May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 919

However, I cannot and will not support this

‘‘Reverse Robin Hood’’ tax relief package that

robs from the poor and gives to the rich.

I am also mindful of my duty as a Member

of Congress to act in the best interest of the

people I represent. That is why I cannot, shirk

my responsibility to act in the best interest of

all the American people by transferring nearly

$189 billion from programs that help the neediest Americans, to our Nation’s most privileged

and wealthy Americans. This shortsighted and

rushed legislation before us will fail to put a

dent in the deficit, but will plunge scores of

Americans on the edge of poverty down that

slope and decrease the standard of living for

this Nation’s middle class and working poor.

H.R. 1215 represents the majority’s most

significant attack on poor and working citizens

of this country. It is cynical and repugnant to

me that this bill, under the guise of providing

tax relief to Americans, seeks to cut: Federal

retirement packages; Medicare for our elderly;

welfare for innocent children; wages for organized labor; and eliminates or reduces spending on countless other Government programs

that help protect our economy, our citizens,

and the environment. This flawed and hurried

measure should be defeated because it represents a clear attack on the neediest in

America.

The stated purpose of H.R. 1215 is to cut

taxes for individuals and businesses by $189

billion. Under this bill, families making up to a

quarter of a million dollars a year would receive a tax credit of up to $500 per child, excluding low-income families who don’t make

enough to qualify for significant tax cuts. This

legislation also contains provisions that significantly reduce the tax on capital gains income,

repeal the minimum tax on corporations, and

provide businesses with more generous tax

loopholes.

While I agree that Congress should look to

provide tax relief to all Americans whenever

fiscally prudent, the attempt to pit less privileged citizens against our most privileged corporations and citizens is offensive. This legislation goes well beyond its legitimate objective

of providing tax relief. In fact, this bill is specifically designed to enrich big businesses and

our Nation’s wealthiest Americans.

Contrary to the assertions of the Republican

supporters of H.R. 1215, 52 percent of the

benefits of this so-called tax relief will go to

the top 13 percent of taxpayers making over

$100,000 per year. The facts clearly show that

the nearly 61-percent of the population that

constitutes poor and middle class citizens

share of the tax cuts represents only 16 percent of the benefits of tax relief. While I applaud all Americans who have been able to

enrich themselves through hard work, innovation, and creativity, I cannot support a tax relief package that so disproportionately benefits

the top 13 percent of the American public.

This legislation does not stop at providing

huge, disproportionate advantages to rich individuals through tax cuts. H.R. 1215 also exempts some corporations from paying any corporate tax on their profits. By repealing the

corporate minimum tax enacted in 1986 designed to assure that profitable companies

have to pay some reasonable amount in Federal income taxes, many wealthy corporations

will be able to use H.R. 1215’s tax loopholes

to avoid paying any tax at all.

Prior to the enactment of the 1986 minimum

tax, nearly 50 percent of this Nation’s wealthiest and largest corporations were able to pay

no Federal income tax. Adoption of this bill will

return us to the days when companies profited

while citizens paid—AT&T received $636 million in tax rebates between 1982 and 1985,

despite making $24 billion in pre-tax profits—

DuPont supplemented $3.8 billion in pre-tax

profits with $179 million in tax rebates—General Dynamics benefited for 4 years from 1982

to 1985 by paying no taxes and received a

total of $91 million in tax rebates. Companies

like these will be able to enjoy paying no Federal income taxes under the unfair and ill-advised provisions of this tax bill.

In addition to providing tax breaks to America’s richest citizens and corporations, this bill

also fails to provide meaningful deficit reduction. The fact is, under current law we will

enjoy greater future deficit reduction in fiscal

years 1999 and 2000 than would be enjoyed

if this bill is adopted into law. The cost of the

Republican tax cuts will total $189 billion in

the first 5 years and, according to the Treasury Department estimates, that cost will balloon to over $630 billion by fiscal year 2005.

Therefore, by fiscal years 1999 and 2000,

deficits under current law would be $3.8 billion

and $12.4 billion less respectively, than deficits under H.R. 1215. We all agree that deficit

reduction in and of itself is a good thing, but

as projections show, this Republican legislation simply does not deliver any better deficit

reduction than we would experience under

current law.

Mr. Chairman, the unfair distribution of the

benefits of this bill and its bogus deficit reduction claims were not enough for our colleagues on the other side. They would have

us pay for these tax breaks for the rich by

mandating a massive $189 billion in Federal

spending reductions in programs serving those

who can least afford it.

The largest portion of the spending cuts is

characterized in the bill as ‘‘general purpose’’

spending cuts, totaling $100 billion over the

next 5 years. The effects of these proposed

cuts will be unmistakable—they will fall on the

poorest, the most vulnerable, the most needy

of our citizens. They will fall especially hard on

the elderly, the disabled, and children.

This assault on the well-being of these individuals is worsened by the transfer of over

$62 billion in welfare funding to finance this

tax break for the rich. This action is a cruel

and callous attempt to eliminate the most

basic income support for desperately needy

children and their families. There is no doubt

that many of our Nation’s poor will suffer

under this proposal. Almost 70 percent of the

individuals currently receiving benefits, or 9.7

million people, are children. According to the

Department of Health and Human Services, it

is estimated that more than 6 million children

would lose their financial support to finance

this tax cut for the rich.

In addition to the $100 billion in general purpose spending cuts and $62 billion in welfare

cuts, this bill will snatch $11 billion from Federal employees pensions, and over $10 billion

in Medicare cuts for medical treatment for our

elderly.

It is my belief that H.R. 1215, and the circumstances under which it is presented in this

House, attempt to mislead the American people to believe that unfair and insensitive solutions will cure what ails this Nation. Nothing

could be further from the truth. This legislation

unfairly and unjustifiably expands the gap between rich and poor, and contributes to the

impoverishment of our neediest citizens. The

American people elected us to act in their best

interest, not compromise their welfare because

the new Republican majority wants to satisfy

campaign promises and grant tax breaks to

the rich. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote

against this bill.

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA TAX

RELIEF ACT OF 1995

fSPEECH OF

HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN OF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, April 5, 1995

The House in Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union had under

consideration the bill (H.R. 1215) to amend

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

strengthen the American family and create

jobs:

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, looking at the

tax bill we have before us today, I can’t help

feeling a bit like the proverbial kid in a candy

store. The store is full of tempting goodies.

But there are two problems. The ‘‘goodies’’

aren’t good for me, and I can’t afford them.

The bill is loaded wall-to-wall with goodies.

It provides a fifty percent exclusion for capital

gains. It greatly expands eligibility for Individual Retirement Accounts. It offers needed relief from the alternative minimum tax for corporations trapped in a way never intended

when the AMT was designed.

In each of these areas, however, the bill’s

approach is seriously flawed. The capital gains

exclusion will help unlock assets and encourage new investment, especially in venture

capital enterprises. But the bill also provides

indexing of capital gains, which raises serious

complexity problems, and, because the bill indexes only gains and not debt, raises the danger of new tax shelter activities.

The IRA proposal in the bill is designed to

limit the revenue losses in the first five

years—the so-called budget ‘‘window.’’ That

concern has led to a proposal for ‘‘back-loaded’’ IRAs. Under traditional IRAs, taxpayers

can deduct a contribution, then have earnings

accrue on a tax-deferred basis until the funds

are withdrawn at retirement.

The American Dream Savings Account invites taxpayers to make non-deductible contributions. That feature may restrict the

attractiveness of the proposal. The incentive to

contribute to an ADSA IRA is that the initial,

after-tax contributions, plus all earnings, accrue tax free forever.

The bill also provides relief to corporations

beset by the alternative minimum tax. I strongly support AMT relief for capital intensive corporations. That’s why I have introduced H.R.

1092, which would eliminate the depreciation

preference from the AMT. Under the regular

tax system, we provide accelerated depreciation to encourage companies to modernize

and invest in new plant and equipment. Then,

under the AMT, we turn around and punish

them for acting on the incentive we have provided. It makes no sense.

The problem with this bill is that it goes beyond providing sensible, moderate AMT relief,

and completely repeals the corporate AMT.
E 920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 2, 1995

1On May 3rd, at its Annual Dinner to be held at

the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, the Leadership

Conference will be celebrating its 45th Anniversary

and presenting its Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights

Award to Ralph G. Neas.

We should not send a signal that we are willing to return to the days when profitable corporations could completely escape taxation.

One proposal in the bill is so atrocious it requires special mention. The so-called ‘‘neutral

cost recovery system’’ is a potentially disastrous idea masquerading as a simple, fair investment incentive.

NCRS, or ‘‘nickers’’, as it is known, aims to

help solve a real problem for American business. But it is plainly the wrong answer to the

right question. The question is, ‘‘What can we

do to make the depreciation rules more simple

and more favorable to investment?’’ The answer provided by NCRS is to add complexity,

make depreciation a multiple choice game,

raise the prospect of tax shelter activities, and

try to hide $120 billion in lost revenues by

pushing it outside the budget window.

Other provisions in the bill pursue worthwhile goals. For instance, the bill correctly

identifies the ‘‘marriage penalty’’ as a problem

for many American families. Yet the solution it

proposes would require these families to plow

through a complex set of instructions and calculations, only, at the end, to qualify for a

maximum of $145 in relief.

The centerpiece of the plan is the proposal

to provide tax relief to beleaguered American

families through a child credit. But characteristically, the bill goes too far. The bill’s sponsors

make the case that middle class families making thirty to fifty thousand dollars a year are

hard-pressed and deserve relief. But that argument cannot be made with the same force

to apply to families making $150,000 to

$200,000 a year. Yet they will enjoy the full

benefit of this child tax credit.

The point here is not that upper income

Americans should be punished for their success. The point is that the problem with this

entire bill, and the reason we should defeat it,

is that we simply can’t afford it.

Mr. Chairman, the national debt of the United States is fast approaching five trillion dollars. We continue to add two hundred billion

dollars a year to that total.

This Congress has talked a strong game on

deficit reduction. We have talked about

amending the constitution. We have talked

about making the hard choices. Today,

though, we are not making hard choices. We

are making easy choices.

We have before us a bill that provides specific tax cuts. $630 billion worth, over the next

ten years, of very specific tax cuts. Every

American knows about the $500 child credit.

Every business knows about the AMT relief.

Every investor knows about the capital gains

exclusion. We have been specific in making

the easy choices.

But when it comes to spending cuts, we

have not been specific. We have passed a

package of rescissions. $12 billion dollars. We

have passed a welfare reform bill that would,

if enacted, cut spending by $62 billion over

five years. We have in this package today

Medicare savings and reforms of the pension

plans for federal employes, Members of the

House, and our staff, that will save, combined,

$21 billion over five years.

The total spending cuts—specific, identified

spending cuts—included in this package will

save $87 billion over five years. Add in the

$12 billion saved in the rescission, and you

have $99 billion. That amount is slightly more

than half the $189 billion cost of the tax cuts.

Where is the rest of it? It comes in the form

of a promise. The sponsors of the bill promise

they will save the rest of the money by lowering the caps on discretionary spending. They

have issued an ‘‘illustrative list’’ of spending

cuts.

But we have no specific cuts. We can tell

the American people what taxes we are cutting, and how much of their money we are giving back. We know how much federal revenue

we will give up in the process. But when the

American people say, ‘‘Thank you very much

for the tax cut. But I thought the government

was deep in debt. How can you afford to cut

taxes?,’’ this bill answers ‘‘Don’t worry, we’ll

tell you later.’’

Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. To

balance the federal budget will require $1.2

trillion in savings over the next seven years.

This bill takes a giant step backwards in

achieving that goal. It would add $630 billion

in red ink over the next decade.

Let’s make this clear—we need deficit reduction now—first. If, after we have cut spending and reduced the deficit to the point where

it no longer acts as a drag on the economy,

then we can talk about further spending cuts

to provide tax relief. But the spending cuts

have to be specific, not just promises. That’s

the reason I will vote no on this legislation.

TRIBUTE TO RALPH G. NEAS

fHON. KWEISI MFUME OF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit

for the RECORD a column prepared by the

chairperson of the Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights [LCCR], Dr. Dorothy Height. This

column speaks to the endless contributions

that this organization’s executive director,

Ralph G. Neas, has made over the years.

Ralph is completing his 14-year tenure at the

helm of the LCCR and I wanted to take this

time to share this article which reflects upon

his contributions to equal opportunity for all

Americans.

THE NEAS YEARS AT THE LEADERSHIP

CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Last summer, Ralph G. Neas announced

that he would be leaving as Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil

Rights (LCCR)1 in the Spring of 1995. Much

too soon that time has come. As Ralph completes his fourteen-year tenure at the helm

of the Nation’s oldest, largest, and most

broadly-based coalition, it is an appropriate

moment to reflect upon his extraordinary

contributions to the cause of equal opportunity for all Americans and some of the reasons why he has earned his reputation as an

effective leader, strategist, advocate, and coalition builder.

THE BIPARTISAN LEGISLATIVE SUCCESSES

Ralph Neas took over as Executive Director of the Leadership Conference, the legislative arm of the civil rights movement, on

March 31, 1981, after eight years as a chief

legislative assistant to Republican Senators

Edward W. Brooke and Dave Durenberger.

Ronald Reagan had just been sworn in as

president. Senators Strom Thurmond and

Orrin Hatch had just replaced Senators Edward Kennedy and Birch Bayh as chairs of

the Senate Judiciary Committee and the

Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution,

respectively. The previous year, Senator

Hatch had successfully filibustered to death

the Leadership Conference’s top legislative

priority, the Fair Housing Act of 1980. Many

feared that a similar fate awaited the Conference’s top priority in the 97th Congress,

the legislation to extend the Voting Rights

Act of 1965, which was to be introduced in

early April of 1981.

No small wonder then that many friends of

Ralph, who just two years earlier had been

totally paralyzed, on a respirator, and near

death in a Minneapolis hospital room, told

him that this was not their idea of a brilliant career move. But Ralph believed that

his professional training in the Senate,

where he had been the senior staffer on civil

rights issues, and his bout with GuillainBarre Syndrome, which had profoundly influenced his life, had prepared him for such a

professional challenge.

The situation in the Spring of 1981 demanded bipartisanship, creativity, pragmatism, and leadership. Ralph and his LCCR

colleagues showed an abundance of these

qualities during the arduous eighteen month

campaign to enact the 1982 Voting Rights

Act Extension. Many people argued that the

time for federal control over local voting

processes had ended. But LCCR advocates

demonstrated a continuing need and their efforts helped pass the extension by votes of

389 to 24 in the House of Representatives and

85 to 8 in the Senate, leaving President

Reagan with no choice but to sign the historic measure into law. That law not only

extended the Voting Rights Act for 25 years,

but also extended the Act’s bilingual assistance provisions and overturned a 1980 Supreme Court decision by reinstating the results standard in the Voting Rights Act.

The remarkable victory against great odds

set the tone for the next fourteen years for

LCCR. Indeed, the 1982 Voting Rights Act

Extension campaign embodied several of

Ralph’s principal legislative theorems. Theorem number one is to always put together

the strongest possible bipartisan bill that

can be enacted into law. During the twelve

years of the Reagan-Bush presidencies, that

usually meant having at least two-thirds

majorities in both Houses. Theorem number

two is that any successful national legislative campaign must effectively integrate

grassroots, Washington lobbying, and media

strategies. If one component is absent, the

legislative campaign is likely to fail. And

third, it is essential that the coalition always remains cohesive and united, never allowing adversaries to successfully use the

tactics of divide and conquer. If these basic

principles are understood, then one can comprehend the success of the 1982 Voting Rights

Act Extension and the legislative victories

that followed.

And there were many other LCCR legislative successes. No one could have predicted

that more than two dozen LCCR legislative

priorities would be enacted into law during

Ralph’s years at LCCR. In addition to the

1982 Voting Rights Act Extension, Ralph coordinated many of these legislative achievements for the Leadership Conference, including the:

Civil Rights Act of 1991—Overturned eight

Supreme Court decisions which had made it

much more difficult for victims of discrimination to get into court and to prove discrimination (the first time Congress has ever

overturned more than one Supreme Court decision at one time). It also codified the ‘‘disparate impact’’ standard. And it provided for

the first time monetary damages for women,