Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Speaker Gingrich stood in the well of this House and he invited the American people to visit the House Republican web site, calculate their estimated tax savings under the Republican plan. So I thought, let us see how an average working tax-paying mom with two kids would fare under the Republican plan. Let me just say I received an error message saying they could not calculate her savings. Perhaps that is because this family would get a big fat zero. No tax break at all under the Republican plan. Then I entered in the data for someone making $1 million a year, half of that in capital gains. The Republican calculator had no problem figuring out their tax break: $40,000. That is true. A millionaire gets $40,000 back and a working taxpaying mother in this country gets zero. The Washington Post editorial this morning hit it right on the nose. ``The Republicans have written a tax bill tilted heavily toward the better off.'' They target this as ``tax trash''. If anything, this was an understatement. Everyone should take a turn on the web and see for themselves.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more point, if my colleagues would indulge me. The fact is they made a lot of promises. They made a lot of promises to their rich friends. They are squeezing, as the gentleman has said and as the other gentleman said, the lower end of the scale, because with that limited pot of money they cannot make the commitments that they want to do. They have been waiting a very long time to do a tax bill that in fact would reward the richest folks in this country. The one final comment I want to make, which is what the gentleman said, is that there are some people who make an awful lot of money in this country, who do not do a lot of work for it. They do not do a lot of work for it. That is okay. That is okay. Maybe their parents or they inherited wealth, or whatever it was. That is okay. But not when we have limited resources do we have to be in the business of providing the richest people in this country, the wealthiest corporations in this country, with an opportunity for tax relief which is deserved by hardworking middle class families.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, sometimes people think that some of the things that are said here at this hour are just something that is created out of whole cloth. In terms of what you were saying about the second five years and the statistics being cited by our Republican colleagues, the Joint Committee on Taxation, I mean their work, quite frankly, has been debunked, what they have done, because they only look at the first five years. In today's Washington Post, the people who wrote this bill, to quote, are not defending its distributional consequences; that is, how this money lays out to various groups in the economy. They are denying them. The plain facts are that the bill over time would not just mainly benefit the better off but would cost the government revenues it cannot afford. The bill is carefully written in such a way as to make the revenue loss look small at first. Then it soars. It is not just the Treasury that says so. Using accepted methods and conventions of analysis, the Congressional Research Service and the vast majority of other analysts do so as well. Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation says otherwise. The JCT was once the great redoubt of integrity in such matters. It has been converted into a political parrot. This is not only just the Washington Post but distinguished and reputable people are talking about the analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation as just now being a political tool and a political arm of the Republican majority.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking this time so that we can have a debate and discussion about one of the most important issues that we are facing in this Congress, and that is who is benefiting from these tax proposals that are on the table today, and I think you make the point working families today understand the sham that the Republicans are trying to pull on them. They do understand it. I tell you because it is evident in the data, and just a couple of points. Sixty-one percent of Americans think the Republicans are out of touch with the American people, and they are right. Fifty-two percent of Americans think the rich would benefit most from the GOP tax plan, and they are right. Americans prefer the democratic tax plan over the GOP plan by a 2 to 1 margin, 60 to 31 percent, and Americans strongly prefer Democrats' education child tax breaks over the GOP's capital gains and estate tax breaks 63 to 32 percent. It is important to mention those because the American public is truly seeing through what the Republicans in this House are trying to do. The most disingenuous part of this debate is that there were several people on the floor here tonight. Now a number of them are new Members so that they were not here for the signing of the Contract With America. As my colleague will recall, this was done with great fanfare on the steps of the Capitol with the Speaker of the House, [Mr. Gingrich] and the majority of the Republicans in this body. There was one gentleman on the floor tonight who did sign the Contract With America, and I would bet that those new Members here campaigned on the Contract With America. Now they may never have read the Contract With America, or they have put it aside and want to forget what it is that they signed, what they talked about, because let me talk about the child tax credit that was contained in the Contract With America, and this is from a third party association, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This is not something that is a document of a Democratic organization or a group. This is an independent organization. The child tax credit proposal included in the contract would have allowed the 500 per child credit to be applied against a family's net tax burden from the combination of the income tax, the earned income tax credit and the payroll tax. The contract included both the employer and the employee share of the payroll tax in determining a family's child credit. The contract proposal would have allowed many families that owe no income tax after the EITC is considered but pay hefty payroll taxes to receive the child credit. The point in fact is that those who signed and those wannabees who wish they would have signed have walked away from the Contract With America. In fact, to put it in the vernacular, they welched on the deal, and now what they want to do is to claim that those families, teachers, waitresses, policemen, nurses, people who are working hard for a living, raising their families, scrambling to pay the bills, people who are paying taxes, working and paying taxes, are now all of a sudden, with my Republican colleagues, people who are on welfare. Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace, and they demonstrate their insensitivity and their lack of understanding of what working families are all about in today's society. My colleague from New Jersey made a point earlier that people are paying taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, and they pay a heftier chunk of those taxes than those who are at the upper end of the scale. And in fact those are the families who for the last 20 years have watched their incomes either stagnate or decline, and their tax burden increase, who now our Republican colleagues are saying these are folks who are on welfare. And they welched on this deal because what they want to do is to squeeze these folks in order to make it possible to index capital gains so that in the second 10 years of this tax proposal we would see an explosion of the deficit. And in addition to that, they would provide a $22 billion windfall tax break to the richest corporations in this country, the Boeings, the Exxons. They would scale back the alternate minimum tax so that these corporations could in some instances wind up without any tax obligation at all. They will stand in the well of this House and they will talk about the Contract With America. I watched as the Speaker of this House punched the ticket as each item in the contract, he said, was being voted on on the floor of this House. Yet, they would now either choose to forget what they signed, refuse to believe what they signed, lie about what they signed, walk away from what they signed, and talk about those folks who pay income taxes, who pay payroll taxes, and call them welfare recipients. It is a disgrace and it is outrageous. As a point of fact, the President's proposal would only allow the child tax credit to those families who are working and who are paying taxes. Otherwise, you do not receive a child tax credit. You only receive the credit up to the amount of payroll taxes that you in fact pay. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a lot of explaining to do. They are dealing in a lot of double-talk these days. But I go back to my earlier point, which is that the American public is not buying it, because the point of fact is that our Republican colleagues in fact do not understand and are insensitive to the lives or the needs of working middle-class families in this country. The public has seen them for what they are and is going to reject this tax proposal they are making, and in fact we are going to reject it in this House and in the Senate, and the President is going to reject it as well. I thank my colleague for allowing me to participate in this discussion tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the Istook amendment because it improperly interferes with established practices for placing Indian lands into trust. In addition, the Interior appropriations bill is not the place to consider this ill- advised amendment. Our country has struggled to address the needs of native Americans who lost more than 90 million acres near the turn of the century. But we have arrived at a process that works under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Secretary of the Interior is able to consider applications to place Indian land in trust. Placing land in trust is intended to promote self-determination and economic self-sufficiency for tribes. It is important to keep in mind that 40 percent of applications to place land in trust are not approved. In addition, many acres of land are removed from trust status each year. In 1995, more than 130,000 acres went out of trust while only 55,000 acres went into trust. The Istook amendment rewrites the process for placing lands in trust and could unfairly block Indian lands from entering trust status. It would backtrack on the principle that relations between native Americans and the United States should be at the level of the Federal Government, rather than at the State level where, historically, Indian tribes have been treated fairly. Under the Istook amendment, a State would only need to refuse to negotiate with an Indian tribe in order to block that tribe's lands from being placed in trust. Finally, the Istook amendment should be opposed on procedural grounds alone. This amendment constitutes a substantial revision of policy toward native American lands that ought not to be attached to the Interior appropriations bill. But at the very least, it should be fully considered before the House makes such a dramatic policy change. Unfortunately, hearings have not been held on the Istook amendment, nor was it considered by the Interior Subcommittee or the full Appropriations Committee. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Istook amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week Speaker Gingrich said, and I quote, ``We believe there is a moral case for cutting taxes.'' But unfortunately for American families, the Republican tax plan fails the Speaker's own morality test. The Republican tax proposal denies the child tax credit to 15 million working American families who make less than $30,000. These parents work hard and in fact they pay taxes. They are trying to raise families and make ends meet. My Republican colleagues say they do not deserve a tax break simply because they do not make a lot of money. We are talking about nurses and policemen. These are the people who, for nearly two decades, have lost ground or have barely been able to keep up. Are these the values and the priorities of this great Nation? I do not think so. The Republican tax bill leaves behind 15 million American working families, while giving an average $24,000 tax break to the richest 1 percent of American families. Democrats believe it is the middle-class families who could use some tax relief. That is why the Democratic tax proposal gives the tax break to all families who work and who pay taxes.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the prior gentleman asked about challenging the information from the Joint Committee on Taxation. The fact of the matter is, very plainly, is that the Joint Committee on Taxation analysis only analyzes the first 5 years of a 10-year program that the Republicans have put together. Their tax cuts for the wealthy are phased in so that their analysis is only that first 5 years, and then they hide their tax cuts for the wealthy in the later years. I rise today to respond to inaccurate claims by my Republican colleagues that Americans receiving the earned income tax credit are on welfare. Let me tell my colleagues the story of a young police officer from Georgia, just starting out, $23,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, this is a man who protects our kids, patrols our streets, risks his life every single day to keep our communities safe, yet the Republicans say that he is not worthy of their child tax credit simply because he and his family do not make a lot of money. They actually accuse him and his family of being on welfare. Shame on them. This is a man who goes to work every day, who pays taxes, whether it is Federal taxes or payroll taxes. All he knows is there is less money in his pocket. Let us focus this tax proposal on working middle-class families in this country, not the wealthy.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if a civilization is judged by its culture, Republicans have gone a long way toward destroying America with their actions in the past 2 days. Yesterday the GOP voted to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, which makes theater, symphonies, and art programs available to Americans across the Nation. Today, Republicans are trying to eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities, which plays a vital role in advancing the educational and cultural health of our Nation, and in preserving the landmarks of our history. The NEH has made possible a wide range of activities to improve the quality of education and indeed, the very quality of life in communities throughout the country. Let me tell you about just one of the projects that could not have happened without the help of the NEH. The Yale-New Haven Teacher's Institute brings public school teachers from New Haven together with faculty from Yale University and gives them the opportunity for in- depth study of a variety of subjects. It gives teachers the opportunity to bring new materials back to their students in the public schools of New Haven and add to their curriculum. This project is seen as a model for collaborative efforts of universities and public schools to improve education throughout the United States. Yet it may not have happened without a $750,000 challenge grant from the NEH--which spurred a fundraising drive of $3 million in private funds to permanently endow this development program. The NEH and NEA make up just a tiny portion of our budget--and that investment pays off in so many ways, spurring jobs and private investment and preserving our heritage for generations to come. Who knows how many children have had their interest sparked in a whole new subject thanks to an NEH sponsored program. Don't put out that spark. Don't destroy our heritage. Vote against destroying the NEH.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we have the chance today to uphold a long and a proud Federal commitment to culture and to humanity in the United States. But we can only maintain strong national support for the arts by rejecting block grants and restoring funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. NEA opponents might make my colleagues think that the NEA budget is colossal, but NEA funds are 0.01 percent of the budget, a tiny amount of money. Eliminating the NEA would not balance our budget, but it would bankrupt an essential element of our Nation's culture and artistic heritage. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it turns us back to the Dark Ages. Providing a small amount of money for the arts through the NEA is a catalyst for local, State, and private arts support. It ensures that small communities as well as large can enjoy American treasures in literature, painting, film, and the theater. A small amount of NEA seed money has helped Connecticut's arts thrive. We saw the results this summer and last summer with performers from around the world who came to New Haven for the Second Annual International Festival of Arts and Ideas. The nonprofit arts employed more than 17,000 people in Connecticut and generated more than $1 billion for the State's economy in 1 year. The NEA ensures that the arts are enjoyed not only by the affluent in large cities but by the less well off in small towns. National grants are efficient. They allow exhibits and performers to travel to places. Even a small community that cannot afford a symphony can still enjoy a traveling orchestra's music. NEA grants have had a positive effect across this Nation. One example: 3 grants benefited 140 small communities in all parts of this country. A grant to the Spanish Repertory Theater in New York enabled the company to tour Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Illinois, Texas, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. If funds are block granted to the States, these kinds of traveling exhibits will be much harder to fund and to coordinate. The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies opposes block grants. Let us not return to the Dark Ages.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are not wasting time at all. There is a serious threat to seniors' health care in this country. There is a health care crisis in our country. Too many Americans do not have access to quality health care that they need. Quite honestly, Democrats have fought to expand coverage for 10 million American children who do not have health care coverage. Yet Republicans backed away from their promise to insure just half of these children. Now with the specter of moving the age limit from 65 to 67 for seniors with regard to Medicare, we are looking at no coverage of people zero to 67 in this country. We are moving backward in terms of providing health care for people in this country. Instead of trying to find ways to make sure that seniors have security of health care coverage in their retirement, it would appear that the Government is backing away from that promise that they would be there for them at age 65. Seniors have worked hard all of their lives, they paid their dues, they planned their retirement with the knowledge that they would be able to depend on Medicare when they turned 65 years of age to help to pay their medical bills. Let us vote on the motion to instruct. Let us work to help expand health care coverage for seniors.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the issue is who benefits from the tax cut. Quite frankly, the Republicans' data distorts the effects of their bill. They only analyze the first 5 years of what is a 10-year plan. That said, Democrats in fact have designed a tax proposal to give every working man and woman a shot at the American dream, and the right to quality education has always been an essential part of that dream. Republicans decide to skimp on education tax breaks to pay for their tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republican plan provides only half of the $1,500 tuition credit for the first 2 years of college, does virtually nothing for college juniors and seniors, and actually raises taxes on some graduate students. The Democratic proposal has offered an alternative that includes the full $500 HOPE credit for the first 2 years of college, plus a 20- percent tuition credit for subsequent years. The American people are watching this budget debate and wondering, who is on my side? Sixty-one percent of them have concluded that the Republicans are out of touch with the people in this country. It is differences like the education issue that makes it clear. Republicans are on the side of the wealthiest Americans, Democrats are fighting for the middle class.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], and it is a pleasure to join with my colleagues tonight. I would just say that I think it is important to really refute the misinformation that is being given out by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. When we talk about who was getting shortchanged, the critical question is who is going to benefit from the tax cuts. It is the Democratic view that working middle class families ought to have the bulk of that benefit. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say that they are doing that, but in fact if we examine their proposals, as some have done here tonight, we will find that working middle class families come up short. They get shortchanged on education, education initiatives, on the HOPE scholarship. They do not get any benefit for the third or fourth year of colleges, for a working family to be able to send their kids to college. So we cannot, one, make the principle of education a universal for 14 years, rather than 12, which would be a bold, new idea, to make education universal for 14 years in this country. Second, if you are a junior or senior, you do not get the advantage of any assistance at all. They would shortchange those families who are working, who they claim are getting an earned income tax, and they somehow have lost the definition of what earned income is, because only if you earn an income are you eligible for the tax credit, and only if you pay taxes. My colleagues here tonight have described the payroll tax. Third, whether it is estate tax or capital gains, it is targeted to middle class families. They are the families who are getting shortchanged. We have to ask ourselves, why they are get shortchanged in this equation, and who benefits? I think I want to point out just one area, and the contrast of why working middle class families are getting the short end of the stick from the Republican tax cut proposal, which is because, in just this one area, of the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was put into place in order for the richest corporations in this country to be able to have to pay taxes, the way everybody else does. It was done in 1986. It has been working fine all these years, though I will say in the last session of this Congress that the Republicans wanted to repeal and eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which would provide a $34 billion windfall to the richest corporations in this country. So they lost that battle in the last go-round, but they have come back again this time to try it again. The public was outraged in the last Congress that they would do this, so that Joe and Betty, Dick and Jane, we are paying taxes every year, but the Boeings, the Exxons, so forth, would have to pay zero in taxes. So they have tried it again this time. Why we see this shortchanging of working families here is because what they would like to try to do is one more time to try to scale back on the alternative minimum tax, so that it is not $34 billion windfall to the richest corporations in this country, but at the outset it is $22 billion, with ultimately the notion that you phase out the alternative minimum tax. Once again, to provide the richest corporations in this country with the opportunity to pay no tax, where you will say to that struggling family that wants to send their youngster to a community college, and I have a lot of community colleges in the State of Connecticut where the tuition is $1,800, but you cannot have $1,500 because we cannot afford to do that. We will only give you 900 because what we want to do with the balance of that money is to make sure that the Boeings and the Exxons can pay zero in taxes in this Nation. That is what this is about. I will tell you, the American public is not being fooled, because 61 percent of Americans believe that the Republican Congress is out of touch with the American people. According to Newsweek magazine, that is before, at the 61 percent, it is before middle-class voters even learned that the GOP wants to give a big chunk of their tax cut to Donald Trump. That is a quote from the Newsweek article, not something that I made up, not something that a Democrat has made up but a third party that says this is the direction they want to go. I will make one more comment because I think it is relevant to make. It is that family that is making the $23,000 a year, again in an article in the Wall Street Journal, certainly not a liberal Democratic newspaper, where it says the Republican tax-cut dog will not hunt. That is because a police officer in Speaker Gingrich's district, paid $23,000 a year, family, has two kids, gets $1,668 in the earned income tax credit, offsets it, $675 in Federal taxes and yields a check for $993. The family pays $1,760 in payroll taxes. His family out of pocket, even after the earned income tax credit, would have to pay at least $1,100 in taxes. Mr. Gingrich and company ``apparently believe giving that young police officer and his family the child credit is welfare.'' On the other hand, what the tax cut proposal on the Republican side would provide is for Mr. Bill Gates, richest man probably in the world when he gets his capital gains and his estate tax reduction and even a new IRA provision that would let him take a $4,000 tax break for educational expenses for his kids, and a $23,000-a-year rookie cop would be denied a tax credit for his kids. What this tax bill is about is values. It is about priorities. It is what this Nation is about. The Republican tax program is not for working middle-class families in this country. The Democratic proposal, the President's proposal, is for working middle-class families. I am proud to join my colleagues tonight in this special order.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this debate about the tax bill is about who benefits. My Republican colleagues once again are trying to pass a tax bill that benefits the wealthiest of Americans and forgets about average middle-class families. And once again, only people who work and pay taxes are eligible for a tax cut. Do not let them distort the facts. I will tell my colleagues that 61 percent of the people in this country are not buying their distortions because they believe that the Republican Congress is out of touch with the American people. Do not take my word for it. Newsweek magazine, an article by Jonathan Alter, said the following: A new CNN/USA Today poll shows 61 percent believing the GOP Congress is out of touch. And that is before middle-class voters even learn that the GOP wants to give a chunk of their tax cut to Donald Trump. Donald Trump, one of the richest men in the world. They would provide a tax cut for the richest corporations in this country, yielding some of those folks a zero tax break. Class warfare? Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, the Republican majority in this House has declared war on middle-class America. Let us not let them get away with it.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to tax cuts the question before this House is a simple one: Who should benefit? President Clinton and the House Democrats believe that the middle class should. That is why the bulk of benefits from the Democratic tax proposals go to families who need it most, hard-working, average, middle class families. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle disagree. Their tax proposal helps big business and the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, and the American people know it. In a recent Gallup Poll 52 percent of those surveyed say the Republican proposal will benefit the rich while only 8 percent said it would favor the middle class, and 61 percent said the Republican Congress is out of touch with the American people. I urge my colleagues to listen to the message the American people are sending us. Let us get back in touch with the American people. Let us pass a tax bill that puts back money into the pockets of average American middle class families.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 28, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers will honor Frank J. Carroll, Jr. for his recent appointment to the office of International vice president, 2d district, I.B.E.W. I am very pleased to rise today to congratulate my good friend, Frank Carroll. As a proud member of I.B.E.W. for over 30 years, Frank has dedicated his life to advocating on behalf of workers. I have known and worked with Frank for a number of years and I consider him a great friend. His commitment to working people is extraordinary and his work on behalf of I.B.E.W. is a testament to his deeply held belief in the power of unions to make life better for workers. Frank has spent a lifetime working hard to ensure that union members are guaranteed decent wages, a safe workplace and fair conditions. He has long been a champion of electrical workers, coming from a family with a long history in the profession. The best example I can offer to illustrate Frank's commitment to protecting workers on the job is his actions after the L'Ambiance Plaza collapse on April 23, 1987. Twenty-eight union members were killed in Bridgeport on that terrible day after substandard building conditions caused the building to collapse. This tragedy placed a national spotlight on the need for strict standards to ensure the safety of workers. In response, Frank played an instrumental role in supporting legislation which would ban the lift-slab construction method used at L'Ambiance Plaza. Frank's testimony was pivotal to passing this legislation and this method of construction is no longer in use. I applaud Frank's efforts on this and other safety issues that are so crucial to our Nation's workers. Frank is the first person from Connecticut to assume the position of international vice president, 2d district. This new position will provide an opportunity for his experience and wisdom to benefit all I.B.E.W. members throughout New England. I know that he will bring his activism, energy and enthusiasm to this new role and his tenure will be creative and productive. I am very pleased to join Frank's wife, Patty, and his children, Frank III, Raymond and Amy Lynn in congratulating his on his new appointment. I feel confident that Frank will once again, prove successful as he takes on these new challenges. I wish him all the best.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I will just say that, if we are Bill Gates we are going to get a tax credit, but a police officer who is making $23,000 a year who might be happy to get the earned income tax, paying taxes, is going to be denied a child tax credit.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 1,000 families who are going to get some, and it is quoted in the article today, could get up to $100,000 in that particular tax cut and are probably going to get many others. I think another area which is important to mention in this debate is that with the Democratic tax cut proposal, we are going to see working families who want to get their kids to school and provide education for their kids; education in this country has been the great equalizer to allow families to be able to have their kids succeed. The Democratic proposal is for the full $1,500 tax credit for college students, where the Republican proposal would cut that in half, would not allow working families to realize a HOPE scholarship and provide them with all of the help they might be able to get to get their kids to school.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from California.