates, and it is easily over a trillion dollars. By our calculation, the total impact of this tax package, of these tax cuts is $1 trillion 123 billion.
Now, what happens when you force feed another $1 trillion 123 billion to the budget we have got, which is already in deficit? The surplus is gone. It adds dollar for dollar to the bottom line, and here is what happens to the bottom line. This is what you are doing if you vote up this budget, this tax cut today.
The deficit this year in 2003 will go to $426 billion. The deficit next year in 2004 will go to $494 billion. Here is the calculation of it. You cannot see it from there, but come look at it and contest it if you disagree.
From 2004 to 2013 the total amount of deficit that we will incur, this budget will incur over the next 10 years goes to $3 trillion 953 billion, and that is offsetting the deficits with the surpluses in Social Security. If you back out Social Security, if you put it in the lockbox, remember the lockbox, you know what happens. The total debt of the United States, the accumulated deficits over the next 10 years go to $6 trillion 521 billion. That is the legacy that you are leaving your children, our children, and this country if you vote for this tax cut today. That is the course you are putting us on.
Now, here it is stated a different way. The bottom line on this curve shows you that the deficit drops to 3 to $400 billion and never comes out for the next 10 years. There is no recovery. It gets worse and worse if you put the country on this math.
Now, you have to ask yourself is there a better way? Is there some way to do it better?
Mr. Speaker, when I was last up here on the rule, we had this chart here which shows what happens, the damage done to the deficit, to the bottom line. It is $426 billion this year, $494 billion, totalling $4 trillion over 10 years. I ask the question: Is there not a better way? Indeed, we had a better way. We had an alternative which, for no impact on the deficit long term, we could have added, according to the macroeconomic economic adviser's model, the same one they are using, 1 million new jobs stimulating the economy to that effect in calendar year 2003 for seven times the amount of money.
For the $550 billion tax cut here, we only get 600,000 jobs. Why would they not at least allow us to come here in the well of this House, this free market, this forum for America, and present what is manifestly a better plan if we want to create jobs, twice as many jobs as their proposal will create, and it has no long-term effect on the budget? That is because what we are going to do here is start up the economy, but we are not going to increase the deficit and the idea is because that will stifle growth and kill jobs. We had a better plan, and they would not let us offer it. The question is why.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule and the underlying bill. As everyone here knows, our economy is in very bad shape. Unemployment is at 6 percent and millions of Americans are unable to find…
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule and the underlying bill. As everyone here knows, our economy is in very bad shape. Unemployment is at 6 percent and millions of Americans are unable to find work. The deficit is exploding, leading to a crushing debt for our children and our grandchildren. Our States and local communities are facing their worst fiscal crisis in 50 years. Police, firefighters, and teachers are being laid off.
But instead of addressing these issues with sensible, thoughtful, and fair fiscal policy, the Republican majority offers up their usual menu of tax breaks for the wealthy. Part of the problem may be that the Republican majority is so out of touch with the plight of American workers, they cannot even decide what committee has authority over the issue. The chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce says it is not his responsibility, and last night, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said it is not his responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, the Americans who are suffering in this economy deserve more than jurisdictional ``hot potato.'' Somehow, though, my Republican friends figured out who was in charge of tax giveaways to the wealthy, because that is the bill we have before us today.
Now, last night in the Committee on Rules, Members from both parties attempted to offer amendments to improve the bill. The Republican majority rejected each of those amendments. In fact, they denied the minority the opportunity to offer a substitute.
So here in the greatest deliberative body in the world, on a bill with enormous implications for the future of our country, this House is denied the ability to deliberate.
We are told that there is not enough time to consider the amendments, that we need to finish our work early today so Members can catch their planes.
Mr. Speaker, that excuse will not fly. We must make the time to debate and vote on thoughtful amendments to a multi-billion dollar tax bill. This past Tuesday, for example, would have been a great day to debate these important issues. On that day this House authorized the printing of bills on how a bill becomes a law, authorized the printing of a biographical directory of the U.S. Congress, and renamed four post offices.
It seems to me we could have found a few minutes in there to debate the tax policies of the United States, not in a closed and undemocratic process, but in an open and fair process that allows Members of both sides to be able to work their will.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a House that has the right priorities, that helps people who need it most, and that does its work responsibly. Today, once again, the American people are getting less than they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and defeat this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. When we won the majority back in 1994, we decided that we were going to guarantee that the minority had something that we on numerous occasions…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. When we won the majority back in 1994, we decided that we were going to guarantee that the minority had something that we on numerous occasions were denied. That was an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit.
I will admit that we very much wanted to try to put together a structure whereby we could allow a substitute for the minority. But as we looked at what this bill is called, Mr. Speaker, it is called the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003. What that means is we are putting into place policies that will reduce the tax burden so we can stimulate economic growth.
Unfortunately, the package that was submitted to us yesterday by the minority to be offered as a substitute consisted, as was just said by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, of tax increases; and it also goes into a wide range of other areas which have nothing to do with the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003. In fact, we would have to provide waivers of almost every single rule imaginable to have made in order their substitute.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that we have done the minority a tremendous favor, a tremendous favor by saving them from casting a vote in support of a tax increase as we deal with what Secretary Snow yesterday described as a wobbly recovery. We all acknowledge that we are dealing with economic challenges. As we listen to our friends talk about the unemployment rate, we know jobs have been lost, and we know also that this downturn began the last 2 quarters of 2000 before this administration came into office.
We also know as we looked at the statements that were made by the President in his campaign, he said if we faced war, recession or a national emergency, we would be forced to go into deficit spending. And guess what, we have encountered all three. We are working diligently to ensure that we can climb out, and the best way to climb out is to unleash the potential of the American people which we know is limitless if we can provide that kind of opportunity for them.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have a fair rule which does guarantee them their motion to recommit, and we also will have a chance to put into place a package which will do what President Bush has been arguing consistently, to give the American people a chance to keep some of their own hard-earned monies, generate economic growth, and then have the level of revenues that we need to balance the budget, to meet our priorities when it comes to education and health care and homeland security and national defense.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have a wonderful package here. We have saved the Democrats from themselves. Let us support this rule, move ahead with a rigorous debate, and then pass our growth package.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation that deserves bipartisan support. The jobs and growth package that is before us today is projected by independent economists to generate…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation that deserves bipartisan support. The jobs and growth package that is before us today is projected by independent economists to generate 1.2 million jobs over the next couple of years, and we do it in 2 ways: by putting extra money in the pocketbooks of working Americans, by raising their take-home pay, by lowering their taxes, and by providing incentives for businesses to invest. If we want to create jobs, we need investment and we need consumers to spend.
Two-thirds of this tax package goes to individuals. In fact, the average family, the average tax-paying family, if you pay taxes, Federal taxes, you benefit from this proposal. Two-thirds of this package goes to working Americans, individuals. Over $1,000, it is projected, the average family will see in higher take-home pay by doubling the child tax credit, this year; by lowering the rates for everybody, this year; and by eliminating the marriage penalty,
this year. In fact, I have a couple in my district I have often talked about, Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Jolie, Illinois, laborers, construction workers. As a result of this legislation, their marriage tax penalty will be eliminated this year. This is $1,400 that they will be able to spend back home. Think about that. Spend it back home in Jolie, Illinois, rather than back here in Washington, as some do.
But this legislation also creates jobs. It is estimated that it is going to create jobs by encouraging business investment, up to 1.2 million new jobs. The way it does that is that it encourages investment in manufacturing jobs, technology jobs, real estate and development jobs for construction workers. In fact, by doing this, we provide for the bonused appreciation or what some called accelerated appreciation, 50 percent expensing. We should think about that. If we are investing in a business, investing in new security for a plant or a workplace to protect workers and customers and visitors, we will be able to deduct 50 percent of the cost of that this year, creating a job for a technology worker, or someone that is producing that security product. The same thing if it is a machine tool or a company car, or telecommunications equipment.
We encourage business to purchase a product, which the bonused appreciation will do now, and that is why this legislation is going to be so effective in jump-starting the economy now, creating 1.2 million jobs. These are all good provisions and are going to create good jobs for working Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this reckless Republican tax cut in a budget already plagued by deficits as far as the eye can see. In light of the worst fiscal reversal in the nation's history,…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this reckless Republican tax cut in a budget already plagued by deficits as far as the eye can see.
In light of the worst fiscal reversal in the nation's history, the Republican leadership has decided to propose more of the same failed policies. In addition, the leadership is stymieing debate by bringing a closed rule to the floor and prohibiting the Democrats from offering an alternative proposal.
This proposal to be debated today will do nothing to stimulate the economy, create jobs, increase investor confidence, or put money back in the hands of the people who need it the most. In fact, all this tax bill will do give tax breaks to people who don't need it on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
The Republican tax bill is cloaked in a series of half-truths. The leadership has placed a $550 billion price tag on this measure, but we all know that because major provisions of the bill are scheduled to expire after the three years, the true cost of the tax cut will be much higher.
How can this body even justify considering large upper-bracket tax cuts that will worsen the long-term deficit to $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years? We should be paying down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation, set to begin in 5 years.
If Democrats were given the opportunity to offer our plan, the Democratic Jobs and Economic Growth Plan, people would see a true contrast. They would see a responsible economic proposal designed to stimulate the economy now. Our plan is a fair, fast-acting, and fiscally sound alternative.
The Democratic plan includes tax cuts for working families and small businesses, and creates more than one million jobs by the end of 2003 and does not inflict the long-term damage to the budget that the Republican plan does.
Finally, by providing tax cuts to working families and extending unemployment benefits, the Democratic plan helps average Americans, the people most likely to spend money and boost consumer demand, thus creating jobs.
I am sure this body will end up passing this dangerous Republican tax bill, and when it does, we will be adding another $2 trillion of debt that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay. It is almost criminal to be saddling future generations with having to finance a tax cut for us today.
Mr. Speaker, this tax cut is reckless and irresponsible and not in the best interests of this nation. I strongly urge this body to oppose this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Thomas tax plan. The reckless tax cut contained in the Thomas plan is unfair and is irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Thomas tax plan. The reckless tax cut contained in the Thomas plan is unfair and is irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Thomas Tax Plan. The reckless tax cut contained in the Thomas bill is unfair, fiscally irresponsible, and the perverse and persistent Republican obsession with dividend cuts will do nothing to create the jobs that our people so desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, mark my words: This bill will continue the pattern of tax increases in states and municipalities throughout our country as our state and local governments struggle to replace the resources that the Federal government no longer is providing.
True to the Republican Party's credo, the Thomas bill is a rich persons' bill, with relief completely targeted toward those who need it least. It will load up our children and grandchildren with massive debt, debt that middle class families simply cannot carry. The Republicans will euphemistically call this a jobs bill, but just whom do they think that they are kidding?
This bill is hostile to families and loaded with accounting gimmicks calculated to conceal the size and cost of the Thomas proposal. Can you imagine that anyone genuinely interested in middle class families would offer a bill with a $1000 child tax credit for 2005 that actually reduces the child tax credit to $700 in 2006?
While this bill is a very bad deal for low-and middle-income families, it's an answered prayer for millionaires. According to the Tax Policy
Center, on average, the House GOP tax package would provide tax cuts of $93,500 to those making over $1 million, while the typical taxpayer would get an average tax cut of $217 (even less than the President's plan)--less than 60 cents a day. In fact, 53 percent of taxpayers would get less than $100 under the House GOP plan.
Mr. Speaker, our fiscal future is on the line. Where is the targeted tax relief for middle-class families in this bill? Do we want a plan that will create more than 1 million jobs and promote long-term economic growth as the Democrats have proposed, or do we just want to continue the Republican predisposition to pay attention solely to the wealthy?
I will continue to stand for low-and middle-income families, for Main Street, not Wall Street. All of us should. Reject the Republicans' latest early Christmas gift to the wealthy. Reject this ill-considered tax cut. Reject the Thomas bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to strengthen our economy, to create jobs and to provide tax relief to millions of America's workers and their families. This is a sensible,…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to strengthen our economy, to create jobs and to provide tax relief to millions of America's workers and their families. This is a sensible, thoughtful approach to stimulate economic growth and job creation.
The people I represent in Washington State are particularly aware of the need in our economy for a stimulus. Our State's unemployment rate is approximately 7 percent. My State is ranked consistently in the top three States with the highest unemployment rate in the Nation.
In this Congress we have been especially sensitive in extending numerous times unemployment benefits to provide a safety net for those workers who have lost their jobs, but we also all know that the very best safety net for our workers is to stimulate the job market so these folks can go back to work.
Estimators predict that this legislation will create over 1 million jobs by the end of 2004. In Washington State alone, this legislation would create 17,000 jobs within the next 18 months.
These jobs are going to be created largely by the millions of small businesses in our Nation. We all know that small business is the engine of our economy. Nearly 80 percent of the benefits from reducing the highest marginal tax rates will help small business owners.
Equally important, this legislation touches the lives of tens of millions of American individuals and their families. Beyond the stimulus of economic effects, we ensure that taxpayers can keep more of their own money.
By raising the child tax credit, parents can pay for the child care services their children may need.
By reducing the marginal income tax rates, individuals will have more take-home pay through lower withholding. By eliminating the marriage penalty sooner rather than later, couples can save for their first home.
By reducing the tax on dividends, we are directly helping senior citizens who depend on dividend income to supplement their Social Security payments; and by reducing capital gains taxes, we are also helping older parents whose children have moved away and who now are downsizing by selling their homes.
This constructive tax cut package will stimulate economic growth, it will create jobs, and it will leave more money with the people who earned those dollars in the first place.
This is exactly how we should help our economy, Mr. Speaker; and I urge my colleagues to join in support for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the full committee, for his work on this legislation and would urge my colleagues to adopt it. Let me start with a point of agreement with the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the full committee, for his work on this legislation and would urge my colleagues to adopt it.
Let me start with a point of agreement with the preceding speaker in the well, my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka). Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. That is precisely what this legislation is about, to offer economic opportunities, to create new jobs. We can do that. And, indeed, I would commend to my friend a bill we passed a couple of years ago where we reduced the top rate on capital gains taxation, where we offered primary residential exemption. What did we do for our friends in construction, in the building trades? We put people to work. People were buying homes. People had more of their money to save, spend, and invest. And rather than the notion of economic passive visit, and rather than the notion of greed, quite the contrary has been true.
When the American people have more of their own money, it helps Main Street. It helps Wall Street. Mr. Speaker, it helps your street, because people have money to spend. New jobs will be created. The chairman pointed out the findings. We know it has worked. It has worked time and again so it will work in this instance.
Support this legislation precisely because we want to create jobs. Support this legislation precisely because we want to promote economic growth.
Now on a sad note of discord, this Chamber has been compared to many different settings. It is sad that some on the left want to compare this to the Grand Old Opry because in the words of that great country ballad, that is their story and they are sticking to it, that somehow this only helps the rich.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about real money staying in the pockets of real families. We are talking about accelerating the per child tax credit to $1,000 this year. We are talking about eliminating the marriage penalty this year. We are talking about moving forward this year to help our economy grow, to create jobs, and to get it done now rather than hesitating, rather than waiting, rather than remaining in the economic doldrums. Support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I thank my colleague from Ohio who just spoke. One thing that excites me about this bill is it will create 1.2 million new jobs by the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I thank my colleague from Ohio who just spoke.
One thing that excites me about this bill is it will create 1.2 million new jobs by the end of next year, including over 34,000 new jobs in the State of Ohio. The folks from Cincinnati where I come from who are unemployed want a job, and that is what this bill is all about.
I congratulate the chairman, I congratulate the President for taking us down this track. This bill addresses what ails us in our economy.
First, consumer demand is down. We provide more money in people's pockets this year. Someone just said it is not this year. It is this year. Companies will withhold less this year. They will have more money to spend, increasing consumer demand.
Second, it helps small business, very directly, and that is the engine of new economic growth and new jobs.
Third, and most importantly I believe, it gets business investment back where it ought to be. In the last 3 years, every economist, right, left or center, will tell my colleagues the same thing, business investment is down. We have got to increase that. That is what the dividends tax piece is about. That is what the capital gains piece is about. It is to get businesses back in the business of expanding plant and equipment and creating new jobs.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side, what it is their idea? I know some of my colleagues think by sending money from Washington back to the States it creates jobs, but that is government-to-government transfer. I do not see that as creating jobs to ensure that unemployment does go down. It is 6 percent now. It is too high. It is too high in Ohio, it is too high around the country.
To ensure that the stock market goes up, which this bill will do, the economists, again, regardless of their affiliation with what organization, right, left or center, say it will help bring the stock market up.
Finally, in order to get this economy on a growth path again, I strongly support this legislation. I hope my colleagues will do so on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Speaker, what are Republicans afraid of? Are they afraid of the anger of millions of unemployed when they found out Republicans are passing yet another massive tax cut while unemployment benefits…
Mr. Speaker, what are Republicans afraid of? Are they afraid of the anger of millions of unemployed when they found out Republicans are passing yet another massive tax cut while unemployment benefits for hard hit families are about to run out?
Are Republicans afraid of middle-class workers who do not know whether we are going to have yet another wave of corporate downsizing in this country that will put their jobs, their health care and their kids education at risk?
What is clear is that Republicans are afraid of something because they will not even allow Democrats to offer our alternative plan. We go halfway around the world to bring democracy to Iraq, and then they stifle democracy here. What a lesson to all those who we seek to spread the benefits of democracy to. They defile this bastion of democracy.
Republicans do not want an open debate because they do not want the American middle class to see what they are doing. They borrow hundreds of billions from tomorrow to pay for tax cuts today, geared to those who already have plenty of income. Republicans create a mountain of debt on this and the next generation of Americans, and they conduct class warfare when they sunset the minimal tax provisions they provide to average Americans in 3 years, but wealthy Americans, they let those provisions continue to ride for quite some time.
America simply cannot be red, white and broke and meet its challenges both at home and abroad in the years to come. It is time for Republicans to realize that their tax cut is not the answer to every problem. For 2\1/2\ years it has not worked; ask the 8.8 million Americans who are unemployed.
Let us stop squandering the future of American families and start doing something about the economic mess they have created; and if my colleagues will not, at least allow us to offer an alternative that will put millions of Americans back to work. Give us the opportunity for a vote. What are my colleagues hiding from? Let us show the rest of the world what democracy is really about.
Mr. Speaker, in 2001 we approved a tax cut based on the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that we had a surplus over the next 10 years. Today our Republican colleagues come to the floor asking…
Mr. Speaker, in 2001 we approved a tax cut based on the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that we had a surplus over the next 10 years. Today our Republican colleagues come to the floor asking for a tax cut when the Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit over the next decades and as far as the eye can see. In that case, I think it is important for our Republican colleagues to be honest with the American people and go to them and let them know that in order to give this tax cut they have got to borrow the money, and here is the kind of credit application our Republican friends ought to submit to the people of this country.
Typical application from the Members of Congress, always have to list your credit history. Our credit history is that we are in debt today $6.4 trillion. We pay $332 billion in interest. That is almost a billion dollars a day. Our estimated income for the next 10 years is $19.6 trillion. Our estimated expenditures exceed that, 23.6. It is estimated that in 2013 we will owe $12 trillion. And our estimated annual interest payments will be 6 to $700 billion, approaching what it costs to fund the Department of Defense.
So what is our request from our Republicans? We need to borrow $550 billion so we can give a tax cut. The interest cost on it is going to run another $273 billion, and so the whole deal will costs $820 billion. What is the repayment schedule? It is unknown. I suggest that if you present this loan application to your local banker, they would say I am sorry, we are going to have to deny your loan.
That is what we are being asked to do today by our Republican colleagues. Borrow money to finance a tax cut, charge it to the next generations with no prospect of repayment. I suggest this is the wrong direction for America.
We must have a fiscally responsible tax cut like the Democrats propose that was paid for by not increasing our national debt. I urge you to vote no on the Republican proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in utter astonishment at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Here we are today with a plan before us that has the potential to create 1.2 million jobs by the end of next…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in utter astonishment at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Here we are today with a plan before us that has the potential to create 1.2 million jobs by the end of next year, a plan that would raise the total value of the stock market by at least $550 billion, a plan that has the ability to help small businesses invest in more equipment and expand operations, a plan that would guarantee working families more of what they earn through increases in the child tax credit and further reductions in their overall income tax rates.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to block it.
I wonder if the small business owners in their home towns would disagree with them if they knew they did not want them to be able to buy that extra piece of equipment or keep a little more of their profit so that they could hire an extra person. I wonder if the single mother of two from their community who is working two jobs just to make ends meet would ask them to support this package so that they could provide her with a little extra spending money for food and clothes and rent. And I wonder if their neighbors, who are trying to save for their children's education and their retirement, would want them to support this pro-growth package that would increase the value of their 401(k)s.
Their questions are the same as mine: Why do they oppose job creation? Why do they want to stop businesses from becoming productive and growing their operations? And why do they think they can spend working families' money better than the families themselves?
Mr. Speaker, it is a clear choice before us today. We can complain, we can bury our heads in the sand and do nothing, pretending that we do not need to inject some lifeblood into this economy, or we can look to the future and understand that right now we have the opportunity and the obligation to create jobs and grow this economy.
Let us get on with it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this debate has boiled down to simply a difference in priorities. I agree with a lot of my colleagues that a tax cut is probably needed; but we followed the advice of the other side of…
Mr. Speaker, this debate has boiled down to simply a difference in priorities. I agree with a lot of my colleagues that a tax cut is probably needed; but we followed the advice of the other side of the aisle 2 years ago, and we have heard my colleagues, and the other side knows the facts because they hear from their constituents as well. Their package produced 2 million less jobs, 1 million people with fewer insurance.
What we are asking for on this side is that more people have the opportunity to enjoy a tax cut, not simply rich people or poor people, the wrong people. I do not accept some of the language. I just think more people should benefit. The Republican Party used to stand for that. The Republican Party used to stand for balancing budgets and not running a deficit. I guess power breeds a different kind of mentality here.
Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would say is this, every State for every Member here is running a deficit. My State is running a $400 million deficit, North Carolina has already cut $2 billion and has to cut $400 million more. Michigan has a $1.8 billion deficit; and I would say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), we should help the States.
We made an argument to help the airlines, and it was the right thing to do. States do not have the advantage we have here at the Federal level. They cannot go borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. They have to make ends meet. We should help them because we would save jobs and save their economy.
Last, I speak to the University of Tennessee graduates tomorrow at 9 a.m. about jobs. I cannot brag about what the other side is doing, and they cannot either. Let us pass a real jobs package; let us reject the Republican package and accept the Democratic package.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes on this side and 5 additional minutes on the Republican side.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 227 Reported in House (RH)]
House Calendar No. 38
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 227
[Report No. 108-95]
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax incentives to encourage
economic growth.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 8, 2003
Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax incentives to encourage
economic growth.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the
House the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide additional tax incentives to encourage economic growth. The
bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill
shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill,
as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
House Calendar No. 38
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 227
[Report No. 108-95]
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax incentives to encourage
economic growth.
_______________________________________________________________________
May 8, 2003
Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed