Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). The gentleman hits right to the point, and that is, we want to be in an America where we have opportunity and faith in each other and faith in our future. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), to talk about the surplus dollars.

Mr. SESSIONS. All conservatives.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, there has been a good question that has been thrown on the floor, and certainly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), a man of great stature and also with grandchildren at home, as I looked at just in being the father of two little boys, I heard Al Gore talk about the top 1 percent. He was running against success in America, people who are successful, people who obviously have made so much money that, by golly, we should run against them. In fact, I have always taught as a parent, as a scoutmaster, and even as an employer and certainly in my congressional district, we want and need people who will come and work hard. Yes, they will be rewarded for what they do, but expect them to give back to their community. Bill Gates, incredible amounts of money that he has given for learning projects, for opportunity to employ people, and yet what do we hear? We hear Vice President Gore attack Bill Gates, attack the top 1 percent. It is a philosophy that then flows directly to the Attorney General of the United States, who, rather than trying to encourage competition, goes and beats up the largest, most value-packed company in the world, that has created millions of jobs. Since that time, it is the Attorney General and her actions of government that have put the economy at risk. It is the high-tech companies that today are worried about their profits, that are worried about it. Of course, the question that came from Mr. Lehrer was about the world economy. I believe the answer is it is the United States Government and Al Gore, through the policies and procedures because they do not like people to be rich, they do not want people to be successful, for envy reasons, that would destroy what we have built up in this country.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the majority leader for being here today, and I will tell the gentleman that I believe his time as a professor of economics not only pays often, has paid off in the past, but will pay off in the future. It is a matter of freedom. It is a matter of freedom about who is going to make decisions for who. One of the things which we as conservatives repeatedly speak about is that we believe it is not only our money, but it should be our decision-making process also. I think it really gets back to this question of who is going to make the decisions for us. It is either going to be the tax collector or the taxpayer. And money still equals power, and the opportunity to have money in your pocket means that you cannot only engage in the debate and be a part of what is happening, but you can have a say in the final answer. And when Washington, D.C. gets all the money, which is what Al Gore wants, then they will be the decision maker in life. If we give the money back to the taxpayer, which is what George Bush and the Republican Party wants, then we will have an opportunity for people to not only come and participate in America, but for their answer to be the winning answer, their dream to be the bigger dream. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader. We have had an opportunity today to speak about the differences between what is Al Gore's old tax and scheme plans versus confidence and security that we will make sure that people make their own decisions back at home which is called the George Bush plan. I want to thank my colleagues for not only participating today, but for the fervency of their belief that America's greatest days lie ahead of us; that I believe that America's greatest days and no problem that cannot be solved in America, because America will be responsible for its own destiny and the future, not the government.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is interesting that what took place the other night with the discussion of what the Vice President said, and he looks right at the camera and says it. Yet he looked at the camera and talked about him being in our home State a year ago when we were having natural disasters and then admitted a day later, well, he was not there at all. He told us a story about the school where the girl who is the daughter of the restaurateur did not even have a desk to sit at. Yet the reason why, we now find out, after the fact, that 100 new computers were being delivered to the school that day and her desk was taken to put a computer on it. Which person can we trust? I would suggest to you it is the numbers that you have talked about that is his real plan and the real effects that it will have.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the gentleman is right. What is interesting is that I felt like that there should have been some tracer along the bottom about truth in advertising, because, in fact, what happened is that the Vice President made it seem like that he would support these lockboxes that would be available for Social Security and Medicare; and yet it is the Vice President's own party, the Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, that will not allow seniors today to be able to have their own lockbox for Social Security. And yet we are supposed to trust the Vice President to say if he were only President, he would accomplish what he cannot get done or President Clinton cannot get done today. Truth in advertising should be important.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman. I would agree with that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is to take a few minutes this afternoon and to begin a discussion with those Members who have been a part of what we have been doing with economic development, a plan by the Republican Party, House and Senate. This plan gives us an opportunity to lead this country into further economic development, an opportunity to develop not only the plans that we have had for quite some time on moving this country forward by stopping the deficit spending that has gone on, but also to turn the country to where we are able to look at ourselves and what we want in the future of this country so that we have economic development and prosperity in this country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first talk to what this Congress began doing in 1995, after the election that took place in 1994 where we signed the Contract With America. Back in 1994, when the Republicans began the effort we called the Contract With America, we started this plan and idea, which I signed on to because I believed, as my Republican colleagues did, that it was a comprehensive way for us to begin the discussion about how we change the power structure from Washington, D.C. to move power back home; how we go about balancing the budget and still maintaining economic prosperity and, lastly, how we take the power that is in Washington and empower people back home to begin making their own decisions. We knew in 1994, just as we do today, that money equals power, probably always has and probably always will, and that the people who have the money are the people that are the decision makers and they are the people that will control, many times, the destiny. Yet we understood that, back in 1994, the estimates were that this Congress, the Congress that was a Democratic Congress at that time, would continue not only spending every single penny that came to Washington, D.C., but they would also take that money and spend more than what we had. That was called deficit spending, creating a debt that would be long-term on this country. And in 1994, by and large, we had a debt in this country of $5.5 trillion. The Contract with America, which has been the baseline document for Republicans and this Congress to move forward on, has become really a contract with America that would lead to the development of where we are today. What happened as a result of that was that two different times this Republican Congress, understanding that welfare was a huge issue in this country, people on welfare needed to come and join what was going on not only in workplaces but would also be a better relationship that they would have with their families to go and create opportunities for those families, many times having a job where they had not had them in generations, and so what happened was we changed the dynamics by changing the law. What happened in that entire endeavor was we all of a sudden created economic opportunity. Instead of some seven million people being on welfare today, as they were back before 1996, there are now seven million people who get up every morning and leave their home and go to work. They go to work and they become taxpayers. They have become credible people that we can look at and say they have made our country better. Many times they may be doormen or cooks, they may be drivers, they may be involved in teaching our children. But they are people who have made a significant gain in their own personal life and for the life of our Nation. We are now at the point where these seven million people have created opportunities, because they are now taxpayers, to become a part of paying into what this country has with its system, Social Security, Medicare, the opportunity to pay school taxes, to have a strong voice because they now feel a greater responsibility, and they have been empowered to become a part of what we are doing. What has happened is that this Republican Congress went from 1996 to 1997 and we had a package, an economic development package, it was called a tax cut package also, and we understood as conservatives that we would incent America to begin the process of wanting to not only invest in jobs and opportunities but also to invest in our stock market and the critical mass that was necessary to begin our infrastructure capitals, and we did this by first cutting taxes. It was a following up with what happened with us having our welfare changes. And we cut taxes. We cut the capital gains tax. Of course there were people that did not want us to do that. The tax collectors that were in Washington, D.C., said, we should not do that. That will ruin our deficit. We were told it would cost the tax collector $9 billion. In fact, what it did is it brought in $90 billion. It was the catalyst for this country completely turning around to where we all of a sudden then had a surplus. For, you see, if you do not have a surplus, you cannot pay off your debts. What it did is it changed the direction to where we quit spending money on welfare and started spending more on education and on the infrastructure of this country. Point two: We looked at families and said, you are the most important asset America has; and we created what was then called a $500 per-child tax credit. It has been nothing less than marvelous to see my neighbors and friends who want to take care of their own family who now have a chance to get back their hard-earned money so that they can take care of their own children. Point three: We raised the exemption on what is called the death tax, estate tax. We looked at who was being hurt and we compromised with the President and said, we need to raise the exemption. We went immediately to farmers, people who own their only property for agriculture, and we raised the exemption. We changed this because we believed then and believe now that the people who own their own land and agriculture, for the people that own their own small businesses who, yes, may have assets and resources but are cash poor, should not, based upon death, have these assets taxed to the point to where their heirs have to sell the farm, sell the small business and break it up simply to pay the tax collector. These are the things that we did to bring us to the point where we are in America where we have created a surplus. We now have breathing room. We now know and are prepared as a Congress to move forward with the new President, a new President that has a bold plan about how we are going to not only make America sound by paying down the debt but by creating economic opportunity for the future. I am pleased to be joined today by my good friend, the majority leader of the United States Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). The gentleman from Texas has been a leader in the efforts to make sure that the plans that will develop America to where people get back more money in their pocket to where they have the power will be a key to our future because he is not only majority leader but he is also a grandfather and he recognizes that the future of this country rests with our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on this matter.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 582 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my colleague and my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4945, the Small Business Competition Preservation Act of 2000. This open rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII against the consideration of the bill, which requires a 3-day availability of the committee report. The rule provides one hour of general debate to be equally divided among the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. The rule provides that the bill shall be open to amendment at any point. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that small business is the engine that drives the American economy. Statistics confirm this. Small businesses employ 53 percent of the private workforce and are responsible for 50 percent of the private gross domestic product. I am proud of these facts. I am proud of small businesses and what their employees produce for America to keep us strong. Small business is a literal powerhouse of job creation. They represent 99 percent of all employers and create 80 percent of the new jobs in America. Small businesses are also more innovative than larger businesses. The airplane, audio tape recorder, heart valve, pacemaker, and the personal computer are among the important innovations by small firms in the 20th century. Looking ahead, we have got to make sure that small businesses have the needed resources and capital to move forward so that America and Americans have the best of what small businesses produce. Looking out for the family farm, ranch or store on Main Street is something this Congress strongly supports. With this in mind, Republicans in Congress have focused on scheduling and passing legislation to further help and aid small businesses. For example, Congress passed legislation that would help small businesses better prepare for the millennium computer bug. We remember that as the Y2K bug. Congress also passed the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999 to minimize burdens of Federal paperwork on small businesses by employing new technology such as digital signatures. Because small businesses are in dire need for more affordable health insurance, Congress passed legislation to allow small firms to band together to purchase insurance which lowers the cost. Small businesses also stood to benefit a great deal from legislation to repeal the death tax, legislation that was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Clinton. Had this legislation been signed into law, many small businesses would be able to stay in the family when the owner dies rather than being sold to pay a debt to the IRS. Mr. Speaker, with passage of this rule, Congress will once again consider important legislation to help small business. The underlying legislation, the Small Business Competition Preservation Act of 2000, is important to strengthen existing protections for small business participating in the Federal procurement contracting process. The Federal Government has failed in its goal to spend at least 20 percent of their procurement dollars with small businesses, in part because of the Federal agencies' practice of bundling individual contracts into packages that are too large for small businesses to handle. Federal agencies contend that contract bundling saves taxpayers money while improving the quality of products and the services provided by the government. However, none of this has been substantiated. The database, analyses, and reporting requirements in H.R. 4945 will ensure that adequate data exists concerning the benefits of contract bundling, thus allowing Congress to make better decisions and to better assess the small business and the needs that they have. Bundling is one of the most important issues facing small businesses today. The ultimate cost of bundling is passed on to the taxpayers in the form of lower quality goods and services and higher taxes. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us is a fair and open rule. It allows any Member to offer an amendment at any time. This rule, which was reported out of the Committee on Rules last night by a voice vote, will enable the House to consider this fair and bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to echo the words of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). His State not unlike my State of Texas and not unlike many States around this country depend upon small businesses who depend upon employees, good, hardworking employees to show up for work every day and produce a product that makes America stronger and better. We concur. This is bipartisan. It is an opportunity to begin the process so that we can know the facts and figures in an orderly process. We believe it is the right thing to do. I applaud my colleague for his opportunity to once again work together. Mr. Speaker, we believe this is a fair and open rule and would ask that our colleagues support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for not only securing this time from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, but also for joining with the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, today to talk about this important issue. Each Member of Congress is confronted not only in Washington, D.C., but around our own tables, in talking to our own parents, and certainly back home where we talk about how important it is for us to address the important public policy issue of prescription drugs. What I would like to do is to spend my brief minutes here today in talking about the importance of not only what the Republican party is doing and our plan that my colleagues have heard the gentleman from Texas, the leader talk about, George Bush's plan, but also to go back and to talk with my colleagues about the importance of what we have already done. We had an opportunity in this Congress back in July to pass a prescription drug plan, and we had the opportunity to look at several plans that were presented and certainly there was vigorous debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. And what happened was there was one plan that was raised and supported by the Democratic party, which would have arbitrarily been a decision that would be taken over by the Federal Government by Medicare, to make a decision about every single part of what a senior's health care would be decided by with prescription drugs by the Federal Government. I call it the same or similar to what we have known as Hillary Care for Health Care, the same thing is true for prescription drugs. The second thing is, it would have required participation by every single senior. Every single senior would have to make the decision are you getting in or are you getting out? Thirdly, it would be a decision about whether you were going to have a prescription drug plan that would really begin kicking in in 2005, now we have heard 2008. The decision that this body made was overwhelming, and it was overwhelming because it was a bipartisan support, and pro-business Democrats made a decision that they would vote against the Democrat plan. They did not want to take over the prescription drug industry. They did want price controls on the prescription drug industry, because they recognize that in a free enterprise system that we have here in America that we want these drug companies to keep developing, not only newer and more innovative prescription drugs, but the opportunity for us to continue what we have today, provide them to all of our senior citizens. That plan failed, the Democrat party could not even pass their own plan, not because of the Republican party, but because they could not get enough Democrats to vote for the Democrat plan. And so Republicans were joined by about 10 pro-business Democrats. And we passed a prescription drug plan here in the House of Representatives that aims directly at the problem. The problem is not every senior citizen, about two-thirds of our seniors, two-thirds of our seniors are without a prescription drug coverage or a plan today, and so that is why we aimed it at that. We, our plan, the Republican plan, that has passed this House of Representatives would find that those that are at 135 percent or less of poverty, which equals 11,124 for a single person, that they would have an opportunity to receive without any cost any prescription drug that their physician decided that they needed. Now, why is this important? I receive questions across my district all the time. Why would we want the Federal Government to begin imposing this plan for senior citizens? Well, it is simple. The fact of the matter is, is that Medicare today offers the coverage for health care for senior citizens. Prescription drugs today can cure many, many more ills than it used to just a year ago, and in the future it will cure many more ills in the future, but doctors, when they write a prescription or when they utilize prescription drugs, they need that as part of the medical treatment for patients, putting a patient in the hospital is not always the answer. Sometimes it is a prescription drug, so people who make less than $11,124, and it is on a sliding scale with a slight copay above that, they would receive exactly what the prescription was that the doctor ordered, exactly the way the doctor wrote it. They would be given this at no cost. We are aiming at the poorest Americans. We are trying to help those that need help the most. That is what this prescription drug plan did. Now, the question is in Washington, as it always has been, not only about prescription drugs or about health care, about taxes, about the things we do, why would we want the government to be involved? We have done this to help senior citizens. The Democrat plan on the other hand is one that we oppose, because we recognize that money equals power. It always has, and unfortunately probably always will, money equals power. And they want to control the lives and the prescriptions that are written by the individual doctor, because they want to make decisions. I became very interested in an article that appeared in the Dallas Morning News, which is a paper of high standing, my local newspaper in Dallas, Texas, and it is dated September the 9th, just a few weeks ago and it says ``administration halts plan to cut Medicare payments for cancer drugs.'' Mr. Speaker, it is this bureaucrat, the government, that is making a decision about live-saving drugs for many times our parents and grandparents, and based upon a number of Members of Congress, they state in here, at least 121 Members of Congress, 70 Republicans and at least 51 Democrats, signed a letter to Donna Shalala, head of the Health and Human Services, please do not cut Medicare payments. You already control seniors health care. Let me state the administration backed off cutting that. Further, in the article it says, and I quote from the Dallas Morning News, September 9, Terry S. Coleman, former chief counsel of the Medicare program said, ``the reimbursement methodology is so complicated, you can't just go in and adjust a few billing codes. The same methodology is used for all physician specialties, not just oncology.'' Well, I would suggest that the majority leader is right. We should not allow this government to control the decision that is made by physicians on our prescription drugs. It even gets better, and I quote further, ``while putting off cuts in payment for cancer drugs, Medicare officials said they would cut payments for drugs used at kidney dialysis centers and in the treatment of emphysema and other lung diseases starting January 1.'' Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that not only is money power, but the ultimate power through rules and regulations, where we are required by the Federal Government to have Medicare to be the final decision-maker for prescription drugs in this country is not only a bad program and one that would not start with a Democrat plan until we find that kick in 2008 but, in fact, would control our lives and our freedom. The reason why the Republican party and these Members are standing up here today is to make sure that all the Members are fully aware of what this debate is about and what the ramifications are. It is about whether we will once against give up, as the debate in this country was in 1994, whether we will give up on the prescription drug industry and say we do not trust the free market, we want somebody else to do it for us, and when we do that, we lose pieces of our freedom, the opportunity for us to make a decision about the prescription drugs that we will put and count on for our health. We need a plan where we empower the physician and the patient to make a decision. We need to make sure that prescription drugs are not only available, but that they are what the doctor ordered. And I will tell my colleagues that the plan that we have voted for is exactly what the doctor ordered. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here with the gentleman today. I applaud what the gentleman has done; what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) is doing; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader; and also the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) to make sure that our colleagues are not only updated on this issue, but that we continue to talk about the importance of allowing physicians and patients to decide their own future. See money is not only power, but freedom is power, too.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the record I would like to point out to the gentleman, my friend from Texas, that the report that the Committee on Ways and Means worked off of, a report that the Committee on Rules relied upon, and I would like to read from that in a letter that came directly to Chairman Archer from the Congressional Budget Office. It says: ``Under current law, the revenues affected by the bill are credited to Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund. The bill would maintain those intergovernmental transfers which would have no net effect on the budget.'' The gentleman from Texas implied that there would be a problem where we would not fully fund the programs. The money will be taken directly out of general revenues. This is a projection that will go until 2024. As the speaker is well aware, this Republican Congress has passed a law in our budget which would do away with the debt of this country, we are going to pay down the debt by the year 2012. We believe that this is a responsible way to address the problems of this country. We simply do not believe that people who are senior citizens should have to wait 20 more years until they have an opportunity to receive this opportunity to put more money in their pockets. We believe in what we are doing. This is a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as usual, we have a disagreement in Washington, the people who caused the debt and the deficit of this country are now trying to cover their holes that they have left in the past. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to close on behalf of the Republican Party today and thank my colleagues for their vigorous debate on behalf of an issue that is important to seniors in our country. I am always amazed to see that the party that put the tax on people, on senior citizens of this country, is now trying to defend that tax and say, well, they have to make sure that they have this money so that we do not go into deficit spending. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there will be two bills that will be voted on today: one which is the substitute which was described by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), which is an opportunity to have every single Member of this House of Representatives vote today. Then there will be a second bill, the real bill, the one that does the right thing, the one that is the very same or similar that was just passed in the Senate, where Senator Feinstein, Senator Conrad, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Johnson all voted this last week on the Republican plan, a plan that does the real thing, the plan that says that the average tax of $1,180 that is paid this year, that is going to grow to $1,359 for the average senior citizen in the year 2010, is simply wrong. We believe it is wrong for people to be taxed at an 85 percent rate for income above $34,000 for senior citizens and $44,000 for couples. We believe that the real bill that will be on the floor today that will pass will be the Republican plan, which is the one that says we do not believe that the burden should be placed on the senior citizens of our country. We do not believe, as Republicans, that Social Security should be taxed at all. Of course we are different. The difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party can once again be seen today. One side is for the taxing of senior citizens, the other is we want to do away with taxes on Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Republican Party. I am proud of the differences we offer for senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule. I urge my colleagues to weigh and consider the two bills before us, and I urge support of the Republican bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 564 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4865, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and against its consideration. The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House of Representatives to consider important bipartisan legislation to repeal a misguided tax on Social Security benefits. For most of the program's existence, Social Security has been exempt from Federal income tax. But in 1993, as part of the largest tax increase in American history, President Clinton and Vice President Gore proposed a tax increase on Social Security benefits. They claimed this tax would reduce the Federal budget deficit, at which time it was $255 billion. The controversial Clinton-Gore proposal was vigorously debated in this House of Representatives. Opponents of the plan argued that control of Federal spending, not tax increases, was a better way to reduce the budget deficit. At the end of the debate, the Clinton-Gore proposal was passed by a single vote in the Democrat-controlled House. Not one Republican voted for this proposal. In the Senate, Vice President Gore cast the deciding vote, enabling President Clinton to sign this tax increase on senior citizens into law. Despite passage of the Clinton-Gore tax increase, budget deficits continued, and the money collected from the Social Security tax increase funded even more government spending, with deficits increasing. In 1994, the Republican Party became the majority party for the House and the Senate for the first time in 50 years. The Republican Congress enacted much-needed tax relief, controlled government spending, and passed the first balanced budget in a generation. Tax cuts and fiscal responsibility, along with the hard work of the American people, have caused the Federal budget to become balanced faster than was forecast. This year, the Federal budget has a surplus of $233 billion. Even proponents of the 1993 Social Security tax increase should agree it is now time to repeal this tax on senior citizens. Proponents said it was necessary to cut the deficit, and now the deficit is gone. This Social Security tax is more than unnecessary, it is bad and unwise tax policy. It penalizes seniors who work and discourages Americans from saving. The tax is also unfair. It changes tax policy in the middle of the game, penalizing recipients who based past work and saving decisions on old law. In essence, this tax on Social Security benefits tells Americans not to save because if they do they will have their benefits of Social Security taxed. I am troubled that our national savings rate is at an all-time low. In fact, private savings are actually a net negative at this time. It is clear to me that as long as we have a tax on Social Security and one that does not encourage savings and investment, we are going to have a problem with the national savings rate. Opponents will argue that this tax is for the rich. This is simply not the case. This tax affects seniors who make more than $25,000 if they are single or $32,000 if they are married. Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly the rich of America. It is called the middle class of America. Furthermore, these income levels are not indexed for inflation, meaning more and more lower-income people will be impacted by this tax every year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 million beneficiaries are hit by this tax this year, and more than 17.5 million beneficiaries will be hit in 2010. The average tax this year is $1,180. It will grow to $1,359 in the year 2010. Opponents will also argue that repealing the Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits will weaken Medicare. This is also not the case. The legislation requires that funds from general revenue will be transferred to offset to the penny the amount being generated by the Social Security tax, thus maintaining Medicare's current financing. Mr. Speaker, with passage of this underlying legislation, Congress says that Social Security recipients should not be penalized for retirement and savings through an IRA or a 401(k) plan or for taking a part-time job after retiring. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) from the Committee on Ways and Means aptly stated to us in the Committee on Rules yesterday when he sought this rule, the only people that pay this tax are those who saved during their lifetimes or those who will be working. Clearly, this is unfair and must be changed. That is what this debate is about, and that is what this rule is about. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that the House may consider this legislation to reduce the unwise tax on our senior citizens, the Social Security benefits tax. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As usual in this great body we have people who represent the tax collectors. We have just heard witness of the importance of being a tax collector and how the Federal Government has to have this money. We also have advocates like the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who represent the taxpayer, the middle class of this country who pay the taxes who are trying to get back what is owed them. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady), who represents the taxpayer also.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the commitment that more than 2000 banks in our great country have made to our Nation's Youth Last year, the American Bankers Association pledged to enroll 1000 banks in America's Promise, the organization led by General Colin Powell that draws on the talents and resources of public, private and nonprofit organizations to improve the lives of our nation's youth. Banks of Promise agreed to increase their involvement in programs and activities that benefit children in order to provide them with the five fundamental resources they need to succeed in life. Those resources are: (1) An ongoing relationship with a caring adult; (2) a safe place with structured activities during non-school hours; (3) a healthy start in life; (4) a marketable skill through effective education; and (5) a chance to give back through community service. The response by the industry has been overwhelming. Today, the number of Banks of Promise has more than doubled to 2102, reflecting the banking industry's commitment to its communities, America's youth and the future of our nation. These banks--and state bankers associations across the country--are offering the children in their communities everything from job training and mentoring to safe and accessible playgrounds and financial education. Indeed, our nation's banks are making an invaluable investment: they are investing in our kids. Mr. Speaker, today I rise not only to recognize the banking industry's commitment but also to encourage other businesses, organizations and individuals to make a similar investment in their local youth. From Fortune 500 companies to government agencies to the local mom and pop store--we all have the ability, and the obligation, to help our children succeed in life. One familiar quote adequately sums up the importance of America's Promise. It says: ``One hundred years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove. But the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.'' To learn more about the Banks of Promise program and to see a list of the participating banks go to www.aba.com.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.