E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that Medicare is going to be funded whether we get into new deficit spending or if we continue to run a surplus. I think the gentleman realizes that. The Congress is not going to cut Medicare funding. There is a stream coming out of both bills that keeps Medicare whole. So I think we need to redirect the argument as to who is going to get the tax relief. There are going to be some people in this House, such as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), and he stated his reason for doing that, that he is going to oppose both bills. He stated his reason for it. That is an honest argument. But to say that one bill is going to run up deficits and the other is not is certainly not the right way to debate so that we can get all the facts out here on the table. I think we need to redirect the debate back to what is before us, and that is who is going to get the tax relief. That is the only question that is before us at this particular moment as to the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, we have this afternoon talked about from the other side of the aisle just about everything except the taxpayer, just about everything except what is really going on here. What we are trying to do is to give some relief to our senior citizens, who, incidentally, the monies that they put into the Social Security trust fund they were taxed on. These were not pretax dollars. The employee's portion is taxed. So why should we have to say it is taxed when they put it in, and it is taxed when they take it out? That is wrong. The whole idea of having this thing taxed on only 50 percent is because that was the monies that were put in by the employer that were not ever taxed to the employee. We need to go back to that. A lot has been said about what are we going to do if we are running the Government at a deficit. Well, I have to remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, when this tax was put in place, this was in 1993, the Democrats were in charge of the House of Representatives, and there was a deficit. There was a deficit every year. The money was found. It came out of the general revenue stream. That is exactly where it is going to come from now. We are just not pinpointing that it is going to come out of a tax that is morally wrong. It is wrong to tax people on getting their own money back. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Democratic substitute, and I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan tax relief bill.

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gas tax is a use tax to pay for highways. What we are talking about now is Social Security. It is quite different. And to say that it is right to tax some folks and it is wrong to tax other folks on the same type of income and moneys that they are receiving under Social Security, which they have paid for, this is not a welfare program, this is an earned benefit. That is what Social Security is, an earned benefit under which all American employees have been duly taxed at the time it was earned and paid into the Social Security trust fund. We just simply have a difference of opinion. The gentleman from North Dakota wants to give his tax relief to people under $85,000. We think if it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong for all people; and that is an honest disagreement. But neither program, and I want to repeat this, neither the Democrat substitute nor the bill that is mainly under consideration here in any way jeopardizes the Medicare fund. That is a blue herring. It is weird that anybody would really come in to say this, when the bills, both bills, in black and white, specifically state that those funds will be put into the Medicare fund.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman in the well, was he speaking for or against the substitute?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond basically to the comments made by the gentleman from Texas. He is quite right, he has reached out across the aisle in order to solve the problems of Social Security, but I would correct him in one statement. For the next 15 years, the Archer-Shaw plan uses the Social Security surplus to save Social Security. After that, there is a period of time when general revenue does come in. That is 15 years out. I believe the gentleman's plan does depend upon general revenue right from the very beginning.

Mr. SHAW. I thought the gentleman was trying to make a point there that needed clarification. I am very proud that we have kept Social Security. Line 20(b) on the tax return, is that the first tier on Social Security, the first tier tax?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the former speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), that what he is referring to, the Treasury bill, as IOUs is all that is in there right now. So this makes absolutely no difference. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) must not have been on the floor when I read from the text of a July 18 memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services stating that this proposal would have no financial impact on the HI trust fund. That is Medicare. It will have no effect on it. I think that is something that we should always, always be very concerned about. We are concerned about it. That is why we are making up the revenue from general revenue, as it comes today, as it comes today. But the point is, and the only difference is, as to the funding of the Medicare program, the only difference is that the existing law, the 1993 tax pinpoints a source, but it still comes out of general revenue. It comes out of the general fund. We simply eliminate part of that source, which is taxing people of $34,000 and more per year, determined evidently by my friends in the Democrat Party as our wealthy friends. But I can tell my colleagues, to be a senior citizen living on $34,000 a year, go out and find me one that says that he is wealthy; and I will show my colleagues somebody that must have a trust fund that we do not know about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a statement made by the former speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas. The gentleman from North Dakota can correct me if it is in his bill, but I do not believe either bill has anything to do with any certification that the Medicare Trust Fund is solvent. I believe what the gentleman refers to is a projection as to the surplus, and it does not address any projections as to the Medicare Trust Fund. That is not in either bill, as I understand it.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and he is my friend, that the Republicans would like to take complete credit for this bill, but we do have allies on his side: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). They have all cosponsored similar legislation. Let us go over to the Senate for a minute: Senator Feinstein, Senator Conrad, Senator Dorgan, Senator Johnson. Point of Order

Mr. SHAW. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida very quickly, because I must retain my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is interesting to sit here and if you listen to all of the debate, it is very interesting to note, and I will say that the gentleman who was just in the well certainly, I cannot accuse him of any hypocrisy because he was not a part of the debate on the general debate that we just concluded, so my remarks are not in any way aimed towards him. Like the Republican bill, he depends on general revenue. Unlike the Republican bill, he has a certification as to certain surpluses. As a former CPA and a lawyer, I have great trouble with that. How would I as a CPA advise my clients as to whether or not there was going to be a surplus? How is the IRS going to even prepare the income tax forms that have to be gotten out? And how can we depend upon guesses every year coming from somewhere as to whether there is going to be a surplus? These are all very difficult questions. I would like to also point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how did we make these transfers in the past when we did have deficits? Under the 1993 tax bill that we are trying to nullify here, these transfers were made to Medicare in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, even though we had deficits in all of those years. We had a deficit in every one of those years. This argument simply does not hold water. When the money is transferred to Medicare, it stays inside the Government. The size of the surplus or the deficit does not really make a difference. I would like to also mention the question as to whether the dedicated stream of income as coming out of the Social Security recipient's hide is any more reliable than the bill that is before us today that this substitute is trying to change. Any Congress can change what the previous Congress did. There is no question about that. But both bills, both the 1993 bill and the bill that is before us today, does not require any congressional action next year. The underlying bill does not require any congressional action next year. It automatically happens unless Congress decides to change the law. So the whole argument that has been made here that somehow Medicare is put at risk under the bill before the House, the principal bill before the House, simply does not hold water at all. I think it has gotten to be the question when you do not want to talk about the facts, you talk about something else. Anyone who has practiced law and had any type of trial practice, if the facts are not with you, you talk about something else. That is exactly what has been happening here today. I compliment the gentleman on his bill. It is certainly an improvement over existing law. But it does not get by the basic test. Is it morally right to tax 85 percent of the benefits that seniors are receiving under Social Security regardless of their income? If it is morally wrong, it is wrong. If it is wrong; it is wrong. This is what we are trying to reverse. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not believe I yielded. I do not think that any of the Republican tax reductions that were on this chart are part of this package either. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, these people have all voted to repeal this tax, this Republican tax, this Republican tax relief bill. I think it is extraordinarily important to look at what we are doing. This is not a question of doing this for any other reason except to get rid of this tax because this tax is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric regarding Medicare. I would like to read a paragraph from a memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services, from the chief actuary, Richard Foster, that is from the Department of Health and Human Services, in which he says that the proposal would have no financial impact on the HI Trust Fund, no financial impact. That is from Health and Human Services. That is not a question of a Republican administration adding this issue. So I think that it is a bogus argument. The argument before the House is very, very clear. Do we want to give people or continue to tax Social Security benefits at 85 percent of amount received for people of incomes of $34,000 and more? To talk about this is some kind of a deal for our rich friends is absolutely ludicrous, unless my colleagues think people making $34,000 a year are rich. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman hears me but she is obviously not listening. If she would listen, what I am saying is that the same Treasury bills that are put into the Medicare Trust Fund today will be put into the Medicare Trust Fund with this legislation. It is exactly the same. It is exactly the same. The gentlewoman can stand here and say this is not a real economic asset, but if it is not a real economic asset under the Republican bipartisan plan that we are arguing today, it is not a real economic asset today because it is the same Treasury bills. That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. So let us not get this confused. I do not blame the people who are opposing this bill for not wanting to talk about giving seniors some tax relief, the taxpayers who just make a little over $34,000 a year, I am not blaming my colleagues for wanting to talk about something else, but let us keep this record straight and let us be very clear on what we are speaking to. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that none of the Social Security recipients today would be receiving their benefits if it were not for that 1983 tax bill. It was necessary.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to my friend from California (Mr. Matsui) that the Matsui Telephone Tax Repeal, I did not see it on the chart, but I certainly support it and congratulate him for his effort.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I must advise my colleague from Florida that any monies going into the Medicare Trust Fund is replaced with Treasury bills. Let me finish. It is replaced with Treasury bills. This is what the gentlewoman is referring to as IOUs. That is what it is under existing law; that is what it would do under this particular bill. If the money is not spent, it is invested in Treasury bills, just as it is today. So I must correct the gentlewoman. We do not have a bucket of cash that sits in there. That money that is coming out of the senior citizen's Social Security check every month and paying the income tax on it, that we are going to give them some relief from, that money goes into the Medicare Trust Fund and is replaced with Treasury bills and comes back into the general fund. Under the Republican plan here, or I should say bipartisan plan because I have already made it known that there are many Democrats who are supporting this type of legislation, it does exactly the same thing.