Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. That is correct the way it has been interpreted.

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. You did not miss it. It was not made a point. It does eliminate it for one year. It is a lower level altogether to begin with. He did state it was a lower income level, but there was some question about what that particular level was but clearly the other omissions were not stated.

Mr. CASTLE. I will yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. CASTLE. I will yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CASTLE. It eliminates the repeal of the tax on social security benefits. It eliminates the tax coverage for long-term insurance, accelerated death benefits and long-term care benefits. It eliminates the capital gains tax reduction. It eliminates the neutral cost recovery provisions. It eliminates the repeal of the alternative minimum tax. It eliminates the taxpayer debt buy-down. It eliminates the small business expensing. It eliminates the elderly care tax credit. It eliminates the tax credit for adoption. It eliminates the In other words, Mr. Speaker, what this piece of legislation did or this attempt on the motion to recommit was a lot more than the four items which were mentioned here. Quite frankly, this is one Member who was influenced by what he said and what he put on that board and would be tremendously impacted by that, perhaps even at the sake of a vote and I think that is a real problem in the House of Representatives. Quite frankly, I have a problem with motions to recommit anyhow. They come in at the last minute. You have 10 minutes to consider them. This is a general problem, I am speaking to now. Unfortunately, sometimes these things can try to get slipped by in the course of oral testimony which is given here usually when the chambers are filled and it makes it very, very difficult. I would like to make this a part of the Record. I did not put this together. It was done by the Ways and Means people. If somebody wants to try to split hairs and take it apart, fine, that could be done.

Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Let me reclaim my time and finish.

Mr. CASTLE. I will yield very briefly.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to about an hour ago on the floor of the House of Representatives when the minority leader presented a motion to recommit with respect to the tax cut package which went through. He stated specifically and had a placard, a board which showed that this bill does four things and that is all he spoke to. He says it substitutes $95,000 for the threshold level for the family tax credit. The retirement changes are lowered only for Members of Congress. It closes a loophole of renouncing American citizenship and avoiding taxes. It includes the Browder-Castle language with respect to thresholds that would have to be met and other matters pertaining to being able to balance our budget. Quite frankly, that was a very attractive package to me as I listened to him and it gave me a great deal of pause as to whether or not I should go ahead and support that because this does encompass some of the things that had concerned me in this bill, as it went along. He mentioned one thing at that point that caught my attention, though. He says this is 16 pages. At some point in the middle of that he said that. We got a copy of this and have checked it out since that time. I think to establish the Record, we need to show here, Mr. Speaker, exactly what else was in that 16 pages that was not mentioned by Mr. Gephardt here tonight. The provisions which he filed in the 16 pages eliminate the tax credit to reduce the marriage penalty. It eliminates the American dream savings account or the IRA. It eliminates the spousal IRA. He did not mention that he eliminates the child tax credit altogether in the first year then reduces from $500 to $100 in the next 2 years and raised it to $300 thereafter. He also failed to mention that he reduces the income eligibility for the child tax credit from $200,000 to $60,000.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask unanimous consent to have this submitted as part of the record?

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the premise of this bill is correct: The American people should be able to keep more of the money they have earned. It is just not right for the Federal Government to take an ever increasing share of the incomes of working Americans. Do the American people want a tax cut? Yes, they certainly do. But their top priority--and many of my constituents in Delaware have told me this--is for Congress to cut spending and balance the budget first, and then cut taxes. The bill now contains this very important safeguard. I am pleased to say that the Republican leadership, Chairman Archer and Chairman Kasich agreed to an amendment offered by Mr. Upton, Mr. Martini, and myself that requires that the tax cuts can only become law when Congress has approved budget legislation that will put the Government on course to a balanced budget by the year 2002. This will hold Congress' feet to the fire to ensure that the budget legislation passed this year will make all of the necessary spending cuts and program changes to reduce the deficit every year for the next 7 years so that the deficit will be zero in 2002. It provides a strong incentive to put a tough budget plan in place now, so that the tax cuts can begin as scheduled next year. In subsequent years, if the budget committees and CBO report that we are no longer on course to a balanced budget, Congress must then consider a budget resolution that will put us back on course. In addition, the legislation will also require the President to submit a balanced budget each year. As my colleagues know, President Clinton has submitted a budget that will produce $200 billion deficits for each of the next 5 years, adding almost a trillion dollars to the national debt. This amendment will require the President to submit a balanced budget or offer one as an alternative plan if he chooses to propose continued deficit spending. Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that no tax cuts should go into effect until this Congress faces up to the challenge of reducing Government spending. This amendment ensures that this will happen. Many of us have tried to work on a bipartisan basis on this issue and we will work with Chairman Kasich as we move on to the deficit reduction legislation that must pass before the tax cuts can take effect. We want to cut taxes--let us make sure the spending cuts happen first.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995. The American people deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. They recognize that the Federal Government is collecting an ever larger share of their earnings and that the money it collects is often not well spent. Americans do not mind paying their fair share of the costs for our Nation's needs--protecting our national security, looking after those who truly Federal Government have become too big and far too inefficient. Excessive Federal spending has resulted in a national debt of $4.8 trillion and deficits of almost $200 billion adding to that debt every year. Americans want relief from taxes, but what my constituents in Delaware tell me is that reducing the deficit, balancing the budget, and making the Government live within its means is what they want done first, I am happy to say that we now have language in this bill that will ensure that Congress acts to cut the deficit and balance the budget before the tax cuts can become law. The Rules Committee has added an amendment offered by Mr. Upton, Mr. Martini, and myself which states that the tax provisions in this bill cannot become law until Congress passes a budget resolution and reconciliation legislation that will result in a balanced budget by the year 2002. This provision reflects the will of our constituents: cut taxes, but not at the expense of balancing the budget. By including this important provision in the bill we are insuring that Congress will have to face the difficult decisions to reduce Government spending. If Congress cannot make those decisions, the tax cuts will not go into effect. It is as simple as that. The Castle-Upton-Martini amendment also adds two key requirements to force Congress and the President to continue to work toward a balanced budget. After Congress passes the budget reconciliation legislation that places us on course to a balanced budget, in each subsequent year the budget committees and CBO must report on whether we are still on the path to balance in 2002. If we fall off course, Congress must consider ways to get back on course in that year's budget resolution. In short, Congress must take action if the deficit begins to increase. Equally as important, this provision will require the President to join in this effort, by requiring him to submit a balanced budget each year. This year, President Clinton has chosen again to propose a budget that would result in annual deficits of $200 billion for the next 5 years. Under this amendment, if the President chooses not to officially submit a balanced budget, he would have to offer an alternative plan that shows how the budget could be balanced. It forces the President to face the same decisions the Congress must face. Mr. Speaker, I support tax relief for families, savings incentives for individual Americans, and investment incentives for business. But, I am adamant about the critical need to balance the budget. I support the rule because it clearly links tax cuts to deficit reduction. My colleagues and I will continue this effort on the budget resolution and the budget reconciliation bill to ensure that we stay on course to a balanced budget. I want to thank Fred Upton and Bill Martini for their efforts on this amendment. I also want to acknowledge Mr. Browder and Mr. Orton for their leadership on the need for deficit reduction. Finally, I appreciate the work of John Kasich and Jim Nussle, and the Republican leadership for working with us to make this provision part of the bill. I urge support of the rule and approval of the tax fairness and deficit reduction bill.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues Glen Browder, Fred Upton, Bill Orton, Bill Martini, and I are filing an amendment to H.R. 1215, the Tax Relief Act of 1995. Our bipartisan amendment would condition the implementation of the tax cuts in the bill on enactment of legislation that will result in a balanced budget in 2002. Under our amendment, the tax cuts could take effect as soon as the Office of Management and Budget certifies that legislation has been enacted into law that puts us on a glide path toward a balanced budget. The tax cuts could be rescinded if we do not achieve specific deficit reduction targets in the subsequent fiscal years. In short, if Congress and the President have the courage to pass a budget reconciliation bill this year that lowers the discretionary spending caps and makes the necessary program changes to end the runaway growth in entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, then the tax cuts would begin on the same timetable as proposed in the tax bill. We strongly support reducing the tax burden on the American people, but we believe our constituents have sent us an unmistakable message: cut spending first. It is not responsible public policy to enact tax cuts before Congress has fully faced up to the tough decisions that have to be made to bring government spending in line with its revenue. While most Americans would certainly like a tax cut, public opinion polls indicate that Americans place a higher priority on deficit reduction. These polls are reinforced by the actual comments of many individual Americans who appeared at the series of field hearings held by the House Budget Committee earlier this year. In Ohio, Arizona, South Carolina, New Jersey, and Montana Americans revealed a common sense skepticism about indulging ourselves today while promising to ease the future debt burden on our children. They want spending cut first. If Congress can actually perform that difficult task then they'd welcome a tax cut. We believe it is imperative that we do not let them down. If Congress approves $190 billion in tax cut this year, but then finds itself unwilling or unable to make the tough choices to reduce spending, we will not only add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt but we will further damage the voters' faith in their representatives. We believe that tax cuts and spending cuts must go together. The benefit or reduced taxes on families and businesses should be our reward for tackling the difficult decisions necessary to reduce Federal spending to the point where we can actually achieve a balanced budget. While our amendment requires a tough standard to be met, it does provide a real reward. If Congress is wiling to make all the tough choices to reduce spending this year and the President signs those changes into law, the tax cuts could begin without delay. The tax benefits would continue as long as the Government meets its annual deficit reduction milestones on the way to a balanced budget. These targets would force Congress to ensure that it is really saving money and not just playing budget games to delay real cuts. Tieing tax cuts to deficit reduction brings the American people directly into the process. They will be reminding their representatives to reduce spending so they can see the results on their tax forms and in their pocketbooks. We would all have an interest in making sure the budget process succeeds. This amendment is an insurance policy for deficit reduction. It is consistent with the Contract With America and our pledge to cut spending first. It is supported by a bipartisan coalition of Members and it just makes sense. We will ask the House Rules Committee to make this amendment in order when the House considers H.R. 1215 next week. I urge commitment to deficit reduction.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think child care is a vital function of our welfare reform efforts. If you are going to train people, have people work, you need to make a provision for children. But I think we should straighten out a few facts. One, is it the welfare reform bill that we are debating here actually has more money in it than the Deal bill as far as child care is concerned. I say that respectfully, because I do respect the Deal bill. Second, a lot of welfare recipients do not even use State-supported child care. We need to understand that issue as we debate this also. Also the structure of all this has been criticized, the structure of going to a block grant. I would point out a few aspects of going to a block grant which I think help with respect to the providing of child care. First, it provides States maximum flexibility in developing programs that best suit the needs of the residents. It promotes parental choice to help parents make their own decisions on child care to best suit their needs, and we get rid of State set-asides which gives us more money as well. It gives us flexibility, and I support the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support this amendment, and all the work the gentlewoman has done on this. Child support enforcement is another issue which has bipartisan support, as we have seen today, and for good reason. There now exists about $45 billion in back child support owed. About 5 million mothers are on welfare because fathers do not pay. At least $10 billion in child support goes unpaid each year. A Columbia University study found almost 40 percent of welfare beneficiaries could be self-sufficient if noncustodial parents paid their support. The proposal to deny licenses, along with other measures in our bill to crack down on deadbeat dads, would increase child support collections by $24 billion over 10 years, and help 800,000 mothers and children off welfare. We need to send parents all across the country a loud signal: if you neglect your responsibility to support your children, we will suspend your license, garnish your pay, track you down, and make you pay. My State discovered this some number of years ago, and has very high rankings in the area of paternity and child support payment. Mr. Chairman, I encourage us all to support this amendment.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. in support of the rule which we have before us. I do disagree with those who would say that this bill is cruel, and I would hope that our debate through the general debate and through the amendment process which we are going to undertake will be one which is constructive. Because maybe this is not the final bill, and I think there are some very good ideas. Lord only knows there are a lot of people here who have worked in this particular area, and we need to work with them as well. But welfare as we know it today has basically continued people in poverty. There has been a sense of hopelessness attached to it. No real opportunity to leave or really to improve your life unless you are so self-motivated you can do so. Frankly, it has been generational to some degree. In Delaware, we put together a program in 1987 under a blueprint for change and it became one of the model States for the Family Support Act of 1988. We developed an employment and training program to target the needs of hard-to-employ long-term welfare client. We developed a case management approach to service delivery. We raised the case assistance standard of need to bring benefits in line with neighboring States or the national average, and we developed indigent medical care programs and other programs to help people off of welfare. The statistics are interesting on that. Since 1986, over 5,600 clients have benefited, with 2,779, and that is about one-half, of course, working full-time and 2,075 leaving welfare all together. Additionally, child care for families and work education and training has been increased substantially. We dealt with the problem in the State of Delaware, and I was pleased to be able to be the Governor during that period of time, and I think we dealt with it successfully. Now we look at this program and we look at what we have. We are going to have a lot of rhetoric about it. The truth of the matter is the President of the United States of America, a good proposal by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], which we are going to hear about, and this bill are not as different from each other as we are probably going to hear about. They essentially call for an end of welfare at some period of time for all families. They all call for work after a couple of years so people would have to go to work. It is a big-bang solution to solving the problems of welfare. The Republican bill does call for block grants and gives more State flexibility. But today the House does begin consideration of some very important changes in our Personal Responsibility Act and a dialogue with the American people and our welfare recipients on replacing that failed welfare system with one based on work, individual responsibility, family, hope, and opportunity. This bill does represent fundamental and dramatic change. We are going to have to talk about it. In its best light this bill could provide opportunity for those who have none. Democrats and Republicans, all agree by removing welfare recipients into work we can help place welfare recipients on the road to self-sufficiency, opportunity, and hope for their future, where currently frankly there is none. And this is not mean-spirited Republican philosophy, but American values.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his compliments, unsolicited, I might add. I might just say with respect to that, I think we as Republicans have a responsibility to make sure as we monitor this bill to make absolutely positive that the kinds of programs we want are being put into place in the States, with the child care, the training, the education which is necessary; that we make sure there is no hardship, and we are trying to do something about rainy day funds. But that we give people that opportunity. I think that is what this is all about. I think there has been some misrepresentation, all the way from the food nutrition programs, which has been I think misrepresented as to its potential growth, through a lot of other things that are happening. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, as this day wears on and as the next few days wear on, that that story comes out. If there are amendments we should adopt, so be it, we should adopt them. But when it is all said and done, I hope we will have a welfare system in place in this country that will allow people to look at it and know this is giving us hope, it is giving us sustenance, it is going to carry us through, we are going to be able to take care of our families, but at some point we are going to have the hope to be able to grow through it, to be able to be employed, if one is employable, and take care of those who are not employable, and be able to actually make progress for many people in America. I look upon this in an optimistic sense, not in the pessimistic sense that this is a bill to suppress people. I realize there is a different point of view on that. But I hope we listen to each other and balance this and carry it out before the week has ended and we actually can adopt a piece of legislation that all of us can be very proud of.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. amendment offered by mr. castle to the amendment offered by mr. porter, as modified Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. I will be very brief. But essentially I do believe that the Porter amendment does a lot to reinstate some funds that needed to be reinstated as has been already set forth on this floor today. But I would also point out that the amendment which I have prepared for the DARE program, I believe by the discussion we have had today, will go to the DARE program. I understand some of the objections which have been raised by some of my colleagues concerning where the cuts have to come from. We are limited by the rule with respect to that. But I would hope that everybody would understand that this is one program which is almost universally recognized as having been successful across the United States of America in fighting drugs. For that reason, I hope we can support both the Castle amendment and the underlying Porter amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment, the numbers are large but the basic effect of what this amendment does is it reduces the Eisenhower Program which I will explain in a minute by $10 million, actually $10 million beyond the $90 million that is already going to be reduced, and it leaves $10 million in the safe and drug- free schools and communities to be used for the DARE program. That particular program is not a line item program and it is very important, I think, that we establish on the floor here today that the intent of this body is that $10 million which will be left in the safe and drug-free schools and communities program will be used for the DARE Program, a program which I think has generally been viewed as highly successful in virtually every State of the 44 States it is in, of the 50 percent of the school districts across the United States of America which is participated in by many, many tens of thousands of children and which may have had a positive an effect on dealing with the problems of young people using drugs as any other program which I know of in my personal hands-on experience in the drug area. It also has the benefit of leaving this particular area open as the Senate considers this legislation to show that we consider this to be vitally important. That is the intent of what we do. The Eisenhower Program which is going to be cut an additional $10 million supports State grants for the professional development activities to address teacher training needs in all the core academic subject areas and indeed that is going to still have some $220,298,000 left when it is all said and done. So that is the intent of the amendment which is before us.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. We attempted to find a number in which the local communities would be involved but would not be such a high hurdle that they could not do it. And after a lot of discussions with a lot of local officials, we came out with a number of 10 percent. That is how we got to that number. We feel it does exactly what you have talked about and we should bring the local communities into it and we get rid of the extraneous and perhaps unnecessary and unwarranted applications that might be made.

Mr. CASTLE. I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] would be glad to add your name to the amendment.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?