Mac Collins

Mr. COLLINS

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

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's opinion and position on this, and I appreciate that, and we will be glad to work with the gentleman and with the Chairman in any way possible that we can to make sure that everyone understands that this project, where the current location is, where the future location will be, and in 2 weeks we will know whose district it possibly will be in, if it is in an open district in Georgia. But it is a very vital need. It is one that has been worked on for quite some time. Also, in reference to GSA, there is a GSA facility that is across the county line from my particular district that is being closed as an effort to save money in the long run, and we concur with that effort. And we certainly appreciate and respect the gentleman's position.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I really enjoyed the explanation of the gentleman from Kentucky on the health care provisions in both plans. That is what people are concerned about at home, that they want to better understand their health care insurance, what their coverage is, and what the plan consists of, more so than anything else. I have very few, and I cannot recall any, really, who have been to my office and said, ``Mac, I want you to pass legislation to let me sue my insurance plan and my employer.'' That is not what is on their mind. What is on their mind is the information that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) shared with us: ``What am I going to do about health insurance and health care coverage for me and my family?'' Those are the concerns. I have very few to call the office concerned about the denial of a service that they may need in the private sector. I do have quite a few calls when it comes to some of the, what I will call government-run HMOs, health management organizations, and those are Medicare and Medicaid. Thanks to the new administration and some of the things that are happening over at the Center for Medicare Services now, though, those calls have become fewer and fewer. We used to have a lot of calls about the Veterans Administration, but fortunately, we have had a lot of good, positive changes, especially in the Atlanta Region, with the VA. I have not received, in years, many calls. These are things that, as a Member of Congress, it is pleasing, because I feel like my constituency is being better served by those particular agencies. I say to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), there are a couple things I do have complaints about. One is the cost of health care. People say, ``Congressman, why is my health care so high? It is to a point where I cannot afford it. Why is insurance so high? I cannot afford coverage. I cannot afford the insurance. What am I going to do? What am I going to do?'' One thing we should not do is subject the marketplace to provisions of law that may increase those numbers who cannot afford insurance or cannot afford to pay their health care costs. That is just something we do not need to do. I am afraid what we are looking at with this particular patients' bill of rights is the fact that we may increase, if we pass one particular provision, and that is the bill that the other parties have offered, the Ganske-Dingell bill, the McCain-Kennedy bill, that possibly we will increase the number of uninsured and raise the cost to a point that many cannot afford it. I have had health care management organizations to come by the office in Georgia, particularly the Jonesboro office, because it is closer to the Atlanta area, and talk to me, it has been 3 or 4 years ago, about health care and what they were going to do, how they were going to take care of the uninsured. One had some pretty slick brochures, they were just fancy, and they probably spent a lot of money on preparing them. I looked at them. We talked for a while. I said, ``These things are pretty. They are slick. A lot of good information here. My advice to you is to do what you say you are going to do in these brochures, and that is take care of those that you insure.'' I said they should heed the warning, because if they did not, there was going to be legislation before the Congress that will make them wish they had. That type of legislation I do not believe will be good for the marketplace, for those who are uninsured, or those who insure. Some companies have heeded that warning and made some changes, but many have not. I think the marketplace is where things should take place and where the reform in HMOs should take place. Employers, as they select plans, they select plans based on competition in the workplace for employees. It is a benefit. Some plans are better than others because some businesses can pay better than others. Labor contracts, many times labor in their negotiation will use health care coverage as part of their negotiation or their leverage. Insurance companies themselves providing insurance, they are competitive. They are competitive businesses. There is not just one insurance company, like we have with the insurance for our seniors, Medicare, or insurance for the poor, Medicaid. There are a lot of private sector insurance companies who compete for business. They compete on the basis of what they have to offer, the price of what they have to offer, and the satisfaction of those who receive the coverage under their plans. That is where the HMO reform should take place. That is the marketplace. But it is not. It is taking place right here in the halls of Congress. It worries me. We have, as we all know, the patients' bill of rights. Unfortunately, as I hear the coverage at home on the national media, they do not talk about provisions that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) talked about. They talk about ``this bill is all about people have the right to sue the insurance company.'' Do Members know, I believe they have that right today. If someone is harmed by another individual, whether that individual is an entity or is a person, they have a remedy of law. They have a right to recover. I do not think what we are doing here is absolute in what we are trying to do as far as the marketplace is concerned. We have a choice, as I mentioned earlier. We have the Ganske-Dingell bill. A lot of people at home know it as the Norwood bill, very similar to the one that passed over in the Senate. But I have to say that, based on my experience in business, my experience of having been in the Congress now for 8\1/2\ years, my understanding of people and a common sense approach to this issue, I do believe the gentlewoman has the better approach of all that has been presented. I believe it has a less negative impact on employers. I believe it has a less negative impact on employees. Let us face it, most people obtain their health care insurance coverage at the workplace. That is where it happens. That is the benefit. That is the incentive that an employer offers to have someone work for them, or part of the incentive program. And the gentlewoman's bill puts at risk in a lesser fashion the employer when it comes to liability. As an employer for 38 years myself and in the type of business that I am in, trucking, have been since I was 18 years old, a lot of miles on the road, a lot of employees in accidents, I have been in court, and it is not cheap to go to court to defend yourself. I know that a lot of employers, if they are going to have to subject themselves to additional cost, the additional time and trouble of defending themselves based on a suit that may not be a viable suit, it may not be a real liability to them, but they have to go to court to prove that it is not or to have themselves removed from the case, what will happen, I am afraid, is that many employers will just say, hey, I am not going to do this. I am just not going to provide it. What if they do? What if they say, I will continue on. I will take that chance. What will be the result? I think it will be based on passage of legislation, whether it be either bill. I like the idea that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) put forth, that this may actually reduce costs, and I hope it does. I think the majority of the time, though, anytime the Congress gets involved in something, it always increases the cost, whatsoever it may be. But let us just look at a couple of comments that a group on Wall Street made about the potential of the McCain-Kennedy, or the Kennedy- McCain, now that the Democrats are in the majority over there in the other body, or the bill that is before us from our side, the Ganske- Dingell bill. These are the four things that they say could happen. They say, first of all, if the President were to sign either one of those two bills that they think that, similar to some insurance companies that are already out there, that they would just draw language for their plans that would more carefully and extensively exclude areas of services, regardless whether they are medically necessary. They would exclude them by taking out the words ``medically necessary.'' They think that the plans would eliminate preauthorization so that they would not have to delay or deny care but merely make retrospective coverage decisions on claims after the care was rendered. Now, how would my colleagues like to get a notification saying, wait a minute, that $100,000 operation you had was investigative surgery, because the words medically necessary are no longer there? That would be stunning. It would be to me, anyway. Third, this group thinks that plans would raise premiums and fees to address potential costs of expanded liability and other patient bill of right provisions. And, fourth, businesses will adjust. If they decide to stay in the marketplace and provide the incentive for their employees, they will make the adjustments. I know they will. I have been there for 38-plus years and have made a lot of adjustments based on government regulations. They say that we think the sponsors, those who buy and make the decisions to purchase the insurance, would increase the beneficiary costs, the employees' cost with cost sharing, with higher deductibles, or coinsurance, or co-payments to offset such increases. So it will cost employees as well as possibly employers. The Ganske-Dingell bill, and I hate to take up so much of the gentlewoman's time here, but this thing has been bothering me for a long time and I just have not spoken out much on it, but it has bothered me as a Member of Congress and as an employer. They say employees are protected, but are employers protected? If they are, why do we not just say so with maybe some language that says the decision to purchase health insurance as an employee benefit is not subject to liability, because it is not a health care decision. Now, the gentlewoman has. The gentlewoman has accepted that type of language very similar to that, and that is good language because that protects that employer and the employee by not discouraging the employer to stay in the marketplace. I say to my colleagues, let us not jeopardize the insured that are out there today by jeopardizing the employers, their workplace; not only jeopardizing them for the possible loss of insurance coverage but jeopardizing from the standpoint that their share of the insurance coverage for their families more than likely will be increased. Well, that is all I am going to say for now, but I appreciate the gentlewoman's thoughtfulness. I know she has worked diligently on this legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will work and pay close attention to how this whole process will affect employees, insured, and employers who provide the coverage as a benefit.

Mr. COLLINS. If the gentlewoman will yield further, they should have that right, and I think they have that right today. I am still very concerned about the language, though, of appointing a decisionmaker. Because that can be questioned, too. But if the decision to purchase the insurance is not subject, because it is definitely not a health care issue.

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I hope it is, and I think it is, because I have been assured that that is my amendment that the gentlewoman has accepted. I thank her.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the authorization for funds for the Paul D. Coverdell Building at the Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences at the University of Georgia. It is appropriate because this man we seek to honor, Paul Coverdell, was a teacher's teacher. He led by the strength of his character and the strength of his ideas. He never missed an opportunity to educate his colleagues, the press and the public. He was a hard-working, thoughtful legislator who was a leader, a good man and a very good public servant. To me, Paul Coverdell was more than a colleague. He was a true friend, a mentor. Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the Georgia State Senate, we walked together through his neighborhood so he could educate me on the difficulty of serving in the Georgia State Senate as one of the 11 that were mentioned earlier. But that was his style. He was quiet, purposeful. He was a teacher, someone who was more concerned about getting the job done than who received credit. Mr. Speaker, the job of a scientist or doctor researching medicine and health is long, hard and painstaking. It is also often a labor in obscurity. The fruits of research, however, can have a major impact on lives today and in the future. This building's dedication to education, to improve people's lives and the future of this country is why those of us who knew Paul Coverdell believe this building is an appropriate monument to a real patriot, Paul Coverdell.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for House Joint Resolution 36, which I have cosponsored, and thank my colleague, Mr. Cunningham, for his continued effort to protect this important symbol of our freedom, the United States flag. The vast majority of my constituents in Georgia's Third District have contacted me and stated that they share this belief that among the countless ways to show dissent, the desecration of the flag should not be one of them. Opponents of this amendment state that it would reduce our First Amendment freedoms. This is simply not so. Rather this amendment would serve to restore the protection our flag had been accorded over most of our nation's history. The American flag represents not only our freedom but serves as a constant reminder of the ideals embodied in our Declaration of Independence that countless Americans have served to defend, preserve and protect over our nation's 225 year history. In the Declaration of Independence, the founders acknowledged that we are created equal and that we have been endowed by our Creator with certain rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the ideals for which countless Americans have fought, bled and died and it is these ideals upon which our Constitution is founded. It is these ideals which we are elected to preserve. Today, we can renew our affirmation of these principles, so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, by preserving the most visible symbol of our Republic. Upon three separate occasions, this House has rightfully voted to protect our nation's flag. Today, the United States House of Representatives will again affirm its commitment to protect this symbol of our great nation. For the thousands of Americans who have fought and died for their country, the flag is more than a piece of cloth.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In March, after completing preparations at Fort Polk, Louisiana and Fort Stewart, Georgia, some 1,200 soldiers of Georgia's 48th Infantry Brigade were deployed to Bosnia to participate in the peacekeeping mission. They are following in the footsteps of other National Guard units that have been mentioned such as the Texas division, the 39th Enhanced Separate Brigade of North Carolina, and the 45th Enhanced Separate Brigade of Oklahoma. Our citizen soldiers are adding their strength to our efforts to bring peace to a bitter and divided land. These men and women are part of more than 1.2 million soldiers who play a critical part in our national defense as members of our National Guard and Reserve components. They contribute significant time and effort to executing their roles, and we as a Nation are very grateful. Our citizen soldiers have helped defend our freedom since the first minutemen took up their muskets to meet the British at Concord Bridge. From those grassy fields of New England to the burning sands of Kuwait, our guardsmen and reservists have fought with distinction. As citizen soldiers, most guardsmen and reservists have two careers, civilian and military. After a hard week on the job, neighbors may be headed to the beach for the weekend, but many guardsmen are headed off to drill and to train. Neighbors may be watching emergencies on TV, but oftentimes guardsmen are already there helping victims of disorder and disaster. As we see our guardsmen called up to serve in areas such as Bosnia over the long deployments, we should note the sacrifices as they leave home, family, and friends in the service of their country. This separation is hard on families and loved ones; but while we often note the burden on soldiers and their families, we often overlook someone who makes an equal sacrifice too, and those are the employers of those reservists and those guardsmen. I want those employers to know that the Congress deeply appreciates the sacrifice that they knowingly make for our national security when they hire members of the National Guard and Reservists. As a small businessman, Madam Speaker, I know how business can be affected by the absence of a good worker for a period of as short as a day, much less for several weeks or months. It is tough on a business, no matter how large or small. Our Nation is secure today because Americans stand ready to defend our freedom. The men and women of our National Guard and Reserve sacrifice their time and talent to serve in the military, even as they hold down those civilian jobs. The spirit of sacrifice is also exemplified by the families and the loved ones who support them whether they are off on a weekend drill or extended deployments overseas. For this we are grateful.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Madam Speaker, I could not help but get a little bristle on the back of my neck sitting in my office listening to all of the rhetoric that is being said here on the floor this morning. The complaints about the marketplace, the complaints about charges, the cost of goods based on supply and demand in the marketplace and, yes, the prices are too high. It is costing too much for families to pull up to the gas pump for the purpose of either commuting to work, visiting family or taking a vacation. Why is it like this? It is because of the lack of planning and having a domestic energy policy for this Nation. The previous administration avoided the issue, stayed away from the issue, did not want to address it, and over the last few years we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, and that is wrong. But it is not only just the oil. We cannot even handle the refinery of oil for gasoline and fuel and other products. What we do not hear them talk about is the price that Congress charges for gasoline and fuel, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is well aware of this. Yes, we charge, we the Congress of the United States, charge for every gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel that is used in this Nation. Eighteen cents a gallon for gasoline; 24 cents a gallon for diesel fuel, fuel that is used to transport products all over this Nation that we each buy as a consumer. People do not think that adds to the price of those products? We charge 4.3 cents a gallon for aviation fuel. You do not think that does not add to the price of an airline ticket? 4.3 cents to the railroads. You do not think that does not add to the product they carry? 4.3 cents for barge service. You do not think that does not add to the price of the product that they carry? It does. But you do not hear anything about that from this well. But those are charges that are administered by the Congress of the United States. But, you know, there are a couple of good things about that though. We all pay that same rate, and those rates and those prices and those funds that come into the Congress are used for transportation products, for infrastructure, highways, bridges, things that we need, must have. Of course, we have a few environmental laws that prevent us oftentimes from putting in the projects that are needed so we can commute without sitting in long lines. We all experience that. But we pay the same price for those things, and the funds are put to good use. You do not hear them talking about the overcharge that we are levying on every working person that is in this country to operate this government, and we have different charges to operate this government. You and I can pull up to the gas pump, we will pay the same price. You and I can go into the same store, buy a like item, we will pay the same price for it. Anyplace in the marketplace that we go together, stand side-by-side and buy the same product, we will pay practically the same price for it, no matter who you are, what income level you are at. But when it comes to paying for the operation of government, it is different, much different. We do not have the same price. In fact, we charge five different prices to individuals to operate this government; five prices. Yes, five prices we charge working people across this country to operate their government. Those five prices are the five marginal tax rates based on income. They talk about the rich. Yes, the rich make a lot of money. But they pay a lot of tax too. A low income person, $30,000, $45,000 a year, they pay 15 percent. They are in that 15 percent bracket. That is a lot of money too. But it goes from 15 to 28, to 31, to 36, to 39.6 percent, based on the levels of income. Is anything fair about charging five different prices for the operation of government? You never hear anything about that. I do not think it is fair. That is what we are trying to address with the tax bill in the conference that is going on today, is to reduce the charge that we charge for operation of government and try to make it a little more fair. Five prices to operate the government, charged by the Congress of the United States.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to correct a problem created by the IRS that has interfered with the ability of municipal gas systems to enter into long-term prepaid contracts to obtain natural gas for their citizens. I am joined today by 20 of my colleagues who share my great concern for this issue. The approximately 1,000 publicly owned gas distribution systems in the United States comprise about 5 percent of the market. They are primarily located in small towns and rural communities. In the last 15 years there have been major changes in the natural gas industry that have increased their exposure to the great uncertainties of the natural gas market. In 1985 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ``FERC'' began deregulating the delivery of natural gas. In 1993 FERC began requiring that pipelines ``unbundle'' their services to customers. This meant that municipal gas systems could no longer purchase natural gas supplies on a reliable and regulated basis from interstate natural gas pipelines. This fundamental change in the marketplace meant that for the first time municipal gas systems had to acquire reliable gas supplies and transport on their own in a deregulated marketplace. In response, many formed joint action agencies, as contemplated in the FERC restructuring, to acquire and manage the delivery of gas. In today's natural gas markets, long-term prepaid supply arrangements are the most reliable means for municipal gas systems to obtain an assured supply of natural gas. To fund prepaid supply contracts, the municipality or the joint action agency issues tax-exempt bonds. These contracts contain stiff penalties if the supplier fails to perform making this the most reliable gas supply that municipal gas agencies can purchase. Until August of 1999, joint action agencies entered into prepayment supply contracts with gas suppliers to obtain a long-term (e.g., 10-year) supply of gas. In August 1999, the IRS published a request for comment that has effectively prevented municipal gas systems from using their tax-exempt borrowing authority to fund the purchase of long-term, prepaid supplies of natural gas for their citizens. The IRS questioned whether the purchase of a commodity, such as natural gas, under a prepaid contract financed by tax-exempt bonds has a principal purpose of earning an investment return, in which case the bonds would run afoul of the arbitrage rules of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS has not issued any guidance following the August 1999 request for comment. Under the Internal Revenue Code, tax-exempt bonds may not be used to raise proceeds that are then used to acquire ``investment-type property'' having a higher yield than the bonds. Governmental bonds that violate this arbitrage restriction do not qualify for tax-exempt status. Treasury regulations provide that investment-type property includes certain prepayments for property or services ``if a principal purpose for prepaying is to receive an investment return.'' But, ``a prepayment does not give rise to investment-type property if . . . the prepayment is made for a substantial business purpose other than investment return and the issuer has no The IRS has essentially acted against municipal gas systems without going through any of the administrative procedures required for agency action. It has not issued any regulations, ruling or other guidance; it has simply put out a request for comment that has effectively prevented the issuance of any tax-exempt obligations to fund prepaid contracts for natural gas. The legislation we are introducing today would clarify the law, both with respect to the arbitrage rules and the private loan financing rules, to remove the confusion created by the IRS. This country is now facing an energy crisis. All across the nation the price of natural gas has been at record levels as purchasers have scrambled to obtain an assured supply. Meanwhile, by requesting comment and then failing to act, the IRS has prevented small communities from using their tax-exempt borrowing authority to obtain a long-term, assured supply of competitively priced natural gas. This problem must be addressed as part of comprehensive energy legislation that Congress will soon consider.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, along with my colleague, Representative Richard Neal, to end the unequal tax treatment imposed on U.S. produced distilled spirits. At a time when other countries adopt tax laws to favor their own domestic industries, it is ironic that current U.S. tax law favors foreign products at the expense of U.S.-made products. Regrettably, that is the case with respect to distilled spirits. As members of the Committee on Ways & Means, both Mr. Neal and I have worked for sometime to correct this inequitable situation. Current law allows wholesalers of imported spirits to defer the federal excise tax (``FET'') on such products until they are removed from a custom bonded warehouse for sale to a retailer. In contrast, the FET on U.S. produced spirits is paid ``up front'' by the distiller, and passed along to the wholesaler when he purchases product. Custom bonded warehouses cannot be used for domestic product, only that imported from another country. This means that the FET on U.S. produced spirits must be carried by the wholesaler as part of his inventory for as long as it takes to sell that product out of his warehouse. Couple this disparity in time of payment with the fact that distilled spirits are the most highly taxed of all products, and you begin to understand the seriousness of the problem. At $13.50 per proof gallon, the FET represents virtually 40 percent of the average wholesaler's inventory cost. To make matters worse, it takes an average of 60 days to sell this inventory to a retailer. The bottom line is that U.S. tax policy favors the sale of imported spirits and creates a significant financial burden for wholesalers of domestic spirits--most of which are small, family-owned businesses operating within a single state. For the past ten years, the wholesale tier of the licensed beverage industry has advocated a tax law policy change known as ``All-in- Bond.'' Mr. Neal and I sponsored the Distilled Spirits Tax Simplification Act, or ``All-in-Bond bill'', at the beginning of the 106th Congress. Simply put, it would have extended the custom bonded warehouse concept to all spirits, not just imported product. The result would have been to defer payment of the tax on domestic product--just as we do for imported spirits--until it is removed from the warehouse for sale to a retailer. Given the obvious inequity of current law, the bill attracted the co- sponsorship of 75 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle. As a consequence, Mr. Neal and I were successful in attaching the bill to a major tax reduction measure coming out of the Committee on Ways & Means in 1999, which was subsequently approved by this body. Subsequently, Treasury/BATF raised unwarranted concerns about changing the point of collection. Additionally, distilled spirits suppliers objected because of concerns about a revenue offset provision which was added to the ``All-in-Bond'' proposal during committee consideration. In an effort to build a greater consensus, we agreed to drop the provision in conference and go back to the drawing board to develop a better solution to the problem. The ``Domestic Spirits Tax Equity Act'' is that better solution. The purpose of this legislation is to compensate wholesalers for the unequal burden imposed on U.S.-produced distilled spirits under current law. We do so by allowing qualified wholesalers of domestic spirits a prepaid tax adjustment, or ``PTA'' which is a credit against their annual federal income tax. The PTA is determined through a simple formula. It is equal to 40 percent of the amount paid for domestically produced spirits, times the IRS' applicable federal rate over a 60-day period. The PTA was crafted with simplicity in mind. The elements of the formula are easily verifiable and understandable by the wholesaler and the IRS, and the formula results in an accurate overall measure of the unequal float costs. In addition, unlike the ``All-in-Bond'' proposal, this bill does not change the current FET collection system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to eliminate the unequal tax treatment imposed on U.S. produced distilled spirits. The PTA is a simple and targeted solution, which addresses the problem. I look forward to the passage of this important legislation so that we can ensure our domestic suppliers are not penalized by the tax code.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Ben Cardin and several of our other colleagues, to introduce legislation that will return common sense to the Internal Revenue Code by changing the depreciation period for computer equipment. The depreciation provisions in the Code have not been updated since the 1980s. Since that time, the technology available to manufacturers has literally exploded. Tax rules require businesses and manufacturers to keep their computer equipment ``on the books'' for five years. In highly competitive industries, the average economic life of the equipment ranges from 14 and 24 months, far shorter than depreciation rules. This skewed limitation places manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. In a slowing economy, more flexibility is needed over capital investment choices. Many manufacturers would like to expand their businesses and increase employment opportunities. They would have greater opportunities to do so if the tax code recognized a more realistic economic life expectation for this equipment. Unfortunately, these business owners often put off investing in new equipment due to the unfavorable tax treatment they receive from the outdated computer depreciation schedule. Specifically, the legislation we are introducing would update the tax code to acknowledge the rapid advancements in computer technology by changing the depreciation period for computer equipment used in manufacturing processes from five years to two years. We need to encourage businesses to make investments that will keep them competitive, not penalize them with an outdated tax provision. Please join us in this effort to inject a little common sense into the Internal Revenue Code by cosponsoring the Computer Equipment Common Sense Depreciation Act.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Am I understanding the gentleman right that the gentleman is saying that the Democrats in the Congress for years have been on the kick of tax and spend, and that tax and spend was for the purpose of implementing programs, for the purpose thereof of reelection; because over those years there has been a dependency created among some constituency in this country, that those people had to be reelected to go forward with those programs, irregardless of the cost? Is that what I am hearing the gentleman say?

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I have no doubt of the intent. But my daddy was one of the smartest people that I ever knew. He had less than a third grade education, and I often heard him say that the road to the poorhouse was paved with good intentions. We have created so many programs in this country, so many programs that have to be funded, that it has created excessive taxation on the American people. What we are talking about here today, sir, is cash flow. There are people in this Chamber and this body who are concerned about the cash flow of the Treasury of the United States, rather than the cash flow of the constituency at home, who get up every day or work 12 hours, 14 hours, sometimes around the clock, to make ends meet for their families. But we are taking so much of it. And we also require them to have to shift their cash flow at home to meet necessities, where it used to be they could meet necessities and niceties because they had the money. But today they do not. It has been mentioned about energy. Yes, gas prices are excessive, and they are going to go even higher. But a lot of it has been due to the recent years of overprotection, overregulating, the lack of providing the facilities and the infrastructure to have the energy necessary to keep this country going, that now the price is out of hand and now some people are getting concerned about it, only because of the cash flow of the Treasury, not the cash flow of people. And when it comes to the charge while operating this government, we have a different charge than the marketplace does. We have a different charge structure than States and local governments do, because when it comes to taxes for local government or taxes for the State, everyone within that State practically pays the same or pays on the same basis. When we go to the marketplace and buy our product, we all pay on the same price structure. But when it comes to the operation of the government, we have five tiers of price structure, five marginal rates. We only had four prior to the previous administration, but there was a fifth one added in 1993, moving it to 39.6 percent. That is unfair. This bill allows the removal of some of those marginal rates and consolidation of and lowering of the tax rate on every taxpayer in this country, increasing the cash flow to the family and the private sector, which will result in an increase in the cash flow of the Treasury. We need to be looking at the cash flow of our citizenry, not the cash flow of this Treasury.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, the people of the State of Georgia strongly believe that the Federal budget policies should be based on guidelines of limited government, lower taxes, and increased local control of local affairs. The budget resolution before us today closely follows those guidelines. First, this budget plan establishes a limit on the growth of Federal spending that closely follows the rate of inflation. Second, we provide real reduction in taxes for wage-earners. Third, the budget resolution makes room for future consideration of reform bills such as education reform that will focus on returning more control to the local level. Mr. Speaker, why is tax reduction important? In developing a budget plan, we must answer the question, what makes up the economy? It is not the government. The Federal Government does not manufacture, it does not have a product for sale, it is not and should never try to be the engine that runs economic growth. The economy is made up of people, workers, taxpayers. They are the ones earning the wages and spending or investing portions of their paycheck. Each time they do, they create economic activity. The more they spend or invest, the more economic growth we have. In many ways the budget debate is about cash flow, the cash flow of the government and the cash flow of individuals and families. The Federal Government has a cash flow which is funded by the paychecks of working people. It creates its own income by collecting a portion of all private sector earnings. Today, that collection level is excessive. Over the next 10 years, the government will collect from wage-earners over $3.1 trillion more in non-Social Security taxes than it needs to fund the operation of government. The budget resolution takes a responsible look at the Federal books and recognizes the fact that it is time to slow down the collection of the government cash flow and return those excess funds to the cash flow of individuals and families. In the words of the President, the taxpayers have overpaid their bill; and this budget resolution will provide a refund on their collected earnings that they so well deserve.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Estate Tax Relief Act. The death tax is punitive in nature for all individuals, but it is particularly burdensome for closely-held, family-owned businesses that are the leading job creators in this country. The death tax rate of as much as 60% often means the difference between selling or keeping a family business intact. At a minimum, the death tax should be reduced. No targeted tax should force small businesses to sell or file bankruptcy. While the House of Representatives has passed the Death Tax Repeal Act (H.R. 8), the measure simply does not provide enough relief soon enough. First, the measure provides no relief for next year, and provides very little for taxpayers until well into the second half of the next decade. We have no assurances that relief will ever be made available in successive Congresses. The Estate Tax Relief Act ensures that we provide relief right away by converting the current structure to an exemption and ensuring that the first $10 million of an estate (per person) are exempted from the tax. Additionally, it lowers the top rate to 45%. In addition, the bill maintains the current-law step up in basis. With regard to the gift tax, the legislation puts in place a $50,000 per year, per taxpayer exemption. Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about reducing this onerous tax, my legislation is the right way to do it. Please join me in cosponsoring this measure so that we can ensure we reduce the difficulties this tax imposes on the transfer of assets.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, along with my colleague from Georgia (Rep. John Lewis) to introduce legislation that would help companies and victims that are struggling with asbestos liability. Distinct and separate from the controversy associated with asbestos liability reform, our tax bill has broad and deep bipartisan support. Approximately 70 of our colleagues have agreed to be original cosponsors of the bill. The bill provides fairness for victims and defendants alike. Many companies that are paying victims for their injuries cannot deduct these costs because the costs exceed their taxable income and these costs can only be carried back to a limited number of tax years in which their expenses already exceed their income. Many asbestos victims rely on settlement funds for compensation. Those settlement funds are currently taxed at 39.6%, which increases the costs of financing the funds and decreases the amount of money available to victims. Our bill, would (1) exempt from federal tax settlement funds established for the purpose of paying asbestos victims, and (2) allow companies to carry back deductions for the payment of asbestos claims to the tax years giving rise to the current asbestos liabilities. Our bill will ensure that all companies that pay asbestos claims are allowed to deduct those costs and that all of the money in asbestos settlement funds will be paid only to asbestos victims.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction Act. If enacted, this legislation will reduce the top capital gains tax rate from 20% to 10%. Additionally, the lower rate of 10% would be reduced to 5%. The measure would also repeal the 5-year holding rule. This legislation is needed to spur today's ailing economy. From past rate reductions, we know that the economy responds to the lowering of rates. The impact of reducing the tax burden on investments is to increase activity in the markets. When the tax is reduced, individuals have an incentive to sell assets. These sales spur economic growth, as well as generate revenue for the federal coffers. Please join me in cosponsoring this important tax rate reduction bill.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which corrects an inequity in the Internal Revenue Code which affects the sale of certain assets. Under current law, landowners who are occasional sellers of timber are often classified by the Internal Revenue Service as ``dealers.'' As a result, the seller is forced to choose between a ``lump sum'' payment method or a pay-as-cut contract which often results in an under- realization of the fair value of the contract. While electing the pay- as-cut contract option provides access to capital gains treatment, the seller must comply with special rules in Section 631(b) of the Internal Revenue code. The provisions of Sec. 631 (b) require these sellers to ``retain an economic interest'' in their timber until it is harvested. Under the retained economic interest requirement, the seller bears all the risk and is only paid for timber that is harvested, regardless of whether the terms of the contract are violated. Additionally, since the buyer pays for only the timber that is removed or ``scaled'' there is an incentive to waste poor quality timber, to under scale the timber, or to remove the timber without scaling. The legislation I am introducing will provide greater consistency by removing the exclusive ``retained economic interest'' requirement in IRC Section 631(b). This change has been supported or suggested by a number of groups for tax simplification purposes, including the Internal Revenue Service. I urge my colleagues to join in this tax simplification effort and strongly urge its passage.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce The Emergency Economic Revitalization Act. The time for Congress to provide taxpayers and our nation's stumbling economy with an infusion by refunding tax revenues is now. In the past, Congress has regularly provided emergency funds for a variety of needs for specific groups suffering economic loss. Following that precedent, it is time that we provide emergency relief for those who bear the brunt of the current ailing economy. They are the same group, who because of this emergency assistance, will have the greatest ability to provide an economic rebound--the taxpayers. My legislation will provide every single taxpayer, who had a liability in tax year 1999, with a rebate of 5 percent. These refunds will be made this year, making sure that we give individuals and families their own tax funds back as soon as possible. This is the kind of injection into the economy that will make a real difference today. Waiting until the current economic emergency reaches crisis proportions will be too late. Tax proposals that phase relief in over 2, 5, or 10 years provide nothing for today's economic slowdown. Additionally, legislation that promises a few extra dollars for individuals who do not have a tax liability to begin with, is simply not enough. As we know, the President has taken the lead in recognizing the fact that returning tax overpayments to taxpayers is the best and most effective way to provide the economy with a shot in the arm. However, when the President established the $1.62 trillion tax cut threshold during his Presidential campaign, our national economy was much stronger. Today, we are at the beginning of an economic emergency. While the tax bills currently moving through Congress provide limited tax relief in the future, these measures are simply not enough to make a real economic difference now. My legislation will provide relief this year and will not breach the $1.6 trillion threshold the President has established for fiscal year 2002 and beyond. My proposals are intended to supplement the initiatives supported by the President and the Congress. Enacting meaningful tax reductions, that affect all taxpayers across the board, is the only real way we have of stopping the economic down turn. Now is the time for Congress to respond accordingly. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and hope we can enact this legislation in the very near future.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, high energy prices, high interest rates, and finally, excessive taxation are choking this Nation's economy. This budget addresses one of those three factors, and that is the excessive taxation. How do we rein in excessive taxation? Simply by controlling spending. Let no one forget that the reason we have excessive taxation is because we have excessive spending. The tax burden on the people of this Nation is the highest that taxation has been since World War II. Why is that, Madam Chairman? It is because the Congress over the past 50 years has created an abundance of government programs. Each program well intended, but expensive, expensive because the good intent of each program has been expanded far beyond their means; and as we hear tonight, they are to be expanded even more so by the other side of the aisle. An example, Madam Chairman, is welfare, and it was only after the Republicans gained the control of Congress that welfare spending was addressed, and successfully, I might add. Another is Medicare. Medicare is a health insurance program which has been very beneficial to millions of seniors, many who would not have had access to health care had it not been more Fed care. But Medicare is facing a real problem over the next 15 years due to the number of people who will be under the Medicare insurance program. We would think by listening to the opponents of this budget that the Republicans are canceling the Medicare insurance. Such is far from the truth. I will remind them, Madam Chairman, that it was the Republican Congress who heard the call of the Medicare trustees in 1995 and 1996 who reported to the Committee on Ways and Means that the Medicare fund would be short of money or broke by this year. And it was the Republicans who made changes in 1997 and extended the Medicare program for another 25-plus years. Madam Chairman, this budget also gives flexibility to reform the Medicare program and include in that reform prescription drugs and also to ensure that Medicare will be around for many, many years to come. This budget further strengthens the Department of Defense. It flexes funds for education, giving more control at the local level. This budget reduces the public debt from $3.2 trillion that has accrued today down to $818 billion over the next 10 years. That is less than $1 trillion of public debt after 10 years. This budget sets aside payroll taxes and other trust fund receipts by an amount accruing to over $8 trillion over the next 10 years. Finally, Madam Chairman, this budget gives Congress $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years to reduce the tax burden on every taxpayer in America. Tax relief will provide over $400 of relief this year for families, and upwards of $1,600 per year over the next 6 years. I urge my colleagues to pass this responsible budget. It is time to stop the runaway spending in this Congress of the people's money, and it is time to stop the overtaxation of the American family. Madam Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that would repeal the duty on the importation of replacement steam generators used in nuclear power plants. Steam generators are necessary for the operation of nuclear power facilities. However, because they are no longer produced in the United States, domestic electric utilities must import replacement nuclear steam generators. Despite the fact that there is neither a current nor any reasonable likelihood of future domestic manufacturing capability, a tariff is imposed on these imports. Prior to the conclusion of last year's Congress, a reduction in this tariff was included in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act (H.R. 4868). Because a full repeal would have breached the limitation on revenue impact for the bipartisan miscellaneous trade bill, the original full repeal of the tariff was changed to a reduction to 4.9%. This tariff should be removed. While providing no benefit to any domestic manufacturer, this expensive tax is borne directly by domestic consumers of electricity. The cost of the duty is passed on to the ratepayer through the state public utility commissions in ratemaking proceedings. In short, the consumer pays this unnecessary tax directly and entirely. There is no domestic manufacturing industry to protect and the consumer derives no benefit from this tax. Except for raising a minor amount of revenue for the Treasury, this is a classic case of a tariff that serves no purpose other than to raise costs for consumers. This tariff repeal legislation has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the other body. I ask my colleagues to join the effort again this year to eliminate this unneeded tariff by cosponsoring the Generator Tariff Repeal Act.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that would suspend the duty on the importation of replacement steam generators used in nuclear power plants. Steam generators are necessary for the operation of nuclear power facilities. However, because they are no longer produced in the United States, domestic electric utilities must import replacement nuclear steam generators. Despite the fact that there is neither a current nor any reasonable likelihood of future domestic manufacturing capability, a tariff is imposed on these imports. Prior to the conclusion of last year's Congress, a reduction in this tariff was included in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act (H.R. 4868). Because a full repeal would have breached the limitation on revenue impact for the bipartisan miscellaneous trade bill, the original full repeal of the tariff was changed to a reduction to 4.9 percent. This tariff should be removed. While providing no benefit to any domestic manufacturer, this expensive tax is borne directly by domestic consumers of electricity. The cost of the duty is passed on to the ratepayer through the state public utility commissions in ratemaking proceedings. In short, the consumer pays this unnecessary tax directly and entirely. There is no domestic manufacturing industry to protect and the consumer derives no benefit from this tax. Except for raising a minor amount of revenue for the Treasury, this is a classic case of a tariff that serves no purpose other than to raise costs for consumers. This tariff repeal legislation has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the other body. I ask my colleagues to join the effort again this year to eliminate this unneeded tariff by cosponsoring the Generator Tariff Suspension Act.