Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I think, Mr. Speaker, our point is that we live in an uncertain world. We are not here to belittle economists and their role in our society; but we are here to say that it is truly unrealistic, and it is frankly disingenuous to suggest to the American people that these economic projections are absolutely going to be correct. Again, I would like to see which Member of this House, of either party, would be willing to bet his or her family's net worth on the assumption that these 10-year projections will be within 1 percent or even 10 percent or 20 percent correct, and I came here in January of 1991. I know that not even the best predictions of our military intelligence community could have predicted a few years earlier that Saddam Hussein would invade the country of Kuwait. So the point is we live in an uncertain world, and to pass certain massive tax cuts based on an uncertain world with inexact, inexact science of economic 10-year projections really is a prescription for returning to the old politics of the 1980s for which our children and grandchildren will have to pay a very significant price.

Mr. EDWARDS. I think what we are saying is this is an economic sand castle built on a foundation of sand; and it would be much more prudent in business and in government to be very cautious, whether it is new spending programs or whether it is tax reductions, to not commit that expenditure of dollars up front, not knowing whether 10 years of projections would be true. I would like to ask the Member, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), if the gentlewoman recalls any major national economist predicting that oil prices were going to double over the last several months.

Mr. EDWARDS. In fact, to comment on that, I thought one of the shortfallings of the Republican tax bill last year, that the American people so overwhelmingly rejected, was that it assumed there would be no national emergency over 10 years. I cannot recall in a 10-year period where we have gone without having a tornado, without having a drought for our farmers and ranchers. In fact, within days before the ink was dry on passing that legislation through the House, the very same people who said there would not be emergencies for 10 years, voted in favor of expending, I think, $10 billion to $15 billion, perhaps more in emergency spending just for that one year. And yet their assumption assumed there would be no emergency spending over 10 years.

Mr. EDWARDS. Certainly no business would be able to make that kind of hopeful projection and say we will commit our company's resources for the next 10 years to a massive extent of expenditures or extra dividends to stockholders based on perhaps a very optimistic assumption, in fact what I think is an unrealistic assumption in this case, about the Nation's economy over the next 10 years. But I think the gentlewoman is correct. I do not recall one bill coming out of the Committee on Ways and Means on which she serves that has come to the floor that has said, now, these tax cuts are contingent upon every assumption in these grandiose 10-year projections coming true. The fact is the way they have passed these, we could have, for example, an economic crisis, we could have a military crisis throughout the world that could dampen a 10-year projection of a 2.7 percent increase over the next 10 years in our economy, projecting no recession for a longer period of time than has ever occurred in this country without a recession. They do not have any qualifiers saying, we will qualify those tax cuts based on what happens to the economy. To me, that is the kind of thinking that got us in the 1980s into what is today a $5.6 trillion national debt.

Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentlewoman's involvement.

Mr. EDWARDS. I am glad to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida who has been a real leader on the Committee on Ways and Means in discussing the tax issue this year in Congress.

Mr. EDWARDS. Three hundred million total population; about 270 million or so citizens.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues facing Congress this year is how we should address the use of the surplus, the projected surplus this year and in the years ahead. The purpose of tonight's special order is to address three questions regarding the Republican tax bills proposed as a response to the projected or possible surplus. The first question we want to address is, are the Republican tax bills fiscally responsible? The second question we want to address is, are the Republican tax cuts proposed in the House this year fair to average working families? The third question we want to address is, what major national priorities if any do the proposed and House-passed Republican tax cuts crowd out, other high national priorities? Mr. Speaker, let me say that over the last several months, I have heard a lot of speeches about values. It is good that we discuss values. Values are an important part of who we are as an American Nation and as American individuals and families. But I would suggest that as Members of the House, how we vote on the question of spending the people's money says more about our values as Members of Congress than all the political speeches in the world. Let us go back to the first question we want to address this evening. Are the Republican tax bills fiscally responsible? I would suggest the answer to that question is no. First, let us look at the cost of those tax cuts that have passed the House. Because of the strategy of divvying up the pieces of the pie, a lot of Americans and Members of Congress have not really put together those pieces to figure out what the true total cost is of just the tax cuts proposed and passed in the House this very year alone. The answer to that question is those total $573 billion over 10 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we include the additional interest cost as a result of those tax cuts, the House has already passed a series of tax cuts that almost total the total amount of the massive tax cut passed in the House last year that the American people rejected overwhelmingly as being irresponsible at a time when Americans felt we should pay down the national debt. Let me make several key points about the question of fiscal responsibility. Some say that we ought to pass these massive tax cuts because this is the people's money and they have earned it, they are paying it, they should get it back. I would agree with that point. There is some credence to that point except for one clear, undebatable fact, the fact that we have a $5.6 trillion national debt. That is not just some sort of vague number that most of us cannot relate to because, in fact, the average family in America pays about $1,000 per man, woman and child in interest payments on that national debt. That interest payment, paid for by our taxes, does not educate one college student, it does not help train one Army soldier, it just is paying off the interest on past national debt. So I would suggest it is fiscally irresponsible most clearly to pass these massive tax cuts based on projected future possible surpluses because we ought to be paying down the $5.6 trillion national debt that is soaking away money from taxpayers and other high national priorities. The second point about fiscal responsibility I want to make is this: all of these projections, including the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections, are just that. They are projections. I often hear from my colleagues, and I think it is good advice, we ought to run the government like a business. We do not often do that. I would suggest that if a business in any district in this country were to say, we project our revenues and profits over the next 10 years to be an extra couple of trillion dollars, and therefore we ought to go out and spend money right and left, give our stockholders dividends, give massive salary increases to our employees and our executives based on nothing more than hopeful projections for 10 years, I would suggest that company would be bankrupt very, very quickly. Clearly, a business cannot go out and say, These are our projected revenues for 10 years; therefore, let's spend all that money, either in new spending programs or in the tax cuts proposed and passed in the House by our Republican colleagues. I would like to ask whether there is any Member of this House that would be willing to bet his or her net worth on any economist's projection for the next 10 years. What we have learned is that the projections over the last 10 months have been off to the tune of possibly trillions of dollars; and to invest, to bet, to gamble our children and grandchildren's future that economists' projections of Federal tax revenues over the next 10 years are going to be exactly correct is just that, it is a gamble and it is an unfair gamble at the risk of our children and grandchildren's future.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. He summarized some very key points. For our debate tonight, I think the first question we wanted to raise was, are these, in effect, trillion dollar proposed tax cuts fiscally responsible? The answer is no. The second question is, are they fair to average working families? The facts are they clearly are not. The third point I think perhaps we could get into and mix with the debate of the fairness of the tax cuts is, if we were to have this $500 billion, or even the proposed $1 trillion in tax dollars to spend over the next 10 years, should they all go to these particular tax cuts or should they perhaps be balanced between tax cuts, paying down the debt and supporting some other major national priorities? I think we ought to continue this discussion with about 12 minutes that we have left in this hour of debate on the crucial issue of how are we going to reflect our values as a Congress in the way we spend the projected surplus. I would like to get into the issue of not only the fairness of the tax cuts, continue that debate, but also talk about how perhaps this massive size of tax cuts, bigger in sum total than last year's proposed cuts projected by the American people, how do these proposed tax cuts cut out other high national priorities? Unless, of course, you are part of the free lunch bunch, in which case you can cut taxes, have massive increases in defense spending, adequately fund domestic needs and pay down the national debt. But I hope we grew beyond that free lunch bunch mentality that got us into a massive national debt position in the 1980s. I yield to my to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to be sure I am clear. The same House leadership that said we could afford to give Bill Gates a massive tax cut this year, said that we cannot afford to provide tax incentives for middle and lower income working families to save for their retirement; is that correct?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for making the point, which is our third question tonight. That is, does the Republican proposal for tax cuts this year, does that actually crowd out other major national priorities? I think the answer to that question is yes, just as the answer to our other question, are their proposed tax cuts irresponsible fiscally and are they unfair to average working families, is yes. Let me talk as a member of the Committee on Appropriations about the values reflected by the choices made in this House, because it is not a free lunch. As they have proposed their massive tax cuts, they have proposed to tighten the belts of a few folks as we try to enhance Bill Gates' and Ted Turner's and Steve Forbes' substantial wealth. Let us look at who has been asked to tighten their belts. First, Republicans on my Committee on Appropriations suggest a 60 percent cut in the Legal Services Corporation. So while we come to this House floor and put our hands over our hearts and say pledge of allegiance to the flag every day when we are in session, and finish with ``liberty and justice for all,'' we are giving some liberty enhancing the wealth of Bill Gates, but we are denying justice for the lower-income woman who has been the victim of abuse by her husband, who walked out and left her trying to support her children. They wanted to cut the Legal Services Corporation. In the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in the Committee on Appropriations on which I serve, we had to make an arbitrary decision of no new flood construction projects anywhere in the country. If one's community is at risk for massive flooding, because of these massive proposed tax cuts, we cannot offer that community a national responsibility, and that is to prevent flood damage and perhaps even injury and death in the community. They proposed that we kill the President's program to bring in 100,000 new teachers, so we can have qualified teachers and smaller classrooms throughout America. That went out the window because of the cost of these massive tax cuts. For example, the estate tax, 100 percent of the benefits go to only 2 percent of American families. We have had to cut back on the President's proposal for school modernization, to bring our public elementary schools up to safe standards that local communities would require for safety for people of any age, much less children. We have reduced funding for basic science research. As someone who cares deeply, along with Members of the Republican and Democratic Caucus in this House, cares deeply about our national defense and our men and women serving in uniform, this House, which originates or has the responsibility for originating spending bills, could not find the money to get soldiers and airmen and Marines off of food stamps, but we could give Bill Gates a tax cut. It goes on and on and on. One in 13 seniors throughout America, including in my district, have to make a decision sometime during this year whether to adequately purchase food or their prescription drugs their doctors say they need for health. Yet the Republican leadership says, no, we can afford these tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of families, but we cannot afford that expensive old Democratic prescription Medicare drug program that is going to help seniors not have to choose between eating properly or taking their medicine properly. So my point is that it is not a free lunch. These proposed tax cuts not only are fiscally irresponsible, they are not only skewed to the wealthiest Americans and not average working families, they end up costing average working families. They are also crowding out our opportunity with today's budget surplus, our opportunity to help folks like senior citizens who need help with prescription drugs. Their proposals crowd out our ability to protect the solvency of the social security and Medicare trust fund. So there is a tremendous cost for these proposals. I think when the American people recognize the cost of these so-called free lunch tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, I think they are going to be outraged by it.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) for their participation on this vital national issue.

Mr. EDWARDS. In fact, as I look at the Republican-passed estate tax, and I supported the Democratic alternative that was much more fiscally responsible and helped most farmers, ranchers and small businesses, but I look at the Republican estate tax plan, it is essentially this, that the majority party in this House is saying we can afford to spend $500 billion over the next 10 years. Guess what? Ninety-eight out of every 100 Americans will not get one dime of that. So, Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the American people is that next time they go into a room of 100 people, think about the estate tax. Look around them. Five hundred billion dollars is going to be spent throughout the country, but of the 100 people in that room only 2 will get a single dime out of that. The single mother working hard trying to, as a waitress, find a way to pay for child care and put her children through school, the $30,000 a year working family, the average working family in America that goes to work and works hard, sometimes two parents trying to save money for their children's education and a little bit for their retirement and pay their utility bills, they do not get a dime out of the estate tax; but the richest 329 families in America will get over a billion dollars a year in tax benefits out of this. So it is just amazing to me, at a time when this House has not found a way to get all of our Army soldiers off of food stamps, we can all of a sudden say but, however, we cannot afford to get our Army soldiers off of food stamps but we can pass a $500 billion tax cut over a 10- year period where over 100 percent of the benefits go to 2 percent of the wealthiest families. I am not here to attack wealthy families. I respect and admire them. I am not here to raise their taxes. In fact, they had their taxes cut significantly just a few years ago when we reduced the capital gains tax. In fact, the reality is that some of the wealthiest families in America pay less on their income than the poor average working family. The waitress that works 30, 40, 50 hours a week, the two-income family that makes $40,000, $50,000 a year, they pay more income tax because their tax rates are in the 30 percent range. The billionaire who makes most of his or her money off of capital gains on stock investments are paying 18 percent. So the wealthiest have already gotten a tax cut, and that was passed for reasons to encourage investment in this country. Now we are adding on top of that; one hundred percent of the benefit going to 2 percent of Americans. Again, I would remind the American people that means 98 out of every next 100 people we see will not get one dime, but I can say what those working families will get. They will get an extra $11.5 billion interest payment on the national debt because of that tax break for Bill Gates and Ted Turner and the richest families in America. They will get $11.5 billion increase in interest payments that they will have to help contribute and pay for, their children and grandchildren will have to pay for. So the working folks not only do not get a dime of the estate tax as proposed by the Republicans, they are actually having to pay for it. That is simply unfair, and that is what this part of our debate is about, are the Republican tax proposals fair?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to working businesses, small businesses and farmers and ranchers, if your business, your ranch, your farm are worth $4 million or less, the democratic estate bill will actually help you more quickly than the Republican bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), I would just summarize my comments on this fairness question in this way: I think Democrats feel that we do not have to give Bill Gates and Ted Turner and Steve Forbes a massive multi-billion dollar tax cut to protect the family farmer in Lomita, Texas or Gatesville, Texas or the small businessperson in Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from Houston (Mr. Green), who is a key member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect the right of every member of this House to take a stand of conscience on the subject of religion, but the process of this resolution, in my opinion, does a disservice to the Constitution and to this House. If this is intended to be a serious resolution, then it subjects matter of religious freedom in state mottoes deserves a full and open debate in Judiciary Committee hearings and on this floor. Let us be honest with our constituents. The Constitution in Article III makes it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court--not the Congress--has the power to determine what is or is not constitutional. Let us be honest, the passage of this resolution will have absolutely no impact upon whether the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of the motto, ``With God, all things are possible''. No press releases today will change that fact. If some members of this House envision this Congress as an advisory body to the Supreme Court, I would suggest that declaring an action constitutional, without any consideration of hearings on related court cases, would make our advice so grievously superficial as to make it ignored at best and counterproductive at worst. I would hope that the Leadership of this House would honestly say to the American people that only the Supreme Court--not Congress-- ultimately decides the constitutionality of an issue. The first 16 words of the Bill of Rights have protected American's religious liberty for over two hundred years. It is a shame the House Republican leadership seems more interested in sound bite politics than in respecting our Constitution.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, even more importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for a lifetime of service to his Nation. He served this country with great distinction in military uniform. And much like my mentor in politics, the late Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, who served this country in such a distinguished way for so many years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) continued to serve his country after he took off the uniform and put on the civilian uniform of public servant. As someone who worked with the chairman both when he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, now the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I want to say it was an honor to work with him, to work under him, and to know him. He gives the name ``public service'' the very best of meaning because of his lifetime of service to our country. And there are military families living in better housing today, there are people in communities that are less prone to flood control today, there are millions of American citizens who, whether they know the name of the gentleman or not, are living a better life today and for many years to come for their families because of the service of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) to our country.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a short colloquy. As the gentleman knows, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has before it certain legal issues relating to the off-site disposal of FUSRAP material. My question to the chairman is, will the gentleman confirm that the Committee on Appropriations does not wish to influence the judgment of the Commission on those issues?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), a ranking Democrat on the VA Subcommittee on Benefits. He also has been a real leader on veterans' programs in this Congress.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I can think of no group that deserves Congress' support more than America's veterans, and this amendment is about supporting and keeping our commitment to those veterans. According to the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the $535 million in increased VA medical care and research funding in this amendment is needed and I quote, ``to fill the funding gap so the needs of our Nation's veterans can be properly met.'' Dennis Cullinan, director of the National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars sent me a letter 2 days ago saying the VFW, and I quote, ``would like to take this opportunity to extend our support to your amendment.'' Mr. Chairman, why is this amendment needed? The answer is very simple, to keep our commitment to our Nation's veterans, just as those veterans have kept their commitment to us. As the DAV, VFW, AMVETS and Paralyzed Veterans of America have said, ``over the past decade, spending for veterans' health care has fallen dramatically short of keeping pace with medical inflation and associated cost increases.'' How do we pay for my amendment? We do it by simply delaying the recently passed estate tax reduction for estates only over $20 million. That would save us $1 billion over 2 years, the exact same amount it would take to improve health care for America's 25 million veterans. In other words, we can see that millions of veterans receive the health care they need and deserve if this House will simply today say that approximately 6 of the richest families in each State should not receive a $500 million a year tax windfall. The choice is very clear. We can tell one-ten thousandth of 1 percent of the richest estates in America that we are not going to give you a tax break. Why? So we can take care of the millions of veterans who sacrificed to ensure your family's freedom and opportunity. The question today is, whose side are we on? Do we want to help millions of veterans struggling to get better health care, or do we want to help one ten-thousandth of 1 percent of America's most affluent families? Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of candidate speeches lately about values, but I would suggest that, as Members of Congress, how we vote on budget priorities says a lot more about our values than all of our speeches combined. To keep our Nation's commitment to veterans, we do not have to undo the entire estate tax reform bill passed just 2 weeks ago on this floor. We do not even have to raise taxes on the wealthy, who frankly have already received enormous tax cuts through reductions and capital gains taxes. All we have to do is tell Bill Gates and Steve Forbes and about 300 of America's richest estates each year that we believe that taking care of millions of veterans and their health care is more important than giving another tax break. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be a simple choice. It is a clear choice. If no Member of this House will object this afternoon, we can pass this amendment and help veterans today. I would point out the Republican leadership did let tax provisions be put in the appropriations bill passed on October 20 of 1998 on this floor. I would hope the Republican leadership would give America's veterans the same procedural respect today that hundreds of other less deserving groups were given in October of 1998 on the appropriations bill in this House. Mr. Chairman, let me say they have done a very respectable, fine job of supporting veterans given the Republican budget constraints caused by massive regressive tax proposals. I do want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their subcommittee work. They have done well within those constraints. This amendment though is not about their work on the Appropriations Subcommittee, rather this amendment is about a clear choice of whether Congress should spend an additional $500 million helping one-ten thousandth of 1 percent of America's families or whether we want to take that same $500 million and help millions of America's veterans. It is a clear choice. This amendment is about our priorities in this House. It is about our values. It is about whose side are we on. Let us vote for the Edwards amendment and stand by the veterans who have stood up for all of America's veterans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who is the senior Democrat on the Committee on Veterans Affairs and has been a stalwart fighter on behalf of veterans' programs in this Congress.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), he has done very well within the constraints that the Republican leadership and the House has put on what we can spend on VA health care. The problem is, that the multibillion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest one-ten thousandth of 1 percent of families in America that we passed 2 weeks ago provides less money for this bill. We do have an offset in this bill. We just choose to help 25 million veterans get better health care rather than giving 300 of America's richest estates a further tax cut, that is a choice we should be allowed to make.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.