Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very simple. A lot of Members have said that this tax bill ought to be directed to middle-income families. One of the features of the Republican bill that Members have talked a lot about is the credit for children, a $1,000 credit, $500 credit for children. A family of two would get $1,000. But as you know, in the Republican bill the families who can enjoy this credit go up to family incomes of $200,000 a year. Over 100 Members wrote their own leadership and said that they would like to have that amount dropped to $95,000. I agree with them. I think over 100 Republicans get it right, and that is that we ought to give a tax cut to middle-income families and not to families at the top. If you take all of the provisions of the Republican bill together, half of their tax cuts go to families who earn $100,00 a year or more. We can remedy that tonight with this motion to recommit. It does four simple things. It substitutes for their bill. First, it says that family tax credit should be limited to families making $95,000 a year or less. Second, it puts into effect the retirement changes that are in the Republican bill applying to all Federal employees including Members of Congress; in this motion to recommit, we make those changes, lowering the amount of the Federal retirement but only for Members of Congress. We do not in this motion to recommit lower the benefits or raise the taxes on Federal employees or staffs of the Congress. Third, the motion to recommit closes this egregious loophole allowing people to renounce their American citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes. Our friends on the other side may say that it is a human right to be able to leave America and not pay your taxes. I say it is America's right that everybody ought to pay their taxes to this country. And finally, we have included the language of the so-called Browder amendment that says none of this tax cut will go into effect until we are on the road to a balanced budget, and we will not keep this tax cut for people unless we stay on the road to a balanced budget.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. GEPHARDT. That is correct. As you know, in the Republican bill it got changed so that you did not look back every year to make sure you are on the road to a balanced budget. That is what you had in your amendment, and that is what is in this amendment, and that is a good amendment.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Let me sum up and say that this is a choice that we have to make tonight. Are we willing to give half of the tax cut to families who earn $100,000 a year or more, or are we willing to focus this tax cut at the hard-working, hard-pressed, squeezed middle-income people of this country? I know what my vote is for, and I hope your vote will be for the middle-income people of this country. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Yes; I am opposed to the bill in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I come before you today not to engage in partisan finger pointing, but to appeal to basic common sense and to common decency. This Republican tax bill is wrong. It awards billions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans, and it pays for it by cutting school lunches, child nutrition, and heat for low income elderly, hurting the very people that we should be helping. For 16 years all but the top fifth of Americans have seen their wages fall and their standard of living decay. We have the ability tonight to do something about that, to offer a modest amount of tax relief to families that are struggling to simply stay in place. And we have more than the ability. We have the obligation to do something about it. to come here and line the pockets of the most powerful Americans. But that is exactly what the Republican bill does. More than half of its benefits go to families earning $100,000 or more. Think about the struggling young couple, trying to get by on $20,000 or $25,000 a year. Under the Republican plan they get a $5 a week tax cut. But they lose school lunch subsidies, low income heat assistance, food stamps, and summer jobs for their children. On balance, this Republican bill hurts them and it means that they may never have a chance at a better future. But for the most privileged and powerful, people earning $200,000 a year and above, the Republican plan gives them a massive $11,000 tax break. Mr. Chairman, you and I both know that America does not want that, and I dare say that most Members of Congress do not want that. More than 100 Members of the Republican Party even tried to buck their own leadership to make this tax plan fairer to the middle class, but they lost that fight. And the Republican leadership is forcing them to vote for it anyway. I believe that we should be voting our conscience, our principles, not our party registration. I believe the day that we put blind party loyalty ahead of what is right for the American people is a sad day for the U.S. Congress. We can do better. We can pass the Democratic tax plan, which gives every penny, every penny of this plan, to families who earn less than $100,000 a year. It gives big tax breaks for education, so struggling families can lift themselves up and build our country and our economy. It lets middle income families deduct up to $10,000 a year in educational expenses. It lets students deduct interest payments on their student loans, because an investment in education is an investment in America's future, and we should reward it. It establishes a new guaranteed education plan bond, so that families can put aside as little as $25 a month to save as much as $16,000 dollars for their children's education when they need it. And, above all, it is built on the profoundly moral principle that in a just, decent society, we do not take away from those who need our help to give it to those who need nothing at all. It is not too late for us to come together tonight on this tax plan, to stand for fairness, to stand for the middle class, Republicans and Democrats alike. It is not too late to say to America we stand for that young struggling family and the privileged can take care of themselves. The Republican bill is wrong, but we can make it right. And would that not be a proud moment for the American people, the moment we said we can change our minds and work together for the good of the country; the day we put our people ahead of our party. Support this substitute; reject the Republican tax bill; and just this one time, let us vote as one party for tax fairness and justice for all.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] be permitted to manage the remainder of my time on this substitute.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend Bob Kortkamp on his retirement, April 1. In 1957 Bob began his career at McDonnell Aircraft Corporation in St. Louis as a machinist. In 1964 he was elected business representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 9. Since 1978 he has served as secretary-treasurer of the St. Louis Labor Council. Bob's interest and concern for working people has transcended his profession. He has consistently been involved with the larger community. The United Way, Mary Ryder Home, Red Cross, Catholic Charities, Blue Cross Corporate Assembly, Economic Planning Committee of St. Louis County, the Better Business Bureau and the St. Louis World Trade Center have been some of the beneficiaries of Bob's time and talents. On a personal level, the most important thing that I can say about Bob is that he is a good man. He is caring about his world and the people who live in it. He is an exemplary citizen, one who sees a need and involves himself in fulfilling that need. Bob is a role-model for the younger members of the labor community in St. Louis--always ready to share his knowledge and eager to help. I want to wish Bob and his lovely wife Betty a long and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pleasure that I join in supporting this resolution which would name a suite of offices in the honor of our friend and colleague, Bob Michel, who retired last year from his post as minority leader. Undoubtedly true, that Bob and I disagreed on most legislation, and when we disagreed he was a very tough adversary, but he was the very best the Republican Party had to offer. In times of conflict as in times of consensus, Bob Michel led his party with grace and class and decency that inspired confidence on both sides of the aisle. Maybe it was the depth of his understanding of the legislative process and how to make that process work for the people, an understanding that he honed over 38 years of dedicated service to the people of Peoria, IL. Maybe it was the way that he worked for consensus within his own conference, bridging differences to be sure at the end of the day we could make progress on important legislation. Or perhaps it was the way he knew when to fight for his party or when to put partisanship aside and work to advance the goals that transcend party or politics. Or maybe it was simply his love for this institution, his faith in our democracy, and the way he became part of all of our lives. But I know that the House will never be the same without a Bob Michel. And he should know that he has earned the admiration of both his colleagues and his constituents. I am grateful for his 38 years of service to the United States of America, and I am grateful that all of us can call him a friend, and I am delighted that we will be naming these rooms he once occupied in his own name so that his name, his memory, and his example will forever inspire all who will walk through these halls. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote against the previous question and to try to change this rule to put this provision into this law. This change on trying to get better compliance with our tax laws was suggested by the President earlier this year. It is the subject of a piece of legislation that I presented on request by the President, so we could better enforce our tax laws. The concern here is one that has been understood for a long time by the Treasury Department, and that is that a few very, very wealthy individuals are able to renounce citizenship, go offshore, and escape the payment of taxes that they owe as a result of being a citizen of the United States. It is believed that over a period of time this change would pick up $3 billion that we could use for deficit reduction. The Senate adopted it and it was in their bill, and as a result of, I suppose, the majority here voting down our instruction, when they went to the conference, it was taken out. We are simply ascertaining today that it should be put back in. How on Earth can we explain to anyone that we do not want to take necessary, reasonable steps to see that super wealthy individuals who are trying to escape taxation in America are renouncing their citizenship in order to escape that taxation? Why would we not want to do that? The argument is made that there is a human rights issue. I am speechless about it. I do not even know what to say to that argument. There is an America rights issue involved here. There are the rights of all the taxpayers of our country involved here. All of us represent hard-working people who go to work every day and pay their taxes by withholding, and now we want to say we cannot figure out how to enforce the tax law on some of the wealthiest people in the country who want to stay wealthy by renouncing their citizenship? This is the most incredible issue that I have encountered since I have been in the House. Mr. Speaker, if we look at Republican tax policy, taking this position is consistent; 51 percent of the tax bill they hope to bring in the majority next week goes to families who earn over $100,000 a year. Eighty percent of the capital gains cuts go to families that earn over $100,000 a year. I do not criticize you for having that belief. That is a legitimate belief. I totally disagree with it. But if you believe that it is the right thing to do to invest in the wealthiest people in our society so that it will trickle down to everybody else over a period of time, stand up and argue it, be proud of it, but let us collect the taxes of this country, even against the wealthiest people in this country. Vote against the previous question.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. A further question, can the gentleman give any advice to Members on whether other days will be given away prior to the April recess? In particular, I am thinking of Monday, April 3, or Friday, April 7. Does the gentleman have any advice on that at this point?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, first, it is probably clear, but maybe we need to make it clear, I take it there are no more votes today?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time to inquire of the distinguished majority leader about the schedule for the following week. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. Second, I would like to ask regarding the days off next week, can the gentleman advise whether or not he expects votes on Thursday? I assume that he will be meeting on Thursday on some of these matters.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Again, the intent is not to have votes on Friday? That is the clear intent?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I just have one additional last question. Does the gentleman expect us to go to conference on the line-item veto bill next week?

Mr. GEPHARDT. And then, fourth, regarding the rule on the tax bill which is coming in the last week, it is my understanding that the Committee on Rules will meet on the tax bill on Wednesday. I would like to ask if it is true that just one substitute may be made in order; will Members on both sides of the aisle be permitted to offer substitutes for that bill?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Ten o'clock on Wednesday. So Members who want to offer substitutes or amendments should be willing to appear on Wednesday morning? Finally, I would like to ask about the timing on the budget resolution. As the gentleman knows, it is traditional under our rules to have completed a budget resolution by the middle of April. I am told that you intend to start in the first part of May, and I just am wondering when you are thinking of trying to bring a budget to the floor. Can the distinguished majority leader give me a sense of when we might get to the floor on the budget?

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, in the coming hours and days, the Members of this body face a clear and crucial choice. We can vote for a Republican welfare proposal that will throw millions of innocent children out on the street without doing anything to move people from welfare to work, or we can choose one of the two outstanding Democratic proposals, both of which would help millions of struggling Americans to break the cycle of dependency and despair. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about welfare reform, we should be talking about one thing and one thing only: work, how to encourage it, how to reward it, how to ensure that every able-bodied American can lift themselves out of poverty and into work. That is why Democrats are fighting for a welfare plan that gives States all the flexibility they need and deserve but sets one broad goal and requirement: they have got to move people from welfare to work. If they want to spend Federal tax dollars, they have got to offer the training programs and the job opportunities that make welfare a road to work and not a dead end. The plan the Republicans are passing off as welfare reform does not even come close to that. In essence, they fingers and hope the problem goes away, as if it were that simple. At the same time they want to pillage welfare programs to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few. They want to fund their tax giveaways by slashing school lunches for children who would literally go hungry without them and cutting food and nutrition programs for pregnant women and babies that save more than three times what the programs cost. At this point, Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder whether the Republicans really want to reform welfare at all. We have to wonder whether they really care about the child whose life could be devastated, about the single mother who could lose every dime of help and support but never get a chance at a real job to support herself. Of course, it is time to insist on work and responsibility. Of course, it is time to end a status quo that perpetuates poverty and destroys our most cherished values. But how can people lift themselves up by their boot straps, if the Republicans are busy taking away their boots? Are the Republicans even interested in promoting work? Or are they looking for just another way to pay for trickle- down tax giveaways for the privileged few? The Republicans do not seem to understand that Americans just do not want a smaller welfare system, they want a system that works. They want real results for their hard-earned tax dollars. When you are trying to move people from welfare to work, there is only one result that matters: a job. And that is why Democrats have developed a wholly different approach to reform. In fact, the two Democratic alternatives are the only proposals that even do justice to the words ``welfare reform.'' They are tough on work, because they insist that the States move people from welfare to work and give people the help they need in finding and preparing for jobs. And they are good to kids because they recognize that our children are our most precious resource, not a partisan punching bag. There is a bigger principle at stake in this debate. Rather than rewarding the richest Americans for doing nothing, we should fight to promote work to reward it and to make sure that it pays more than welfare. The Republicans are not even engaging in this debate, and it is a bitter irony that this mean-spirited, shortsighted proposal would only make a flawed welfare system even worse. Do we believe in a Nation of dignity and decency? Do we believe in protecting our children from arbitrary punishment and unnecessary deprivation? Do we believe in putting people to work and not simply pushing these problems back to the State level? If we are truly committed to these goals, we have no choice but to support the Democratic alternatives to this flawed Republican proposal. Now is the time to turn back a Republican proposal that is weak on work and tough on kids. Now is the time to really reform welfare and put the American people back to work. This is a crucial decision of this body, and I urge Members to vote for one of the Democratic alternatives, to refuse the Republican alternative, to be tough on work, and not tough on kids. This is our moment to make that great statement.