[Pages H2069-H2076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CLINTON/GORE TAX HIKES

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 467) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the tax and user fee increases proposed by the
Clinton/Gore administration in their fiscal year 2001 budget should be
adopted.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 467

Whereas on February 7, 2000, President Clinton and Vice
President Gore submitted a budget for fiscal year 2001 that
raises taxes and fees on working families by $116 billion
over 5 years, creates 84 new Federal programs, places
Government spending increases on auto-pilot, and fails to
offer any serious proposal to strengthen social security or
medicare;
Whereas over the next decade the Clinton-Gore budget would
spend $1.3 trillion on bigger Government--consuming 70
percent of the projected $1.9 trillion in budget surpluses--
thus spending more for the Federal bureaucracy, and less for
the American family;
Whereas as part of the $116 billion in tax and fee
increases--
(1) the President proposes to raise taxes by $12.8 billion
on the insurance products which Americans rely on to protect
their families, homes, and businesses,
(2) the President proposes a stealth tax on our children by
raising the death tax by $3.5 billion,
(3) the President asks us to increase taxes on energy by
$1.5 billion at a time of rising energy prices and increasing
dependence on foreign oil, and
(4) the President wants to raise medicare premiums and
other health care costs by $3.2 billion at the very time we
are trying to insure our seniors' health security by
preserving and protecting medicare; and
Whereas the President's solution is to take hard-earned
money and send it to Washington where politicians can spend
it: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That is it the sense of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) despite having successfully balanced the budget and
created budget surpluses,
(2) despite having protected social security and restored
the integrity of the social security trust fund,
(3) despite the fact that in 1999 governments at all levels
collected $9,562 in taxes for every man, woman and child,
(4) despite the fact our tax burden is at 20.0 percent of
gross domestic product--a post-World War II record high, and
(5) despite the fact that our oversight activities have
identified billions of taxpayer's dollars that are subject to
waste, fraud and abuse,
the Congress should support the adoption of the package of
tax and user fee increases proposed by the Clinton/Gore
administration in their fiscal year 2001 budget, as
reestimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation, and as
outlined below.

PROPOSED TAX AND FEE INCREASES
(Millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. PROPOSED TAX INCREASES

A. Corporate Tax Provisions
1. Five corporate tax provisions with general application 2,340
2. Require accrual of time value element on forward sale 41
of corporate stock......................................
3. Modify treatment of ESOP as S corporation shareholder. 169
4. Limit dividend treatment for payments on self- 10
amortizing stock........................................
5. Prevent serial liquidations of U.S. subsidiaries of 43
foreign corporations....................................
6. Prevent capital gains avoidance through basis shift 270
transactions involving foreign shareholders.............
7. Prevent mismatching of deductions and income 229
inclusions in transactions with related foreign persons.
8. Prevent duplication or acceleration of loss through 93
assumption of liabilities...............................
9. Amend 80/20 company rules............................. 167
10. Modify corporate-owned life insurance (``COLI'') 2,026
rules...................................................
11. Increase depreciation life by service term of tax- 66
exempt use property leases..............................
B. Financial Products
1. Require cash-method banks to accrue interest on short- 76
term obligations........................................
2. Require current accrual of market discount by accrual 52
method taxpayers........................................
3. Modify and clarify certain rules relating to debt-for- 136
debt exchanges..........................................
4. Modify and clarify straddle rules..................... 95
5. Provide generalized rules for all income-stripping 65
transactions............................................
6. Require ordinary treatment for options dealers and 93
commodities dealers.....................................
7. Prohibit tax deferral on contributions of appreciated NR 1
property to swap funds..................................
C. Provisions Affecting Corporations and Pass-Through
Entities
1. Conform control test for tax-free incorporations, 86
distributions, and reorganizations......................
2. Treat receipt of tracking stock as property........... 477
3. Require consistent treatment and provide basis 145
allocation rules for transfers of intangibles in certain
nonrecognition transactions.............................
4. Modify tax treatment of certain reorganizations in 283
which portfolio interests in stock disappear............
5. Clarify definition of nonqualified preferred stock.... 73
6. Clarify rules for payment of estimated taxes for 120
certain deemed asset sales..............................
7. Modify treatment of transfers to creditors in divisive 46
reorganizations.........................................
8. Provide mandatory basis adjustments if partners have 159
significant built-in loss in partnership property.......
9. Modify treatment of closely-held REITs................ 45
10. Apply RIC excise tax to undistributed profits of 4
REITs...................................................
11. Allow RICs a dividends paid deduction for redemptions 1,911
only if the redemption represents a contraction in the
RIC.....................................................
12. Require REMICs to be secondarily liable for the tax 69
liability of REMIC residual interest holders............
13. Deny change in method treatment in tax-free 25
transactions............................................
14. Deny deduction for punitive damages.................. 233
15. Repeal the lower-of-cost-or-market inventory 2,032
accounting method.......................................
16. Disallow interest on debt allocable to tax-exempt 87
obligations.............................................
17. Capitalization of commissions by mutual fund 461
distributors............................................
D. Cost Recovery Provisions
1. Provide consistent amortization periods for 969
intangibles.............................................
2. Establish specific class lives for utility grading 307
costs...................................................
3. Extend the present-law intangibles amortization 245
provisions to acquisitions of sports franchises.........
E. Insurance Provisions
1. Require recapture of policyholder surplus accounts.... 1,622
2. Modify rules for capitalizing policy acquisition costs 5,084
of insurance companies..................................
3. Increase the proration percentage for property and 323
casualty insurance companies............................

[[Page H2070]]

4. Modify rules that apply to sales of life insurance 140
contracts...............................................
5. Modify qualification rules for tax-exempt property and 87
casualty insurance companies............................
F. Tax-Exempt Organization Provisions
1. Subject investment income of trade associations to tax 730
2. Penalty for failure to file Form 5227................. 7
G. Estate and Gift Tax Provisions
1. Restore phaseout of unified credit for large estates.. 430
2. Require consistent valuation for estate and income tax 50
purposes................................................
3. Require basis allocation for part-sale, part-gift 5
transactions............................................
4. Eliminate the stepped-up basis in community property 229
owned by surviving spouse...............................
5. Require that qualified terminable interest property 8
for which a marital deduction is allowed be included in
the surviving spouse's estate...........................
6. Eliminate non-business valuation discounts............ 2,985
7. Eliminate gift tax exemption for personal residence 28
trusts..................................................
8. Eliminate the Crummey rule and modify requirements for 45
annual exclusion gifts..................................
H. Pension Provisions
1. Increase elective withholding rate for nonperiodic 60
distributions from deferred compensation plans..........
2. Increase section 4973 excise tax on excess IRA 39
contributions...........................................
3. Impose limitation on prefunding of welfare benefits... 873
4. Subject signing bonuses to employment taxes........... 27
5. Clarify employment tax treatment of choreworkers RS 2
employed by State welfare agencies......................
6. Prohibit IRAs from investing in foreign sales 126
corporations............................................
I. Compliance Provisions
1. Modify the substantial understatement penalty for 15
large corporations......................................
2. Repeal exemption for withholding on certain gambling 31
winnings................................................
3. Require information reporting for private separate NR 1
accounts................................................
4. Increase penalties for failure to file correct 47
information returns.....................................
J. Miscellaneous Revenue-Increasing Provisions
1. Modify deposit requirement for Federal Unemployment 1,367
Tax Act (``FUTA'')......................................
2. Reinstate Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund excise tax 1,022
and increase trust fund ceiling to $5 billion (through 9/
30/10)..................................................
3. Repeal percentage depletion for non-fuel minerals 410
mined on Federal and formerly Federal lands.............
4. Impose excise tax on purchase of structured 12
settlements.............................................
5. Require taxpayers to include rental income of 75
residence in income without regard to period of rental..
6. Eliminate installment payment of heavy vehicle use tax 320
7. Require recognition of gain from the sale of a 45
principal residence if acquired in a like-kind exchange
within 5 years of the sale..............................
K. International Provisions
1. Require reporting of payments to, and restrict tax 100
benefits for income flowing through, identified tax
havens..................................................
2. Modify treatment of built-in losses and other 524
attribute trafficking...................................
3. Simplify taxation of property that no longer produces NR 1
income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or
business................................................
4. Impose mark-to-market tax on individuals who 500
expatriate..............................................
5. Expand U.S.-effectively connected income rules to 26
include more foreign-source income......................
6. Limit basis step-up for imported pensions............. 50
7. Replace sales-source rules with activity-based rules.. 7,828
8. Modify rules relating to foreign oil and gas 1,151
extraction income.......................................
9. Recapture overall foreign losses when controlled 18
foreign corporation stock is disposed...................
10. Modify foreign office material participation 25
exception applicable to certain inventory sales.........
L. Other Provisions Requiring Amendment of the Internal
Revenue Code
1. Hazardous Substance Superfund Taxes:
a. Reinstate environmental tax imposed on corporate 3,600
taxable income and deposited in the Hazardous
Substance Superfund...................................
b. Reinstate excise taxes deposited in the Hazardous 3,853
Substance Superfund...................................
2. Convert a portion of the excise taxes deposited in the 6,667
Airport and Airway Trust Fund to cost-based user fees
(Administration's estimate).............................
3. Increase excise taxes on tobacco products............. 37,313
4. Repeal harbor maintenance excise tax and authorize ^2,742
imposition of cost-based harbor services user fee.......
5. Accelerate rum excise tax coverover payments to Puerto --
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands........................
6. Restore Premiums for United Mine Workers of American 43
benefit fund............................................
------------
Total: Provisions increasing revenue....................... 88,946

II. PROPOSED FEE INCREASES

A. Proposals for Discretionary User Fees
1. Offsetting collections deposited in appropriation
accounts
Department of Agriculture:
Food Safety Inspection Service fees...................... 3,098
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 55
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.. 115
Department of Commerce:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 70
Navigational assistance fees............................
Fisheries management fees................................ 100
Department of Health and Human Services:
Food and Drug Administration fees........................ 95
Health Care Financing Administration fee proposals:
Managed care application and renewal fees................ 105
Provider initial certification fees...................... 65
Provider recertification fees............................ 250
Paper claims submission fees............................. 415
Duplicate and unprocessable claims fees.................. 265
Increase Medicare + Choice fees.......................... 646
Nursing home criminal abuse registry fee................. 20
Department of the Interior:
User fees on Outer Continental Shelf lands............... 50
Department of Justice:
Hart-Scott Rodino pre-merger filing fees................. 190
Department of Transportation:
Coast Guard, navigational services fees.................. 2,826
Federal Railroad Administration, rail safety inspection 515
fees....................................................
Hazardous materials transportation safety fees........... 95
Surface Transportation Board fees........................ 85
Department of the Treasury:
Customs, automation modernization fee.................... 1,050
Federal Trade Commission:
Hart-Scott Rodino pre-merger filing fees................. 190
National Transportation Safety Board:
Commercial accident investigation fees................... 50
2. Offsetting collections deposited in receipt accounts
Department of Justice:
Immigration premium processing fee....................... 85
Increase inspection user fees............................ 835
Department of Transportation:
Pipeline safety fees..................................... 59
Environmental Protection Agency:
Pesticide registration fees.............................. 16
Pre-manufacture notice (PMN) fees........................ 36
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Extend Nuclear Regulatory Commission user fees........... 1,475
------------
Subtotal, proposals for discretionary user fees........ 12,856

B. Proposed Fee Increases to Offset Mandatory Spending

1. Offsetting collections deposited in appropriation
accounts
Department of Agriculture:
Federal crop insurance................................... 69
Department of Labor:
Implement alien labor certification fees................. 626
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Flood map license fee for flood map modernization........ 546
2. Offsetting collections deposited in receipt accounts
Department of Agriculture:
Recreation and entrance fees............................. 162
Concession, land use, right of way, and filming permits.. 52
Department of Health and Human Services:
Medicare premiums........................................ 1,446
Department of the Interior:
Recreation and entrance fees............................. 297
Filming and special use permits fees..................... 19
Hardrock mining production fees.......................... 86
Department of the Treasury:
Customs, extend conveyance/passenger fee................. 889
Customs, extend merchandise processing fee............... 2,095
------------
Subtotal user fee proposals to offset mandatory 6,287
spending..............................................
============
Total user fee proposals................................... 19,143
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Negligible or no revenue effect.
2 Requires specification.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

General Leave

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 467.

[[Page H2071]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we have in front of us lays it on
the table. It was interesting to hear some of the comments from the
people immediately preceding this about sunshine and let us open it up.
I think that is exactly what we ought to do with the budget of the
President and the Vice President that they have sent over to us.
That budget raises taxes. There is no question about it. It raises
taxes. It is hidden in the fine print. What this resolution does is
say, hey, let us put all the cards on the table. If the President and
the Vice President are going to raise taxes on the American taxpayers,
let us be forthright and let us lay it on the table and see exactly how
many Democrats are going to vote for it.
That is what this resolution does. It says, does their party really
follow the administration wanting to raise taxes, like death taxes for
example? And I can go through those in specific. We are going to give
them the opportunity to vote on it. Because I think the American
people, while our economy is still good, I do not think are very
excited about their philosophy to raise taxes. And the administration,
I think under the guise of a terrific booming economy, think it is time
to squeeze into the pocketbook.
I think it is time to see under openness, under sunshine makes great
growing, or whatever that quote was in the last speech. Now is the
opportunity for us to see where they stand on raising taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Terry). I hope he addresses this issue in his comments.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the floor another package of
tax and fee increases proposed by the Clinton-Gore administration for
the fiscal year 2001. This legislation proposes additional taxes and
fees totaling $116 billion over the next 5 years.
Now, this body a few weeks ago and the Senate just last week and this
week, hopefully, will deal with the conference report on our budget.
The thing to keep in mind is that our budget does not raise taxes. In
fact, it cuts taxes by $150 billion over the next 5 years.
Our budget protects the Social Security Trust Fund. Our budget pays
down the public debt. And we did this without asking our constituents
and the American public to pay one more dollar of their hard-earned
money to the Federal Government. We think it is better that they keep
their money in their pockets than in Washington.
This resolution exposes the Clinton-Gore tax-and-fee package for what
it really is, $116 billion in new fees and taxes. The President and
Vice President propose 84 new spending programs.
So as maybe some of the American public have watched the nightly
news, they may have said, how do they do it? I hear them talking about
spending or taking down the debt and expanding the size of government.
Well, what they are not hearing is the fact that in that proposal is
$116 billion worth of new taxes to do that. That is the smoke and
mirrors.
This package raises, for example, $12.8 billion on insurance products
which Americans rely on to protect their families. Since I have gotten
here, I fought hard to eliminate the death tax. This administration has
proposed a stealth tax on our children, raising death taxes a whopping
$3.8 billion.
At the time that the price of oil and gas have risen to historic
heights, and now leveling off, though, the President submitted a budget
which included $1.6 billion in new energy taxes.
Congress has made an effort to help our senior citizens by locking
away their Social Security and protecting Medicare. Now this
administration submits a budget raising Medicare premiums and other
health care costs by $3.2 billion. This is what we are fighting to save
them from.
Now, I could go on with many more specific examples. But, Mr.
Speaker, I will not. There is something in this resolution for everyone
to dislike.
I, for one, plan to demonstrate my opposition to this tax package and
these fee increases; and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in
voting ``no'' to these fees and tax increases.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great honor for me to be a part of the
Committee on Ways and Means and see that the Republican leadership is
now sharing the tax writing authority with other members on their side.
This, I think, is good and healthy. That way, the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means does not have the responsibility of having
to explain this tomfoolery that we are dealing with on the floor today.
Because it just seems to me that anybody on our committee that would be
talking about the President's tax revenue raises would also be talking
about the President's program.
Because I would welcome the opportunity to vote for a $100 billion
tax increase over a 5-year period if I thought for one minute that the
majority party was prepared to repair the Social Security system for
our kids and our grandkids; if I thought there was just one scintilla
of interest in having Medicare be held whole for those that follow up;
if I thought this was the price that we would pay so that our senior
citizens would have affordable prescription drugs; if I thought that
this bill, which my colleagues just pulled out the cost and the pain,
that this would be something to allow us to reduce our Federal debt and
the interest on that debt; if I thought for one minute that the
Committee on Ways and Means was asking people to pay this increase in
taxes because we were going to invest in our education system so that
all of our kids, from whatever community, will be exposed to the
education and the training that will be necessary for this great
Republic of ours to maintain our competitive edge in technology.
But I do not know who would do this on our economy to just find out
the cost of government and pull that out and say, why do they not pay
for the pain when the majority party is not even concerned about the
security of our Social Security system.
Now, the reason I am not annoyed is because I know that they are not
serious about this. And the reason I know it is because there are a
series of so-called ``tax bills'' that would be reaching the floor. Far
more exciting, I would think, and far more creative and, of course, far
more irresponsible is the idea that they are going to sunset the whole
Code and they will do this on the week that Americans have to pay their
income taxes. And I would suspect that when they go to sunset the
Internal Revenue Code that they will say at some point in time in the
distant future they will substitute the Code with something else.
Well, back in Harlem they call that a pig in the poke, that they do
not buy what you do not know. And certainly they have not demonstrated
the leadership to give us any alternative.
I have been here on the Committee on Ways and Means. The chairman has
no bill. The Speaker has no bill to substitute the Code. But we will
pull it up by the roots and let America decide what we are going to do
in the future.
I know that they have to have something to go back home to at the end
of these 2 years that they have been down here in charge, and so it
does not bother me that that is the reason why they are bringing this
to the floor. But it should bother some of the people on the tax
writing committee that have to explain this.
I mean, give the other fellows an opportunity to talk about taxes.
But for those who have the responsibility to explain it, give us a
break.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all the gentleman from New York talks about the
quote out of Harlem called a pig in a pork or something like that. Let
us come back to America and talk about a quote in the fine print. That
is in the fine print I say to the gentleman from New York. Those tax
increases, they are in the fine print. Those 85 new Federal programs
are in the fine print. It

[[Page H2072]]

is his administration that put it in the fine print. I would like to
see him vote for that. Is that what he really supports? He really
supports a tax increase for the people?
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want an answer?
Mr. McINNIS. I control the floor, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. McINNIS. I tell the gentleman, go ahead and stand up and vote for
those 84 programs. Go ahead. But let us be frank with the American
people. Let us not tuck it away in a stack of papers this high and
stick a tax increase in there. Let us not go into this stack of papers
and stick down there 84 new Federal programs and then under the guise
of a great economy and under the guise of we are going to save Social
Security for Americans, under the guise of all good words that sound
hopeful, we are going to stick this tax increase in there. Forget the
pig in the pork stuff. Let us talk about the fine print.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman) my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York who
said he would be willing to vote for these $116 billion in new taxes
and fees if he knew we could preserve Social Security and maintain and
improve Medicare, I have good news for him. The Republicans are going
to make good on our budget resolution that passed the floor and we are
going to give him the opportunity to preserve Social Security and
improve Medicare, including offering prescription drug coverage,
without any tax increases. So I think we can do both. I think we can
address the necessary problems, the problems that we face as a country
as well as not adding to the already very high burden on the American
people of the highest per capita tax that we have faced since World War
II.
This resolution is great. It is straightforward. It just says, yes or
no, do you support or not support the President's own budget proposal?
It is interesting a Republican is offering it because I am going to
have to vote no on it. I hope the gentleman from Nebraska and the
gentleman from Colorado do not mind.
The reason I have to vote no on it and the reason they are going to
vote no on it is that it increases taxes in a number of critical areas.
One is Medicare premiums. It contains $3.2 billion in increased
Medicare premiums. Again we have disagreements on where Medicare ought
to go maybe, but I do not think we want to overburden people even
further on the Medicare system and take away even more funding from
Medicare by adding $3.2 billion in increased Medicare premiums. $1.5
billion in increased energy costs at a time we are all worried about
rising gas prices. $3.5 billion in increased death taxes, $12.8 billion
in increased costs and fees on insurance products, primarily these are
products that would lead to savings. These are ways in which Americans
save for their retirement.
At a time when all economists, right, left and center, agree we have
a savings crisis in this country, let us not add $12.8 billion in
increased costs and fees on savings. I think that does not make any
sense at all. A report issued recently, just last month by the Employee
Benefits Research Institute showed that personal savings have dropped
by 50 percent in the last 5 years. This is a crisis. It is not
something that we ought to tax, it is something we ought to encourage,
which is more savings. I am pleased my colleagues will have an
opportunity to vote on the Clinton/Gore budget today. I commend my
colleagues from Colorado and Nebraska for raising it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was asking my friend from the Committee on Ways and Means to yield
only because I wanted to respond to what I thought, what I did think
were questions to me, and, that is, I was saying that this was a pig in
the poke, p-o-k-e, and he was saying that this was reduced to writing,
his proposals. It does not make it more accurate just because he has
been able to reduce it to words. It is words that are irresponsible. We
cannot talk about the President's increase in taxes without talking
about a package of benefits that the President has in this package.
But I think the American people, all I can ask them to do is that if
you are sincere in the resolution, vote for it, because I am convinced
that what you have done is to create a resolution to embarrass the
President that has taken all of the facts as relate to the benefit of
his budget and stripped that off and just talked about the pain of
operating government. Anybody that would vote for this standing alone
would be very, very silly. But since the proponent has come from your
side, how you intend to handle this, I do not know.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a member
of the Committee on the Budget and someone who truly understands how to
be responsible about facing up to the problems facing our great
country.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am sitting back here wondering why this
bill was out here just now, and I think I broke the code. In the House
we try and pick an important day to bring something up. I remember we
came out here on Valentine's Day and we passed the marriage tax
penalty. I do not know where it is. It went off somewhere but everybody
thought they got a valentine from the House of Representatives. Now
today we have the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. We get that out here and
everybody says, Oh, well, now, I've finally got some rights, right? Now
we go over to the Committee on Ways and Means, and it must be tax time.
I cannot explain it any other way except over in the Committee on
Ways and Means we are having a hearing about tearing up the Tax Code by
the roots and imposing a 30 percent sales tax on everything. Just
imagine you are going to buy a house and you are going to pay a 30
percent tax on it, or you are going to buy a car and you are going to
pay a 30 percent tax on it. Or you are going to buy a shirt, and you
are going to pay a 30 percent tax. That is what they are talking about
over in the Committee on Ways and Means now. If the taxpayers had any
sense at all, they would be over in the Committee on Ways and Means
instead of hearing these silly bills about a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
This bill, the one we are on right now, is even more interesting. As
the gentleman from New York has pointed out, you pass taxes to pay for
something. The President put the ``something'' out there and said I am
going to give you a prescription benefit for senior citizens, I am
going to take care of the schools, I am going to take care of a whole
lot of things and it will cost something. That is how you do it.
No, no, not my distinguished colleagues from the Committee on Ways
and Means. They bring the money out here and say, Just vote for the
money, just vote for the money, and then trust us, we'll spend it for
you. I brought Mr. Bush's tax bill to the Committee on Ways and Means
and said to them, this man is running nationwide saying if you elect
me, I will give you $500 billion worth of tax cuts. And everybody on
the committee has endorsed Mr. Bush. But none of them would vote for
Mr. Bush's tax proposal when it was put before them. You have to wonder
if this is not just some kind of electioneering rather than any
substantive policy.
Bringing the President's bill out here, I consider it the highest
form of flattery to be imitated. I put that bill in over in the
Committee on Ways and Means a couple of weeks ago and everybody was all
exercised when the headlines said, GOP in House Rejects Bush Tax Plan.
They just were upset by that so they thought, Oh, I know what we'll do,
we'll run out here with the President's taxes and throw it on the
table. But it makes no sense. The President said what he would spend it
for. We have not done anything about Medicare. We have not done
anything about Medicaid. We have not done anything about Social
Security. I think everybody is going to vote no on this.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all the previous speaker talks about playing politics because
of the fact that we bring out the tax increases that the Democrats want
on the American people. I call it sunshine. Bring it

[[Page H2073]]

out. Get into that big stack of papers and let us reveal exactly what
is happening on taxes. You can take a look at the other programs, but
let us talk about 84 new Federal government programs, the creation of
84 new programs under this budget. It is tucked away in the fine print.
Let us talk about those tax increases. That is not something we call
fair game. That ought to be the legitimate practice of representing the
people of this Nation. Tell them what you are about to do to them in
regards to tax increases. Tell them about the fact that many Members on
your side of the aisle oppose the death tax or at least when people are
talking to their constituents they oppose the death tax but when the
administration sends a bill over here, it increases the death tax. It
does not talk about keeping it the same. It does not reduce the death
tax. It increases the death tax. I hope the gentleman gets some expert
advice. Come up here, and I would be happy to go over those death tax
increases with him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this proposal, but I
appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues for bringing this to the floor
to really show the American people what is at work here. It is true
there are two different philosophies and it is not a matter of breaking
a code or, shoot, even listening to cellular telephone conversations,
it is just simply a chance to lay out for the people what is clear.
Those on the left are committed to taking more of your hard-earned
money to spend on more and more wasteful Washington programs. It is
fine. It is a legitimate difference of opinion. But, Mr. Speaker, I
would just ask my colleagues to focus on the teacher who visited me
this morning with kids from the northern part of my district. I know it
will shock the pundits and the spinmeisters who tell us people do not
care about the money they send to the Federal Government, but not only
the students but the teacher was very interested in taxation. The
teacher shared with us the story that he and his spouse will have to
write a check close to $600, a good portion of a paycheck for their
salary, to the Federal Government this week begging the question, why
do those who work hard and play by the rules always find themselves
penalized?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the President's multibillion-
dollar tax increase. The simple fact that I understand the money
belongs to the people, not to the Washington bureaucrats, and that for
years there have been those denizens of the left who tell us again and
again and again that families ought to sacrifice so that Washington can
do more. Mr. Speaker, I think the opposite is true. I think that
Washington bureaucrats ought to sacrifice so that families can have
more.
Again not out of embarrassment but out of courtesy, since my friends
on the left did not want to offer the current President of the United
States a chance to have his tax increases debated, we brought this to
the floor as a courtesy. They now have the opportunity to embrace the
tax increases. Because, Mr. Speaker, the money has to come from
somewhere, and it comes from the hardworking people like the teacher
who visited with me this morning who works hard and plays by the rules
and wonders where his money goes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the vice chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
for giving me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in Congress a couple of years now, and I
fought like the devil to get on the Committee on Ways and Means because
I wanted to be in a position so I could hopefully shape the tax laws of
this country. The committee also deals with Social Security, trade
policy, Medicare, but it seems that service on the committee is to be
taken for granted today because bills like this just pop up out of
nowhere. This bill was introduced yesterday. So for you folks who are
watching this thinking that Members have public hearings on bills, read
bills, that is nonsense. It was popped in yesterday, we have to come to
the floor today to defend it or to argue against it.
As I speak today, the Committee on Ways and Means, the real
committee, is meeting across the road here in the Longworth Office
Building and before us is a proposal to incept a national sales tax, to
pull the tax code out by its roots, throw it away in the garbage can
and in lieu you folks will pay a 30 percent sales tax on every good and
service that you need or purchase.

{time} 1545

But instead of being there to listen to that weighty debate, we are
here talking about a bill that just was popped before us yesterday; but
it is not new, because it was before us last year.
One of my Republican colleagues indicated that this is the
President's budget we are voting on. My friends, it is not the
President's budget, so do not be led astray. What it is, and I will
read the first paragraph, ``Expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the tax and user fee increases proposed by the
Clinton-Gore administration in their fiscal year 2001 budget should be
adopted.'' So the author of the bill says these things should be
adopted. So in a short while we are going to have a vote on this, and
we are all going to vote no.
Remember when we were growing up there used to be this Shmoo balloon.
We blew up the Shmoo and put it in a knot and put it in these little
shoes, and the game was to hit the Shmoo, the Shmoo would fall on the
ground and it would pop back up. These folks introduced this bill, and
the only reason is they want to knock it down.
Well, one would seem to think that after the debate from our
Republican colleagues that in here there is an increase for the income
tax, an increase for the corporate tax. None of that. These are fees
and user taxes for people who use various services. If the user uses
the service, they should pay; and if you do not use it, you do not pay.
Some are good, some are bad. Some I support; some I do not support.
All right, let me challenge my Republican colleagues to respond to
some of these suggested changes in the tax law. Under the corporate tax
provision, prevent serial liquidation of U.S. subsidies of foreign
corporations. Foreign corporations. What is wrong with that? There is
not a one of them who knows what the heck that does.
Another one, require cash method banks to accrue interest on short-
term obligations. Sounds like fair tax policy. I bet the author of the
bill does not even know what the heck that does.
Here is another one. Prohibit tax deferral on contributions of
appreciated property to swap funds. Closing a tax loophole. What is
wrong with that? How many of you guys and ladies are going to pay that?
Zero. A tax loophole.
But we are asked here to say no to all of these, even though in the
entire context of the budget they make some sense. But the President's
budget is not here. This is a little silly game we are playing today,
and I want everyone to stay tuned, because we have got a sillier one
coming on Thursday, and that is to repeal the income tax code,
effective year 2002, and replace it with, we have not thought of that
yet.
So they are going to repeal the income tax and one day maybe the
Committee on Ways and Means I serve on, maybe not, will come up with an
alternative, an alternative. But that alternative is not here today.
This is shenanigans. Let us play the game.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all
Members to address their comments to the Chair, and not to members of
the audience and not to members outside this Chamber.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just listened to this previous speaker. He talks about a silly
game. Of course it does not mean much to him there is 82 new Federal
programs coming in. Of course it does not mean much to him that the
people of our country are going to have a tax increase. Why? He does
not want the fine print of that Clinton-Gore budget discovered. It has
been discovered.

[[Page H2074]]

I would caution my friend up here, he talks about why do this bill?
Why are you bringing this up today? Well, you know what, it is an old
adage: every action brings a reaction. This is the reaction. And what
is it a reaction to? It is a reaction to the Democrats going out there
and not just raising user fees, but raising death taxes; not just
raising taxes, but creating new Federal programs.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure all the Members on this side of the aisle,
the Democrats on this side----
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have control of the floor. Would the
gentleman recognize the courtesies of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has indicated he will not
yield.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not have a point of
order, he is out of order; and he continues to be out of order in
defiance of the Speaker's demands.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am just standing here saying nothing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado may proceed.
Mr. McINNIS. So when you have a reaction, do you want to know why we
are here today about these tax increases, about these 80 new Federal
programs? It is because you guys recommended them, your administration,
Gore, the Vice President, and President Clinton. They come up with
these new programs, 80 new Federal programs. Of course we are going to
have a reaction to that. Of course we are going to have a reaction to
increasing the death taxes.
I wish my colleague could come out to Colorado and visit with some of
these ranching families, including some of my own, that are about to
get nailed on this death tax. And you guys want to increase it? Of
course you are going to have that kind of reaction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask of my
colleague from the Republican side of the aisle was in here is a
provision to reinstate the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund excise tax.
Evidently he is for oil spills. We want to clean them up. There is one
going on right now in Maryland.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not said anything to anger the Members on
the other side. The only frustration that we feel is that it is very
unusual for tax bills to come on the floor that are not sponsored by
Members of the committee so that at least they could talk with us about
them. It is even more unusual that the bill never would even come
through the committee so that our staffs would have been attuned to
understand better what the implications would be about the bill; and,
of course, one has to be very suspicious when in the middle of the
night a bill is introduced and it just reaches the floor on the
Suspension Calendar.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot talk about hundreds of billions of dollars,
or I guess some people can talk about hundreds of billions of dollars,
without having it come before the committee; but we would like to
believe that somewhere in here it makes some sense. Obviously, you have
not really had enough time to make any sense out of this, because you
are bringing up a bill and you are asking Democrats to vote for it, but
the people who drafted the bill are asking Republicans to vote against
it.
Now, I know people do not think much about the Congress, but this
really confuses them. If you have a bill, at least you should be
supporting it.
Those of us on the other side are saying this, that if the $100
billion we are talking about seems to be an excessive burden on the
taxpayer, should you not in all fairness talk about what this is
supposed to pay for? Are you not supposed to say what you have done is
said to the President that I am prepared to ignore the Social Security
System as it is, I am prepared to ignore the Medicare system, that I am
not going to do anything about affordable drugs for the aged, that
education is not on our agenda. So, Mr. President, when you talk about
all of these things that you would like to see done, all we want to
know is how much does it cost, and what we will do is extract these
things, put them in a bill, bring it to the floor, and we will not vote
for it, but we will ask Democrats to vote for it.
No, no, Mr. Speaker. This not only does not make sense, but I do not
really think that it is sound legislative policy. If there is something
that you want a vote for, be creative. But if you are going to bring
legislation to the floor, and then when people pick up the newspapers
tomorrow they find out that the Republicans brought this bill to the
floor, House Resolution 467, but after they understood it, they voted
against it, what can I tell you?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important. The gentleman from New
York has brought up the question of why would you bring up a resolution
that you are going to vote no on? Do you know why? Because you are not
bringing up the tax increases. We want to be open to the American
taxpayers. We think the American taxpayers ought not to have 82 new
Federal programs tucked away in several thousand pages of a budget. We
want to bring it up. You all put it in the budget. I want to see if you
got enough guts to vote for it on the floor. There is nothing wrong
with that.
I believe in sunshine. I want to remind you that the previous
speakers talked about the sunshine and how we have to have more of an
open process and not have these secrets. That is what we are doing.
Everybody that disagrees with something in that budget ought to have
a discussion right here on the House floor. We ought to discuss on this
House floor whether or not we want 80 new Federal programs. I do not
think we do. Certainly on the Republican side we do not want 82 new
Federal programs. We do not want another $116 billion in tax increases
on the Republican side, and especially we do not want an increase in
the death tax.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield to the gentleman.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I told the
gentleman I will not yield. I would appreciate the gentleman showing me
the courtesy of controlling the floor and proceeding.
On our side of the aisle, take a look at our position on this death
tax.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has to yield for
that purpose.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle, we take ardent
opposition to the death tax; and we think in fact it should be
expected, it should be a fiduciary duty of ours to bring it up on this
House floor, to let people know what you are attempting to do with that
death tax. The Clinton-Gore administration wants to increase the death
taxes. That is hurting a lot of people out there. We ought to eliminate
it.
What I would suggest to the gentleman is why do you not bring up a
bill to eliminate the death tax and get everybody over here to support
it. We could take away one of the greatest injustices in this tax
system, and you can get the credit for it.
We need to have on this floor open exposure to what is happening; 82
new Federal programs. Of course we ought to have sunshine on it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the gentleman correctly, if I understand
the gentleman from Colorado correctly, the reason he is bringing up
this bill today and asking his colleagues on the Republican side to
vote against it was so we could kill it. In other words, he does not
want to put this tax burden on the American people. So the gentleman
has this new creative way of killing legislation by having Republicans
to

[[Page H2075]]

introduce the legislation, and then to kill it. That is his goal.
Well, let me share with the gentleman that your side has been killing
legislation in a different way, and you have been very effective, and
that is you just do not bring it up. The Social Security legislation,
you have not brought up a bill; the Medicare legislation, you have not
brought up a bill; giving affordable prescription drugs to the elderly
people, you know how to kill that. You do not bring up a bill.
Since when in any legislative body, in any small community, in any
county, in any city, in any State legislature, have we come up with
such cockamamie idea that the way you kill legislation when you are in
the majority is to introduce it? Now, you have got to take a deep
breath. You kill legislation when you are in the leadership by
introducing the legislation, and then you vote against it.
Now, I have to admit, since there has not been any positive
legislation coming from your side in the last couple of years, that
this keeps Members' voting records up. But can you imagine the
precedent that you are setting, where with everything that you do not
like, you introduce a bill and then tell people to vote against it?
Talking about wasting taxpayers' money, this is really extreme.

{time} 1600

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, the gentleman asked, and I think it is a legitimate
question, why do we bring up this bill to kill it?
It is kind of like a tiger in the cage. We have a tax tiger in the
cage. This tiger is proposing to raise taxes. This tiger is proposing
to raise the death tax. This tiger is proposing 80 new Federal
programs. Why not lure it out of the cage? Once we have it out of the
cage, we have all kinds of people who will help to take that down.
The American people, they want social security earnings, that waiver
that we put in as Republicans; they wanted the Republicans' reduction
on capital gains, when we sell our personal property; but they do not
want 82 new Federal programs. Republicans and Democrats across the
country do not want 82 new Federal programs.
So of course we want to lure the tiger out of the cage, get it out of
its safe haven, out in open territory where we have a fair fight going
on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I do not remember, when the Clinton-
Gore administration has talked about their new budget, there is very
seldom any publicity about the taxes and fees that are incorporated in
this budget to pay for it. That is why I commend my colleague, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), for introducing this bill, to show
that not only do we bring it up and do not vote for it, but that very
few in this House are willing to vote for the taxes and fees that have
been proposed on the American people to pay for more giveaways from
this administration.
Mr. Speaker, instead of raising the taxes and fees, we need to look
at the terrible waste in the government. I will just give one example
from the Employment and Training Administration, that receives $9
billion a year, more than three-fourths of the total discretionary
Labor Department funds. But when asked by the Committee on Education
and the Workforce for an accounting of these grants and contracts, the
agency said the information was not available in single volume or in
detail. In addition, they said it was too complicated to report every
year.
Mr. Speaker, this is $9 billion in taxpayer money that is not
accounted for. There are people in jail who have not been able to
account for a lot less money than that.
We need to bring these taxes and fees to the public view, and we will
see who votes on them and supports this part of the President's plan.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman from Colorado explained the
reasoning behind this, that the gentleman has something in the cage and
he wants to kill it before it comes out of the cage. That has made more
sense than anything I have heard on the floor today. The President's
bill is in a cage, so the gentleman now takes the President's bill,
takes it out of the cage, because he wants to kill it.
Mr. Speaker, well, now, that is creative legislation. I just would
like to say that also in that cage is the social security system, the
Medicare system, assistance to our aged for prescription drugs, the
education system, the minimum wage system, systems for our national
defense. All of these things are in that cage. I just hope that the
gentleman does not kill it all.
It seems to me that the gentleman might do better in explaining, a
more effective way than this tiger in the cage legislative process is
by saying that we are not bringing up any positive legislation, so the
gentleman just wants to take those things from the President's budget
that might prove to be painful because they do not intend to provide
the things that are good for this Republic, for this country, that can
make this country proud.
We do not need Republican legislation and Democrat legislation, we do
not need to be fighting each other over tigers in cages. What we have
to do is pause, work together, and find out what is good for the
Congress, but more importantly, what is good for the American people.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from my
colleague, the gentleman from New York, on my creativity, but I did
feel the necessity to unlock that cage so the world could see this
tiger. Because what my friends on the other side of the aisle were
doing was putting a tarp over it so nobody could see that in this cage
was $116 billion worth of new taxes and 84 new programs.
I thought we needed to shed some light on this, and nobody on their
side of the aisle took the leadership to show the public this. So I
will back up my talk with the walk, and we can vote on it today.
Mr. Speaker, I also heard that we were trying to embarrass the
President. Frankly, I wish the teachers that were here today were
listening to this and showing it to their civics classes, because
today, Mr. Speaker, we saw the difference. We saw the difference
between us. We saw how they will advocate for a tax increase of $116
billion to support their 84 more programs. That is taxing and spending,
Mr. Speaker. That is the difference.
We are here saying that the way we help everybody in America is that
we control the growth of government. In a time when we are dealing with
trillion dollar surpluses, that is not a time to grow government for
more taxes. Now is the time to start saying, how do we help the people
that are overpaying taxes?
Yes, I would be embarrassed to introduce a budget that included $116
billion of new tax increases, several of which include taxation of our
senior citizens in Medicare, the Medicare system, creating higher fees
for nursing homes, for Medicare+Choice programs.
When we talk about the tigers that are in the cage, what we are
talking about is bringing out the new and the healthier tigers, the
ones that we on the Republican side have, the healthy social security
tigers, the healthy Medicare. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, when did President Clinton tell the
American people that the era of big government was over?
You know, I really can't remember when he made that statement, and
I'm willing to believe the President himself has forgotten. And I think
it's obvious, with the $1.3 trillion in proposed spending along with
$116 billion in tax and user fee increases included in the President's
budget.
I think that in actuality the era of big government prior to the
Clinton/Gore administration is indeed over. And that's because the
Clinton/Gore administration brought in a new era of bigger government.
I'm sure my colleagues will remember one of the largest tax increases
in history. That was passed by a Democrat controlled House, a Democrat
controlled Senate and signed into law by the Clinton/Gore
administration. And each year, the administration continues to propose
new taxes and user fee increases.

[[Page H2076]]

So we are here today to say stop! Stop spending money on wasteful
federal programs. Stop increasing user fees and raising taxes on
everyday Americans. The average two-income family tax burden is 39% of
that family's income. We need to reduce the tax burden on Americans,
not increase it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 467.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those having voted in favor thereof, the rules----
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the voice vote, what was the Speaker's
announcement?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present having voted in favor thereof, the rules are suspended
and the resolution is agreed to, and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Terry) asked for the yeas and nays.
Mr. RANGEL. The Chair is saying this bill passed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair ruled that the motion was agreed
to, and then yeas and nays were ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement,
further proceedings on the motion will be postponed.

____________________