Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with several of my colleagues in support of the Republicans' jobs and growth package, H.R. 2, which we are scheduled to vote on tomorrow; and in fact, this vote is so important, I am really going to be missing a very significant event in South Carolina.

We are very proud that President George W. Bush is going to be commencement speaker tomorrow at the University of South Carolina for graduation. I am just so proud of our president there, President Sorenson, what he has done for our institution, the trustees, Mack Whittle, Miles Loaholt, Mark Buyck, Eddie Floyd. They are working so hard to make the University of South Carolina, my alma mater from law school, one of the best universities in the United States; and certainly having our President there tomorrow, I am just so proud, and I know that my wife, Roxanne, will be right on the front row with our sons Julian and Hunter and Alan to encourage the President.

Our economy is hurting and it needs an immediate boost. House Republicans believe the best way to get the economy back on track is to allow Americans to keep more of their own money, and I heard a few minutes ago that indeed it was not the public's money, it was not the people's money; but I know so well that, indeed, it is the people's money, and that is the first fact that we should address; and I appreciate good people like Jerry Bell of the Lexington County Chronicle making that point almost every week in his publication.

This will give the economy an immediate shot in the arm by accelerating tax relief from the marriage penalty, increasing the child tax credit and providing working families with more of their hard- earned dollars through accelerated income tax relief.

Furthermore, with sizeable, long-term tax relief on capital, businesses will receive investment incentives that will help create more jobs. This Republican plan is estimated to create 1.2 million jobs by the end of 2004 alone and will create many more in the years to come.

On the other side of the aisle, House Democrats are talking about a government growth package. It busts a $30 billion hole in the budget, guts the Republican child tax credit increases, and it weakens job growth by watering down Republican tax relief for small businesses. Once again, the Democrats' answer to every problem, raise taxes and spend more.

Americans are already overtaxed. Americans for Tax Reform, an invaluable nonprofit group headed by the visionary Grover Norquist, has tracked the tax burden in a way that puts it in proper perspective. Each year, Americans for Tax Reform determines the cost to government date which is the average date at which every American worker has earned enough to pay his or her share of taxes imposed by Federal, State and local governments. The cost to government date 2002 was July 1, representing the largest tax burden since 1996.

Today, we are working a full 6 months just to give Uncle Sam his yearly check before we can even begin to earn enough to pay for food, health care, medicine, housing, clothing, college tuition, car payments and all the other needs that we have to provide for our families.

My friend and former Congressman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), put it best when he said, ``Americans are taxed when we turn on a light. We are taxed when we use the phone. We are taxed when we eat lunch. We are taxed when we do brunch. Moms are taxed at the gas pump when they fill the tank to drive the kids home from a little league game. Dads are taxed when they try to save a few bucks for retirement in order to provide for their families, and Grandma and Grandpa are taxed for having the audacity to die.''

Ronald Reagan was even more blunt and always correct when he described the government's economic policy this way, ``If it moves, tax it.''

President George W. Bush understands that Americans are overtaxed. President Bush also understands that the only way to increase jobs in America is to allow individuals and small businesses to keep more of their own money to invest in our economy.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, has crafted a very wise and sensible bill that takes the best solutions of President Bush's proposals, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill tomorrow.

Americans have given Republicans a tremendous opportunity to lead on issues that affect every working family. We must not squander this moment and work to bring them real tax relief. Let us hold true to the commission given by President Ronald Reagan.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream, that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.

At this time, I will be yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). He is a very respected member on the Committee on Armed Services. He also serves on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Agriculture; and I know firsthand the respect that his constituents have for him.

Last year, I went with my sons Julian and Hunter door to door in his hometown of Concord, North Carolina; and that is where one really finds out what people think of their local Congressman, and I found out that he was a person who was well thought of. He was highly respected and my colleagues will see tonight what a knowledgeable and fine person the Congressman from North Carolina is.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Suicide Awareness Week

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the point about jobs.

Joining us in this discussion is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy). I am very proud that he is a member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Government Reform. Additionally he serves on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He is a freshman, but as a freshman he has been the most recent of being truly in a tough campaign and finding out what the people think. I look forward to joining the Mental Health Caucus along with the gentleman. I am proud that the gentleman has taken that lead, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his input. For a person who is leading a young family, the gentleman is making a difference trying to protect them for the future.

As we discuss H.R. 2 tomorrow, the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003, we are going to hear a lot of scare tactics and misinformation, but I would like to go over what the different points are of the act because I believe the American people will understand that this is beneficial again in creating jobs, creating opportunities for our young people, for persons of all ages to have a better life. I am so pleased that we have an opportunity to discuss it tonight, and then tomorrow to vote on it.

The first point about the acceleration of the 2001 tax relief for individuals, the President achieved an historic cut in taxes, and this is being accelerated.

The first point about the child credit, this will increase the child credit to $1,000 for 2003, 2004, and 2005. I am so aware of the costs, having raised 4 children myself, along with my wife Roxanne, and I know how helpful this is going to be to young families as they are able to care for their children and give them the opportunities they want.

The 10 percent bracket, this will accelerate the expansion of the 10 percent bracket for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Marriage penalty relief, this accelerates the expansion of the 15 percent bracket and the increase in the standard deduction for married persons filing joint returns, again in the years 2003, for immediate relief, 2004 and 2005.

Individual rate cuts, this accelerates the 2006 individual rate cut scheduled for 2003 retroactively. That means that immediately the people of the United States will receive benefits, and families could receive a benefit on average of $1,048. This is real money to families, and so helpful to raising children and meeting the needs that we have of car payments, mortgage payments, and medical bills.

The increase in the individual alternative minimum tax, the exemption amount, this will be increased by $7,500 for single persons and $15,000 for joint filers in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

To help create the jobs, the business investment incentives that are in the bill which will be voted on tomorrow, first is bonus depreciation. This will increase the bonus depreciation from 30 to 50 percent and extend it through December 31, 2005. This will encourage businesses to buy equipment to increase manufacturing which creates jobs. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who helped lead the effort to provide for the bonus depreciation increase so that small businesses could grow.

Then we have small business expensing for 2003 through 2007. That is an increase in the amount small businesses can expense. That would be immediately to from $25,000 to $100,000. It increases the definition of small business from $200,000 for capital purchases to $400,000, and the provisions are indexed for inflation.

We all know that the backbone of business in America are small businesses. They provide in my State 85 percent of the employment. They are 99 percent of the businesses. So this is something I really am so pleased to have the support of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. We have excellent groups like NFIB which are letting Americans know how beneficial this will be.

There is another business investment incentive and that is the net operating loss carryback which will extend the net operating loss carryback for 3 years, 2003 to 2005, and holds taxpayers harmless for the alternative minimum tax.

Finally, another provision which will be voted on tomorrow is the dividend and capital gain tax reduction. This will reduce the tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 5 percent to taxpayers in the lowest tax bracket, and to 15 percent to all other taxpayers.

I had an opportunity yesterday to meet Rick Wagner, who is the CEO of General Motors. In his presentation he indicated that there would be an increase in the value of the stock market of between 6 to 15 percent. This is hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars which will benefit the American public.

In fact, the dividend reductions in taxes, a majority of that are for the senior citizens of the United States. So I am so pleased that Mr. Wagner, who is building a home in Daufuskie Island in South Carolina, we welcome somebody who has been such an aggressive promoter of reducing taxes on the American people and to increase the value of the stock market, to increase and give incentives for more investment, more jobs for the American people.

Those are the facts that are very clear. I know and I apologize if it sounded like I was an accountant, and I love accountants, but the American people need to know the facts. They will hear other information. The bottom line is this is beneficial to the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

It is so obvious by the tax breakdown that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) brought out and the points he brought out that we need to be promoting, as the President is doing, the jobs and economic growth plan. I want to quote the President's speech in Little Rock this week. He has clearly indicated that by growing the economy, that is how you reduce the deficit, not by spending more money, as the gentleman correctly indicated the other side is truly proposing, but to grow the economy. His direct quote was, ``In order to offset any deficit, you've got to have more revenues. The best way to have more revenues is to encourage economic growth. The more economic growth there is, the more people are working, the more likely it is that you're going to get more revenues into the Treasury of the United States, and also to the individual States. I'm concerned about the deficit but I'm first

and foremost concerned about that person looking for a job.'' That is what President Bush said this week in Little Rock, Arkansas. I am so proud that he has correctly identified what the gentleman just identified.

I had the great privilege of serving the people of South Carolina for 17 years in the State senate. In fact, the State budget is being debated probably as we speak tonight. I know that instead of just sending money back to the States, we have already had a revenue-sharing experience that did not work and so that is simply spending more money. What we need to do is what the President has proposed and, that is, create new jobs, create new opportunities for people to have incomes.

I know that in South Carolina, we are very proud about the expansion of Michelin Tire Corporation in Lexington, South Carolina. There are three plants there producing wonderful jobs and wonderful tires for the people of America. We have worked hard in our State to attract foreign economic investment. We are very proud that in Spartanburg in the community of Greer that we have the BMW facility. All Z-3s in the world are made there, the X-5s. Every time I have had the opportunity to travel, I have been very proud to know that we have had the economic expansion of BMW in our State providing jobs. That is what we are trying to do in the bill tomorrow with H.R. 2, and, that is, to encourage economic investment in the United States, to provide jobs and to give families the ability to spend their own money.

This does indicate that under unemployment insurance, that the States have received $8 billion. This is from Federal funding. In 2002, only $2 billion of that was actually used. There was a surplus apparently of $6 billion. The bottom line is by creating jobs, what we are doing in the plan that we will be voting for tomorrow, we are providing for additional State revenue by sales tax. That is virtually a universal tax in the United States at most State levels and, that is, by providing for an increase in income, by a person having the ability to keep their own money, when they go to the store and buy products, when they are at Wal-Mart as I frequently am, that with the sales tax, that goes straight to the State. It goes for schools.

Additionally, I am so pleased that this package includes a reduction in the capital gains tax. I can tell the gentleman from firsthand experience, until 16 months ago I was a real estate attorney. I know that by reducing the capital gains tax, and this has been a cause of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for a number of years. By reducing the capital gains tax, this will help again create jobs. The first thing that will occur, because I ran into it, a number of people that I know, particularly elderly people, would not sell property they have, real property, because they felt like they were being overly taxed and they considered it an insult, whatever the percentage was. So by reducing it to 5 percent, what will occur is that people who are currently holding on to property simply because they do not want to pay a capital gains tax, they will sell that property. When they do sell the property, the first occurrence will be construction. I met with the homebuilders association this week. They are very supportive.

The AGC and the ABC, the various construction interests, are very pleased that if we can have a sale of property and the construction, the jobs are created. This also is going to benefit local governments and State governments in that having a turnover of real property, the taxes that are generated will go for schools. They will go for the services of local governments. This is going to be so beneficial because many people in our State, and I think this is true in other States, too, they will actually put goats or they will put a cow on some extraordinarily valuable property in the middle of an urban area. That is because they are able legitimately to qualify for an agricultural assessment.

When they get an agricultural assessment, they may pay $10 in taxes on that particular tract of land. But by having the reduction in the capital gains taxes, by having the sale of the property, by having the development of that property by construction of new businesses or homes, that will generate thousands of dollars, instead of $10 to the local governments, that can be used to build schools, to address the problems that we have in local government, that we have to produce the best schools that we can for our citizens. There is just so much positive in the bill that we will be voting on tomorrow.

I know that the gentleman probably has another question that he wants to ask me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with some other points real quickly, that is, that the President's jobs and economic growth plan is designed to strengthen the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their own money to spend, save, and invest by creating jobs. The President's plan to cut taxes and hold the line on government spending would grow the economy and ultimately reduce the deficit as stronger economic growth and job creation causes revenues to rise to meet the restrained level of spending.

At this time, too, I would like to, as we are concluding, indicate the various groups that are supportive of the bill tomorrow, H.R. 2. In fact, I would like to read a letter which was sent by the Tax Relief Coalition. There are hundreds and hundreds of organizations, in fact there are over 1,000, that are supporting the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003. This is a letter again sent by the Tax Relief Coalition:

``On behalf of the more than 1,000 organizations and 1.8 million businesses of the Tax Relief Coalition, we urge you as a member of Congress to support the full elimination of the double taxation of dividends, the increase in the small business expensing allowance, and the acceleration of all the scheduled income tax rate reductions when the Committee on Ways and Means considers the economic growth reconciliation legislation. As companies and organizations representing businesses that employ tens of millions of Americans, we believe these provisions are necessary if we are to jump-start the economy and put people back to work.

``The full elimination of the double taxation of dividends within the framework of a $550 billion tax relief package is achievable and will have a singularly positive effect on the economy in both the short term and the long term. It will spur consumer spending by putting more money in the hands of shareholders who will pay less in taxes, receive higher dividend payouts and accumulate increased wealth as a result of the upward pressure on stock prices. The resulting increased demand and lower cost of capital will sustain economic growth and create jobs as companies invest in the new equipment, build new plants and develop new products. Many economists also believe eliminating this double tax will boost the stock market from 10 to 20 percent.

``Since small businesses create two-thirds of the new jobs in the United States, the importance of the small business provisions of the President's proposal should not be underestimated. Approximately 85 percent of small business owners file tax returns as individuals and represent nearly 80 percent of the taxpayers at the top income bracket. Accelerating all of the scheduled income tax rate reductions to this year, 2003, will provide approximately $10 billion in tax savings to small businesses that file as individuals. Allowing small business owners to expense critical investments will facilitate economic expansion, so we urge you to support raising the small business expensing limit from $25,000 to $75,000 and indexing it for inflation. These changes will create savings for small businesses that will put money directly into the economy and create new jobs.

``Any proposal that does not include the critical small business provisions and result in the full elimination of the unfair double taxation on dividends will significantly compromise the economic benefits of the President's package and jeopardize the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that would otherwise be created.

``In our view, representing tens of millions of working Americans and businesses, if you do not include the dividend tax reduction and the critical small business provisions, the jobs and growth package will simply not have the same effect.

``This has been respectfully submitted by the Tax Relief Coalition.''

Mr. Speaker, I am just very honored to have been here tonight with the gentleman from North Carolina to present on behalf of nearly 1,000 business associations, businesses and other think tanks that are proposing that we reduce taxes and the tax burden on the American people. I just cannot wait until tomorrow, and I hope the American people follow the debate. I am confident that just as we had the debates following the tax increases of 1993, which when those tax increases were put in place that we heard were so good tonight, the immediate effect was that a Republican Congress was elected for the first time in over 40 years.

And so people do understand these issues. I know in the State of South Carolina that we understand those issues because, in fact, not only was there a new Republican majority in the House here in Washington, but for the first time since 1877 there was a Republican majority and the first Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives in the entire South, David Wilkins, was elected. The American people do understand these issues. We have gotten excellent leadership in our State and here in Washington. The Republicans then achieved a majority in the State Senate in 2001 for the first time since 1877 because people do understand the philosophical differences between the two parties. They understand that we as Republicans are working for limited government, expanded freedom. On the other side, they have tax-and-spend policies. They are well meaning, but they are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

These issues about creating jobs and dealing with the economy are extremely important to families. I would just like to take a couple of moments to talk about another important issue to families.

Later on the floor this evening, one of our other colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), will also be speaking; and she and I have been working together to establish a Mental Health Caucus in the U.S. Congress, and I am proud to co-chair that caucus with her.

The goal of the Mental Health Caucus is to raise awareness both in Congress and among the public of the importance of mental health; and it is fitting that this week we speak because it is Suicide Awareness Week, and it is really the first issue that this caucus is taking up on speaking on the floor.

Every 18 minutes someone in this country takes their own life, and suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States and third leading cause of death among 15- to 24-year-olds. The American Society of Suicidology found that 4 to 8 percent of adolescents attempted suicide within the last 12 months, and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that half a million teens attempt suicide each year.

In 2000, suicide attempts outnumbered homicides by five to three. In that same year, in my home State of Pennsylvania, 1,356 people took their own lives. As a psychologist, a husband and a father, I find these numbers disturbing, as does everybody else who works in this Chamber.

Everyone knows someone who has been depressed in any given year. In fact, about one out of every 10 adults in this country suffers from some form of depression. Every family knows someone who has suffered from this. For those suffering from severe depression, without treatment, nearly one in six will commit suicide.

The good news is that suicide can be prevented if one recognizes the signs. People commit suicide when they are overwhelmed with a sense of hopelessness and are unable to see alternative solutions to problems. Suicidal behavior is often linked to depression or drug or alcohol abuse. These are not the worried well, but these are people whose life circumstances are overwhelming or they have a physiologically based depression or mental illness that leaves them feeling that the only way to end their pain is to end their life.

Those who have suffered the loss of a loved one from suicide know the pain does not end with death. The family members and friends will feel the loss, perhaps triggering their own life struggle to come to terms.

When someone tells you they are thinking of suicide, it is very important that everyone take them seriously and get them professional and medical help. In fact, if someone has reason to believe that, they should call 911 or the national suicide hotline which is 1-800-SUICIDE.

I would like to mention other dangers include talks of hopelessness, helplessness, worthlessness, preoccupation with death, loss of interest in things that a person cares about or giving away valued objects as if preparing to say good-bye.

In sum, danger signs may also take the form of engaging in risky or dangerous behavior, like teens who take too many chances with fast cars or drugs or alcohol.

I would like to highlight for just a moment here some of the things happening in my home State. Since the 1980s, Pennsylvania has made a strong effort towards preventing suicide in youth. The Commonwealth Student Assistance Program was created in 1985; and core teams in each secondary school consist of teachers, principals, school counselors, school nurses, psychologists and social workers from this program called SAP; and they work with identifying students and helping them.

They also have Service for Teens at Risk, otherwise known as STAR, to address problems of teen suicide and violence. They serve children in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

I would like to make one other note here, too, that although I focused on suicide among our youth, a common misperception is that suicide rates are highest among the young. However, it is the elderly, particularly elder white males, with the highest rates. White men, 85 and older, have suicide rates of six times that of the overall national rate.

If we are going to address the problems of suicide, everyone needs to recognize the warning signs. Parents need to talk to their children. Adults and others need to talk to their parents.

This brings us to the underlying important issue of mental health care. Without question, having major depression increases the risk for suicide, and anyone suffering from depression in this country must recognize that depression is a treatable disorder; and we in Congress can do more to improve access to mental health care.

I know that others will be talking about this later tonight, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding on this during this important time when we are speaking about families on many levels. It is important to know we do care about the family on every level, what happens to them mentally and emotionally, socially, economically. All these things are the business of Congress, and they are the business of government; and, again, I thank the gentleman for the time.

At this point, I will insert for the Record my full statement.

I join my colleagues on the floor tonight to call attention to a health care epidemic that claims the lives of three-quarters of a million Americans a year: suicide. This is ``Suicide Awareness Week,'' and it's an important reminder why it's so important for parents, educators, and children to learn the signs of depression and suicide.

I'd like to first take a moment to thank my colleague, Mrs. Napolitano of California, for her hard work in establishing the Congressional Mental Health Caucus, and I'm proud to be co-chair of that Caucus with her. The goal of the Mental Health Caucus is to raise awareness, both in Congress and among the public, of the importance of mental health.

It is fitting that suicide awareness is the first issue that the Caucus takes up by speaking on the Floor today. Every 18 minutes, someone in this country takes their own life. Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States, and the 3rd leading cause of death among 15-24 year olds. The American Society of Suicidology found that 4 to 8 percent of adolescents attempted suicide within the last twelve months. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that a half-million teens attempt suicide each year. In 2000, suicide deaths outnumbered homicides by 5 to 3, and that same year in my home state of Pennsylvania, 1,356 people took their own lives. As a psychologist, a husband, a father, I find these numbers deeply disturbing. Everyone in this Chamber knows someone who had been depressed--in any given year, about 1 out of every 10 adults in this country suffer from some form of depression. For those suffering from severe depression, without treatment nearly one in six will commit suicide.

The good news is that suicide can be prevented if you recognize the signs. People commit suicide when they are overwhelmed with a sense of hopelessness and unable to see alternative solutions to problems. Suicidal behavior is often linked to depression or drug and alcohol abuse. These are not the ``worried well,'' but a person whose life's circumstances of physiologically-based depression or mental illness leaves them feeling that the only way to end their pain is to end their life. Those who have suffered the loss of a loved one from suicide know that the pain does not end with death. Family members and friends will feel the loss--perhaps triggering their own lifelong struggle to come to terms with the loss.

If someone tells you they are thinking about suicide, you should take them seriously and get them professional medical help immediately. If you have any reason to believe that someone is in imminent danger of harming him or herself, call 911 or the national suicide hotline, 1- 800-SUICIDE. Other danger signs include talking about hopelessness, helplessness, or worthlessness; preoccupation with death, loss of interest in things that a person cares about, or giving away valued objects as if preparing to ``say goodbye.'' In some, danger signs may also take the form of engaging in risky or dangerous behavior.

I'd like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the efforts my home State, Pennsylvania, has undertaken. Since the 1980's, Pennsylvania has made strong efforts toward

preventing youth suicide. The Commonwealth Student Assistance Program (SAP) was created in 1985 and operates in all 501 school districts. Every secondary school building is required to have a student assistance program. Core teams in each secondary school, consisting of teachers, principals, school counselors, school nurses, psychologists, social workers, and community liaisons from mental health and drug and alcohol agencies assist in identifying students at risk for suicide or other behavioral health problems.

I am also proud of the accomplishments of the Services for Teens at Risk, commonly abbreviated as STAR-Center, in addressing problems related to youth suicide, depression, and violence. STAR-Center began in Pittsburgh in 1986, and is affiliated with the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. The Center's clinic serves patients in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and since 1996 has treated over 6,400 children and adolescents at risk for suicide. Through its outreach program STAR-Center goes into communities throughout Pennsylvania to address suicide, depression, and other mental health issues our teens may face. And when a suicide or other tragedy does occur, STAR-Center staff consults with educators on how to provide postvention services. This is particularly important given the traumatic impact the death of a fellow student can have on his or her peers. The center also publishes STAR-Center Link, a newsletter featuring best practices on mental health treatment and violence prevention, and its ``Survivors of Suicide'' program is nationally recognized. I'd personally like to thank the staff of STAR-Center for their dedication to our youth.

Although I've focused a lot on suicide among our youth, one common misperception is that suicide rates are highest among the young. However, it is the elderly, particularly older white males, who have the highest rates. White men 85 and older have suicide rate that is six times that of the overall national rate. If we are going to address the problem of suicide, everyone needs to learn to recognize the warning signs, parents need to talk to their children, and adult children need to talk to their parents.

This brings us to the important underlying issue, mental health care. Without question, having major depression increases the risk for suicide. Anyone suffering from depression in this country must recognize that depression is a treatable disorder. And we here in Congress can do more to improve access to mental health care. Legislation has been introduced in the House to provide for Mental Health Parity, H.R. 953. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will support this bill as well.

Jobs and Growth Package

Mr. Speaker, when I came to this town I found it to be very different. Back in Pennsylvania, it is not always one of those things that has such partisan disagreements as Republicans or Democrats or Independents. It is a matter of talking with people and finding out what is important to them. In that I would just like to relate a couple things. Whether it is rural communities in Washington County, Pennsylvania, or towns that are struggling along in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, but Americans are concerned about basic things for their family. I hear them say they want some of their tax money back. Some of the issues that are going to be discussed in upcoming votes about increasing the child credit to a thousand dollars, to eliminate the marriage penalty, are so important to families so they can have money for rent, mortgages, and groceries. It is important because they know what their families need.

Here we are battling within the Beltway, and most Americans do not care about Republicans or Democrats. They care about doing the right thing for their family. When they go to bed at night and when they wake up in the morning, that is what they are concerned about. Whether they have decent jobs is a big part of that. Some of the things that are so important are in this job package.

They included aspects which will help small business. Having owned a small business for a few years, I know how important those aspects are. Again, many Americans may not appreciate such concepts as depreciation or small business expensing, but when you are a small business owner and you are taking the money that is really your family's money and investing it to create jobs for other employees, whether it is buying equipment, whether it is a computer or desk or building new office space, that is money that the family cannot use. They are making an investment, and when government says we would like you to take some of that money to create jobs, it means a tremendous amount to families to do that.

I hope we can lay down the arms of battle and pick up the arms that embrace jobs, and do what is right for families. I believe many of these things here, again when we go back to the streets and the farms of America and ask them what they think, they like

these ideas of creating new jobs and bringing some of that money back home so they can do what is best for their families.

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, pursuant to clause 3 (h)(2)(A)(iii) of rule XIII, I submitted the following macroeconomic impact analysis:

In accordance with House Rule XIII.3(h)(2), this document,

prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation

(``Joint Committee staff''), provides a macroeconomic

analysis of H.R. 2, the ``Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax

Act of 2003.'' 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.

1. Description of Models and Results Format

(a) models

The Macroeconomic Equilibrium Growth (``MEG'') model.--This

model, developed by the Joint Committee staff, is based on

the standard, neoclassical assumption that the amount of

output is determined by the availability of labor and

capital, and in the long run, prices adjust so that demand

equals supply. This feature of MEG is comparable to a Solow

growth model, described as the ``textbook growth model'' by

the Congressional Budget Office (An Analysis of the

President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004, March

2003, pp. 28-29) (``CBO''). Individuals are assumed to make

decisions based on observed characteristics of the economy,

including current period wages, prices, interest rates, tax

rates, and government spending levels. Because individuals do

not anticipate changes in the economy or government finances,

this type of behavior is referred to as

``myopic behavior.'' Consumption in MEG is determined

according to the life-cycle theory, which implies that

individuals attempt to even out their consumption patterns

during their lifetimes.

MEG differs from a simple neoclassical growth model in that

prices in MEG adjust to equilibrate supply and demand with a

delay or lag, rather than instantaneously. This feature

allows the model to simulate a disequilibrium adjustment

path, in which resources may be underemployed or over-

employed (used at an unsustainable rate) in response to

policies that stimulate or depress economic activity. It also

allows an analysis of the effects of differing intervention

policies by the Federal Reserve Board. In this respect, the

MEG model resembles econometric models such as the

Macroeconomic Advisers model and the Global Insight model.

In the MEG simulations in each of the tables below, it is

assumed that the Federal Reserve Board either acts

aggressively by raising interest rates to counteract almost

completely any demand stimulus provided by H.R. 2 (``MEG

aggressive Fed response''), or remains neutral with respect

to any changes in fiscal policy, allowing temporary changes

in demand to affect levels of employment and output (``MEG

neutral Fed response'').

The Global Insight (``GI'') econometric model.--Like the

MEG model, this commercially available model is capable of

simulating disequilibrium adjustments to changes in demand.

The model is made up of a set of equations that estimate from

historical data the behavioral coefficients that determine

the timing and strength of economic relationships within the

model. Comparable parameters in the MEG and OLG models are

derived from economic research. In many cases this

research is also based on econometric analysis of

historical data.

Individuals and firms behave myopically in the GI model.

For this analysis, the Joint Committee staff uses an

estimated monetary reaction function designed to moderate

gradually, but not completely offset, deviations from full

employment by lowering or increasing interest rates. Thus, if

the economy is operating near capacity, proposals that

increase employment and accelerate the economy will result in

increasing interest rates.

The overlapping generations life cycle model (``OLG'').--In

this model, individuals are assumed to make consumption and

labor supply decisions with perfect foresight of economic

conditions, such as wages, prices, interest rates, tax rates,

and government spending, over their lifetimes. The OLG model

is similar to the type of model described as a ``life cycle

model'' by the CBO, ibid.

One result of the perfect foresight assumption is that if a

policy results in an economically unstable outcome, such as

increasing government deficits indefinitely into the future,

the model will not solve. Therefore, to run simulations in

this model, it is necessary to assume that an offsetting

budget balancing fiscal policy will be enacted. In the tables

below, it is assumed that either government spending will be

reduced after 2013 to offset the tax cut (``OLG future

government spending offset'') or individual income tax rates

will be increased after 2013 (``OLG future tax rate

increase'').

The cut in government spending to offset the costs of a tax

cut can be modeled either as a cut in transfer payments, as

is presented here, or as a cut in ``non-productive government

spending.'' The latter assumption is used in CBO, ibid. The

difference between the two approaches is that consumers are

assumed to value transfer payments, and thus work and save

more within the budget window in anticipation of losing them;

but they are assumed not to value non-productive spending,

and therefore do not increase work or savings in anticipation

of this cut. Thus, the anticipation of valued spending cuts

results in more growth in the early years than the

anticipation of non-valued spending cuts.

(b) results format

Because the exact time path of the economy's adjustment to

changes such as a new tax policy is highly uncertain, the

Joint Committee staff presents results as percent changes

during the Congressional budgeting time frame. In addition,

for the MEG and OLG models, which have been designed to

provide long-run equilibrium results, information is provided

about the long run. While it is impossible to incorporate

unknowable intervening circumstances, such as major resource

or technological discoveries or shortages, these models are

designed to predict the long-run effects of policy changes,

assuming other, unpredictable influences are held constant.

Because the MED model is myopic, if the policy simulated is

ultimately a fiscally unstable policy, such as a net decrease

in taxes that produces deficits that grow faster than the

rate of growth of the economy, ``long-run'' is defined as the

last period before the model fails to solve because of this

unstable situation. For the OLG simulations, which

incorporate a stabilizing fiscal policy offset, ``long-run''

is defined as the eventual steady-state solution.

2. Estimated Macroeconomic Effects of H.R. 2

The magnitude of the macroeconomic effects generated by

these simulations depends upon a number of assumptions, some

of which are described above, that are inherent in the models

used. Several additional assumptions detailed below.

(a) assumptions

Effect of tax rate reductions on investment.--Reductions in

marginal tax rates (tax rates on the last dollar of income

earned) on interest, dividend, or capital gains income create

incentives for individuals to save and invest a larger share

of their income, as each additional dollar of investment

yields more after-tax income. Conversely, reductions in the

average tax rate on income from capital provide taxpayers

with more after-tax income for the same amount of investment,

reducing their incentive to save and invest. Changes in the

statutory tax rate affect both marginal and average rates of

tax on these sources of income, providing potentially

offsetting incentives. Consistent with existing research, the

model simulations assume that on net, the marginal rate

effect is slightly larger than the average rate effect, and

thus decreases in tax rates on capital income increase

savings.

Effect of reductions in the dividend tax rate.--There is

general agreement that dividend taxation reduces the return

on investments financed with new share issues. However, there

are two alternative views regarding the effect of dividend

taxation on corporate investment returns financed with

retained earnings. The ``traditional view'' holds that

reductions in dividend taxes would lower the cost of

corporate investment financed with either new share issues or

retained earnings, and thus would provide an incentive for

corporations to increase investment. Alternatively, the ``new

view,'' holds that a reduction in the dividend tax rate would

not lower the cost of corporate investment financed with

retained earnings. Under this view, a decrease in the

dividend tax rate would result in an immediate increase in

the value of outstanding stock reflecting the reduction in

dividend tax payments, thus increasing the wealth of the

stockholders, and providing an incentive for additional

consumption. The model simulations assume that half of the

corporate sector is in accordance with the traditional view

and half with the new view.

Foreign investment flows.--Increased Federal government

budget deficits increase the amount of borrowing by the

Federal government. Unless individuals increase their savings

enough to finance completely the increased deficit, the

increase in government borrowing will reduce the amount of

domestic capital available to finance private investment.

This effect is often referred to as the ``crowding out'' of

private business activity by Federal government activity. A

reduction in national saving may lead to a reduction in

domestic investment, and domestic capital formation,

depending on the mobility of international capital flows. The

government and private firms would compete for the supply of

available funds and interest rates would rise to equate the

demand and supply of funds. Returns on foreign investments

would accure mainly to foreigners and would only increase the

resources available to Americans to the extent that higher

domestic investment resulted in higher wages in the United

States. The MEG and GI simulations incorporate an assumption

that there would be some in-flow of foreign capital to the

extent that the rate of return on capital is increased by the

tax policy. However, the inflow in foreign capital is not

enough to offset completely the increased Federal borrowing.

The OLG simulations assume there is no inflow of foreign

capital.

Effect of tax rate reductions on labor supply.--As in the

case of savings responses, tax rate reductions provide

offsetting labor supply incentives. Reductions in the

marginal tax rate on earnings create an incentive to work

more because taxpayers get to keep more of each dollar

earned, making each additional hour of work more valuable;

while reductions in the average tax rate create an incentive

to work less, because they result in taxpayers having more

after-tax income at their disposal for a given amount of

work.

Consistent with existing research, the simulations assume

that taxpayers in different financial positions respond

differently to these incentives. Typically, the largest

response comes from secondary workers (individuals whose

wages make a smaller contribution to household income than

the primary earner in the household) and other underemployed

individuals entering the labor market. As described above,

labor supply responses are modeled separately for four

different groups in MEG: low income primary earners, other

primary earners, low income secondary earners, and other

secondary earners.

Effects of reductions in tax liability on demand.--

Generally, any net reduction in taxes results in taxpayers

making more purchases because they have more take-home income

at their disposal. Policies that increase incentives for

taxpayers to spend their income rather than save it provide a

bigger market for the output of businesses. The amount of

economic stimulus resulting from demand side incentives

depends on whether the economy has excess capacity at the

time of enactment of the policy, and on how the Federal

Reserve Board reacts to the policy. If the economy is already

producing near capacity, demand-side policies may, instead,

result in inflation, as consumers bid up prices to compete

for a fixed amount of output. If the Federal Reserve Board

believes there is a risk that the policy will result in

inflation, it may raise interest rates to discourage

consumption. In this case, depending on how strongly the

Federal Reserve Board

reacts, little, if any increase in spending will occur as a

result of would-be stimulative tax policy. The MEG aggressive

Fed response simulation assumes the Federal Reserve Board

completely counteracts demand stimulus; the MEG neutral Fed

response simulation assumes the Federal Reserve Board ignores

the stimulus; and the GI simulation assumes the Federal

Reserve Board partially counteracts demand stimulus. The OLG

simulations have no monetary sector because they assume

demand automatically adjusts to supply through market forces.

(b) Simulation results

Economic Growth.--

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.