[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 61 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4036-H4039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NO NEW TAXES ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as the first Member of Congress to introduce 
the family tax credit in the 103d Congress, I am troubled with the tax 
bill we will vote on this week which includes a much-needed $500 tax 
credit for families with children on one hand but also includes a 
payroll tax increase on Federal employees on the other. Federal 
employees are virtually all middle-class taxpayers. We promised no tax 
increases on middle-class Americans. And I am personally very 
disappointed to be put in such an untenable position.
  I was calling for the family tax relief in the 102d Congress and the 
103d Congress when Republicans in the White House and many in Congress 
would not give it the time of day. Yet my bill for family tax relief 
garnered bipartisan support for 263 cosponsors in the 102d Congress. 
Raising taxes to fund a tax cut was never part of the picture.
  So why sully our tax package now with a tax
   increase? President Bush did not balance the budget by raising taxes 
and neither did President Clinton. We will be breaking our promise in 
the contract not to raise taxes. Therefore, I hope that it will not 
only be those Republicans with large numbers of Federal employees in 
their districts who will oppose payroll tax hikes own certain groups 
but all on our side on the aisle who signed the contract as well as 
those Democrats who oppose increasing taxes on the middle class.

  We are repealing in this bill the Social Security tax increase which 
the Democrats passed to balance the budget because it hit many middle-
class retirees. Why repeat that mistake by picking on another group? 
And why repeat the disasters of the past in breaking promises on tax 
increases?
  A fundamental tenet of the Contract With America is the commitment to 
no new taxes. Once we cede the tax issue in any area we will be open to 
the argument that it is OK to raise taxes; it just depends upon whose.
  We should not be talking about raising anybody's taxes. But this bill 
singles out Federal employees for a dramatic increase in payroll taxes. 
For example, an FBI agent, who everyone in this body would call if your 
wife or husband or children was kidnaped, an FBI agent with two 
children earning $50,000 will pay an additional $250 a year to the 
Federal Government even with the $500 tax credit. This is a $1,250 hit 
without the tax credit.
  The provision that was put into the bill is even more onerous than 
the provision proposed in the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and that was unable to even make it out of committee. There 
were only 2 days of hearings on this very complicated issue and, quite 
frankly, there was still many issues unresolved. This is not a good 
precedent to be setting.
  Furthermore, most management experts will tell you that as you are 
downsizing it is important not to demoralize the remaining staff. Let 
me just say it again. As you are downsizing it is important not to 
demoralize the remaining staff. Hitting Federal employees across the 
board with a payroll tax like this in conjunction with downsizing 
efforts will have a devastating impact on morale at a critical time.
  What Federal employees? FBI agents, DEA agents that are keeping drugs 
out of schools, CIA agents, Secret Service agents that would stop the 
bullet that kills the President of the United States like Timothy 
McCarthy who saved President Reagan's life. Cancer research at NIH.
  When you downsize you treat the people you keep well and you do not 
demoralize them. This issue of unfunded liabilities in the Federal 
pension system is still open to considerable debate. The Congressional 
Research Service reported that the trust fund balance is adequate to 
provide needed budget authority on an ongoing basis. The combined 
funded and unfunded liabilities of the old retirement system is the 
amount that the Government would have to pay all at one time if 
everyone who is or who has ever been a vested CSRS participant could 
demand a check for the present value of all the benefits to which they 
would be entitled from that time throughout retirement until their 
death, taking into account future pay raises they might receive and 
cost-of-living adjustments after retirement.

                              {time}  1300

  As the CRS noted, ``This event cannot happen in the Federal 
retirement system.'' Federal pension obligations would not just come 
due all at once, at one time.
  Furthermore, given the large downsizing effort in progress, the 
pension liabilities will be dramatically reduced in coming years, and 
this is just one more reason why it is particularly unfair that Federal 
employees will see the huge jump in their payroll tax. Some of them 
will be gone before this pension even vests.
  Instead of including this complex issue in this tax bill, perhaps we 
need a bipartisan commission to look at it. I am asking that the tax 
increase provision be removed and that we complete the final plank in 
the contract without any tax increase.
  I include for the Record a memorandum and letters to Mr. Darman.
                    [[Page H4037]] Congressional Research Service,


                                          Library of Congress,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1995.
     Subject: Federal Civil Service Retirement: Is There a 
         Financing or Funding Problem?
     From: Carolyn L. Merck, Specialist in social legislation, 
         Education and Public Welfare Division.

       Two questions have been raised recently regarding the 
     Federal Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS]. First, is the 
     ``unfunded liability'' of the CSRS a problem that needs to be 
     fixed to avoid steep increases in outlays from the Treasury 
     or increases in the deficit? Second, is the system now 
     insolvent, or will it become insolvent in the future? The 
     answer to both of these questions is ``no.''


                               background

       From 1920 until 1984 the CSRS was the retirement system for 
     most Federal employees. In 1935, Congress enacted social 
     security for private sector workers. In 1983, when social 
     security funding was running low, Congress brought cash into 
     that system by mandating (among other things) social security 
     coverage and payroll taxes for all Federal workers entering 
     civil service employment on or after January 1, 1984. Because 
     social security benefits would duplicate some CSRS benefits, 
     Congress closed the CSRS to new participants at the end of 
     1983 and designed the Federal Employees' Retirement System 
     [FERS] to coordinate with social security. A primary 
     objective of Congress in designing a new system was to create 
     a retirement plan like those commonly found in the private 
     sector. Congress crafted FERS during 2 years of careful 
     analysis of alternatives and planned for a smooth funding 
     transition from CSRS to FERS.
       Total annual benefit costs for current Federal retirees and 
     survivors were about $36 billion in FY 1994. About $9.7 
     billion in receipts were credited to the retirement trust 
     fund account of the Treasury from payroll withholding from 
     current workers along with payments from the U.S. Postal 
     Service and the Government of the District of Columbia.
       These cash receipts are converted to Federal securities and 
     are deposited in the one retirement trust fund that finances 
     both CSRS and FERS. Other annual trust fund receipts in the 
     form of Federal securities total about $53.8 billion and are 
     deposited according to formulas established in law to prefund 
     partially future retirement benefits and to pay interest on 
     the securities in the fund. In total, the trust fund received 
     $63.5 billion in FY 1994 and spent about $36 billion for 
     benefits. The deposit of securities in the trust fund is an 
     ``intragovernmental transfer'' between accounts of the 
     Treasury; it does not constitute an outlay from the Treasury 
     and has no effect on the budget deficit. Benefit payments and 
     administrative costs are the only expenditures of the 
     Treasury for the retirement system. Because the trust fund 
     receives more income each year than is debited for benefits, 
     its balance continues to grow.


            is the unfunded csrs liability a budget problem?

       The liabilities of a retirement system are the costs of 
     benefits promised to workers and retirees. A retirement 
     system is ``fully funded'' if a trust fund holds assets 
     approximately equal to the present value of all future 
     benefit promises to which retirees and vested employees are 
     entitled (``vesting'' in the Federal plans requires 5 years 
     of employment covered by the system). ``Unfunded 
     liabilities'' are earned benefits for which assets have not 
     been set aside in a retirement fund. As of the end of FY 
     1993, the Federal retirement trust fund held $276.7 billion 
     in assets for the CSRS, or about 34 percent of long-term CSRS 
     pension liabilities (the fund balance represents ``funded 
     liabilities''). Thus, the unfunded CSRS liability was $538.3 
     billion. The unfunded liability developed because the CSRS 
     funding laws have not required the Government to fund the 
     system fully. Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the 
     Federal trust fund is not to provide a source of cash for the 
     Government, but to provide budget authority to allow the 
     Treasury to disburse monthly annuity checks without annual 
     appropriations. The trust fund balance is adequate to provide 
     this budget authority on an ongoing basis.
       The combined funded and unfunded liabilities of the CSRS, 
     $815 billion in FY 1993, is the amount the Government would 
     have to pay all at one time if everyone who is or who ever 
     has been a vested CSRS participant could demand a check for 
     the present value of all the benefits to which they would be 
     entitled from that time throughout retirement until their 
     death (or their survivor's death), taking into account future 
     pay raises they might receive (which affect the annuity at 
     retirement) and cost-of-living adjustments after retirement. 
     This event cannot happen in the Federal retirement system. 
     Federal pension obligations cannot come due all at one time, 
     unlike the situation that arises in the private sector when 
     an employer goes out of business and must pay all promised 
     pension obligations at once. Some of the Government's 
     liabilities represent payments due to current retirees, who 
     receive their benefits 1 month at a time throughout 
     retirement; others represent payments that will not commence 
     for years to come because the workers are not yet eligible 
     for retirement. By the time they become eligible, others 
     currently retired will have died. Thus, unlike private 
     employers, the Government need not fully prefund the 
     retirement system in order to insure against having to pay 
     off all earned benefits simultaneously.
       Some are concerned that the existence of unfunded Federal 
     pension liabilities has, or will have in the future, an 
     effect on the budget deficit and/or the need for tax 
     revenues. The annual budget cost to the Government of CSRS 
     (or any retirement system) can never be more than the sum of 
     the checks written to annuitants 1 month at a time. Thus, the 
     liabilities of the system, funded or unfunded, will never 
     require payments from the Treasury in excess of the benefits 
     payable to living, retired workers or survivors. However, the 
     cash to pay monthly benefits comes from general revenues, and 
     paying monthly benefits creates an outlay from the budget and 
     therefore contributes to the budget deficit, as does any 
     Government spending. Consequently, in times of tight budgets, 
     Congress often considers benefit cuts in order to reduce 
     spending. This would be true if the program were fully funded 
     and had no unfunded liability, or, conversely, if there were 
     no trust fund and the program were totally unfunded.
       The CSRS is an employer-provided defined benefit system, 
     which is the type of plan provided by many private employers 
     for their employees and by most State and local governments. 
     Under all defined benefit pension plans, public and private, 
     the employer bears the responsibility for financing and 
     paying most or all of the cost of benefits. Defined benefit 
     pensions are deferred compensation, meaning the employer 
     defers paying employees' compensation during their working 
     years in favor of proving a specified level of compensation 
     throughout retirement years. Private employers finance 
     employees' pensions from invested income derived from the 
     sale of goods or services. Analogously, the employer of 
     Federal workers is the American taxpayer. The resources the 
     Government has to meet its employer obligations to finance 
     the current and deferred compensation of its employees are 
     Federal tax revenues.


                     DOES THE CSRS FACE INSOLVENCY?

       Currently about half of the Federal workforce participates 
     in the CSRS and about half participates in FERS. Over the 
     next two decades or so the number of CSRS workers will 
     decline as they retire, and the workforce will include mostly 
     FERS participants. As the number of CSRS-covered workers 
     declines, the assets credited to the trust fund for CSRS will 
     decline not because of loss of payroll contributions from 
     workers, but primarily because the Government's payments will 
     decline. Employee contributions ``pay for'' only about 12 
     percent of current annual benefit costs. However, the 
     formulas by which the Government's share of CSRS costs are 
     determined are based on projections of long-term benefits; as 
     long-term benefit projections decline in anticipation of the 
     demise of the CSRS, the Government's funding will decline, 
     although there will still be CSRS retirees and survivors 
     entitled to benefits. According to the Office of Personnel 
     Management (OPM), CSRS benefit payments will begin to exceed 
     the amount of assets credited annually to the trust fund for 
     CSRS in about 2008, and the assets attributable to the CSRS 
     will be depleted by about 2025.
       When Members of Congress wrote the new FERS law in 1986, 
     they understood that there would have to be a financial 
     transition from CSRS to FERS in the next century, and they 
     wrote the law to provide for that transition. First, the law 
     provides for one trust fund in which CSRS and FERS assets are 
     combined. Therefore, there is no separate CSRS trust fund 
     that will be depleted. Second, Congress established a system 
     whereby benefit payments under the CSRS will be authorized by 
     FERS trust fund securities as needed until there are no more 
     CSRS benefits to be paid. Thus, the securities that are 
     building up for FERS, and that are in excess of the amount 
     needed to authorize FERS payments for some time, will be 
     reduced each year by the amount by which CSRS benefits exceed 
     CSRS assets. This will cause an increase in the FERS 
     liability, but that liability will be ``paid off'' through a 
     series of 30-year amortization payments. Using a 75-year 
     projection period, OPM estimates that the total value of 
     securities in the trust fund will grow throughout the 
     projection period, ultimately reaching about 4.2 times 
     payroll, or nearly 18 times the amount needed to pay annual 
     benefits. This means that in the next century the trust fund 
     will reach an ongoing steady state in which it will have a 
     balance sufficient to authorize 18 years of benefit payments.
       In summary, by definition, under the financing arrangements 
     set out in the current law, the system is not now and never 
     will be ``insolvent'' or without adequate budget authority 
     for payment of benefits. Again, because the budget cost of 
     the systems can never exceed the cost of monthly benefits to 
     living annuitants, the cash required from the Treasury or 
     taxpayers will never exceed the cost of those monthly 
     payments.
                                                                    ____

                                                   April 29, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: Since we last corresponded, H.R. 1277 The 
     Tax Fairness for Families Act of 1991, has garnered the 
     support of 73 bipartisan cosponsors from across the political 
     spectrum.
       More members of Congress are recognizing that a successful 
     economic agenda is founded 
     [[Page H4038]] in policy which strengthens the cornerstone of 
     a strong and healthy society: the family. H.R. 1277 is a 
     simple bill. It doesn't require more employees to administer 
     a program or a new federal building. It simply makes the tax 
     code more family friendly by raising the personal exemption 
     from $2050 to $3500 for children under age 18.
       I have enclosed a list of the current cosponsors for your 
     information. This is an issue that is quickly gaining 
     interest and I would appreciate your support.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                      May 1, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: As you'll recall, when we first spoke 
     about my legislation to increase the dependent deduction, 52 
     House members had cosponsored.
       Lat week when I wrote you, 73 members had signed on. I 
     wanted to let you know that today we reached 100 cosponsors 
     and I have enclosed the list for you.
       Bipartisan momentum is building on this bill which will 
     help the American family and I hope the Bush Administration 
     will lend its support.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                      May 6, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: Just a quick note to let you know that 
     H.R. 1277, ``Tax Fairness for Families,'' has picked up an 
     additional 25 cosponsors since I wrote you last week.
       We now have 125 cosponsors and I have enclosed an updated 
     list of the cosponsors for you.
       I hope the Bush Administration will support H.R. 1277.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                      May 9, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: I wanted to give you a quick update on the 
     support building in the House for H.R. 1277, ``Tax Fairness 
     for Families.''
       We have picked up an additional 35 cosponsors since I wrote 
     to you on Monday, May 6. H.R. 1277 now has 160 cosponsors.
       I hope the Administration will support this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                      May 9, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: We now have 200 cosponsors of H.R. 1277, 
     ``Tax Fairness for Families.''
       We need the Administration's support for this legislation.
       With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                     July 7, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: In case you had not already seen it, I 
     hope you will have a look at the enclosed Allan Carlson piece 
     in the Wall Street Journal regarding the issue of tax 
     fairness for families.
       We now have 210 cosponsors on H.R. 1277. I hope 
     Administration will support this bill and avoid repeating the 
     ``swedish mistake.''
       Thanks again for your interest in this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                  August 22, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: As the Wall Street Journal reported in the 
     attached article, tax fairness for families is going to be a 
     key political issue for the coming year.
       I am writing to urge the Administration's support for the 
     family tax packages that I have put forward to increase the 
     dependent deduction (H.R. 1277) and expand the Young Child 
     tax Credit (H.R. 2633). This package already has the 
     bipartisan support of 248 cosponsors including 101 Democrats. 
     Unlike other tax packages recently proposed, this package 
     provides tax relief exclusively for working families, treats 
     both one-earner and two-earner families in an equitable 
     manner, and does not propose to create higher tax brackets.
       While it appears that many of the family tax package 
     already proposed will take the dubious route of increasing 
     taxes to provide a so-called middle class tax relief package, 
     the Administration has the opportunity to provide a clear 
     alternative. By working with the majority in Congress who 
     support family tax relief yet, the Administration can put 
     forth a program of restrained growth in domestic spending to 
     provide for significant family tax relief.
       As you may know, last year I supported the budget agreement 
     and believe in the need for responsible fiscal policy. The 
     combined cost of H.R. 1277 and H.R. 2633 is estimated at 
     between $12-15 billion per year. I believe it could be paid 
     for through a unified cap on domestic spending of between 6%-
     6\1/2\ percent. A unified cap on domestic spending would 
     provide a logical extension to the common sense restraints 
     put on spending in last year's budget agreement. Currently, 
     approximately $100 billion is spent on programs benefiting 
     children. These programs could still meet the needs of 
     families and children if they grew at this reasonable rate.
       In addition, the Administration could also put forward the 
     capital gains tax cut as a revenue raiser for family tax 
     relief. With the thousands of new jobs that would be produced 
     with a lower capital gains rate, a dynamic with/win situation 
     would be achieved by providing revenue for family tax relief 
     while also spurring the economy and increasing job 
     opportunities.
       With the trust of the American people and the facts on his 
     side, President Bush and this Administration can provide 
     strong support to American families by allowing them to keep 
     more of their own hard-earned money to provide for their 
     families. All the attention on family tax relief provides an 
     excellent opportunity for the Administration to advance its 
     pro-family, pro-growth, policies while distinguishing them 
     for the failed and tired ``Robin Hood'' politics put forth in 
     other family tax measures. Thank you for your consideration 
     of these important issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                  October 8, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: The American family has never been under 
     greater attack than it is today. From our inner cities to our 
     suburbs, families are threatened by disturbingly high rates 
     of child abuse, spouse abuse, teen suicide, high school drop 
     outs, drug and alcohol use and most tragically violence and 
     death among our youth. Today more young males die of gunshot 
     wounds every year than died in Desert Storm. The wheels are 
     coming off the American family and clearly, children cannot 
     steer clear of trouble without the guiding influence of the 
     family.
       These disturbing trends in child and family well-being have 
     coincided with the dramatically reduced tax benefit for 
     children. While children today are more at risk from numerous 
     cultural threats, parents are pushed by financial pressures 
     to spend less time with their children. Too often either Mom 
     nor Dad is home to hear the after school trials and 
     tribulations of troubled adolescents or to help with homework 
     or to spend relaxed time with their children. The combined 
     effect of these ``twin deficits'' of time and money create a 
     downward spiral for family well-being as well as real pain 
     and suffering for thousands of children and families.
       Family tax relief is an important part of a workable 
     solution for families and is a natural outgrowth of the 
     following common sense sentiments recently expressed by 
     President Bush:
       We all realize that government has real limits. You can't 
     replace values with regulations. You can't replace parents 
     with caseworkers.
       The family tax bills we have introduced fit well into the 
     President's efforts to restore proportion and balance to 
     government while allowing individuals and families to have 
     more choices and opportunities. That is why we believe it is 
     important that the Administration enthusiastically embrace 
     and endorse family tax relief and make it a legislative 
     priority in the upcoming year. Already there are 252 
     cosponsors of H.R. 1277 (a measure to increase the dependent 
     deducation to $3,.500) and growing support in the Senate for 
     S. 152 to double the personal exemption.
       The Bush Administration has an historic opportunity to 
     further advance the cause of families. By actively pushing 
     these family tax relief measures in combination with a 
     capital gains tax cut, the Administration can forward a 
     proactive family policy that gives families more money, time 
     and opportunity for families themselves to promote family 
     well-being. Domestic policy that focuses on the home and 
     families instead of more government programs is the true 
     recipe for nurturing families and children.
       We believe this is good legislation that the Administration 
     can support and Congress can pass. It helps families right 
     away without adding to big government or mandating 
     regulations or policies.
       Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. 
     If we can provide you with any additional information please 
     contact either of us or Barbara Comstock at 225-5136.
           Sincerely,
     Frank R. Wolf,
       Ranking Minority Member, Select Committee on Children, 
     Youth, and Families.
     [[Page H4039]] Dan Coats,
       Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Children, Family, 
     Drugs, and Alcoholism.
                                                                    ____

                                                 October 23, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: I would like to emphasize one more time 
     the importance of including direct family tax cuts in the 
     Administration's economic growth package. Frankly, I am 
     disappointed that the Administration has not yet signed onto 
     the efforts for family tax relief when the support is already 
     present in the House just waiting for someone to lead the 
     charge. It is my hope that it will be President Bush leading 
     this charge and reaping the obvious benefits for both the 
     American family and the Republican party.
       I cannot over emphasize my concern for today's families and 
     the financial and cultural pressures they face. Families are 
     clearly overtaxed. By making family tax relief the 
     centerpiece of the Administration's economic growth package 
     we could both help American families and garner the political 
     support for a capital gains tax cut and a true economic 
     growth package.
       I hope you will consider the advantages of making family 
     tax relief a centerpiece of the Administration's economic 
     growth package.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                November 18, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: As Wall Street Journal reported in the 
     attached article, tax fairness for families is going to be a 
     key political issue for the coming year.
       I am writing to urge the Administration's support for the 
     family tax package that I have put forward to increase the 
     dependent deduction (H.R. 1277) and expand the Young Child 
     Tax Credit (H.R. 2633). This package already has the 
     bipartisan support of 248 cosponsors including 101 Democrats. 
     Unlike other tax packages recently proposed, this package 
     provides tax relief exclusively for working families, treats 
     both one-earner and two-earner families in an equitable 
     manner, and does not propose to create higher tax brackets.
       While it appears that many of the family tax packages 
     already proposed will take the dubious route of increasing 
     taxes to provide a so-called middle class tax relief package, 
     the Administration has the opportunity to provide a clear 
     alternative. By working with the majority in Congress who 
     support family tax relief yet, the Administration can put 
     forth a program of restrained growth in domestic spending to 
     provide for significant family tax relief.
       As you may know, last year I supported the budget agreement 
     and believe in the need for responsible fiscal policy. The 
     combined cost of H.R. 1277 and H.R. 2633 is estimated at 
     between $12-15 billion per year. I believe it could be paid 
     for through a unified cap on domestic spending of between 6-
     6\1/2\ percent. A unified cap on domestic spending would 
     provide a logical extension to the common sense restraints 
     put on spending in last year's budget agreement. Currently, 
     approximately $100 billion is spent on programs benefiting 
     children. These programs could still meet the needs of 
     families and children if they grew at this reasonable rate.
       In addition, the Administration could also put forward the 
     capital gains tax cut as a revenue raiser for family tax 
     relief. With the thousands of new jobs that would be produced 
     with a lower capital gains rate, a dynamic win/win situation 
     would be achieved by providing revenue for family tax relief 
     while also spurring the economy and increasing job 
     opportunities.
       With the trust of the American people and the facts on his 
     side, President Bush and this Administration can provide 
     strong support to American families by allowing them to keep 
     more of their own hard-earned money to provide for their 
     families. All the attention on family tax relief provides an 
     excellent opportunity for the Administration to advance its 
     pro-family, pro-growth, policies while distinguishing them 
     from the failed and tired ``Robin Hood'' politics put forth 
     in other family tax measures. Thank you for your 
     consideration of these important issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                November 22, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: I wanted to share with you a recent letter 
     sent to President Bush, signed by over 60 House Republicans, 
     calling for a Special Session of Congress to pass an economic 
     recovery package which would help American families and 
     stimulate the economy.
       In the brief time this letter was circulated, almost every 
     member asked signed onto the letter. The American people need 
     our help now and President Bush has an historic opportunity 
     to take this bold action and help American families and 
     businesses.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____

                                                November 25, 1991.
     Hon. Richard Darman,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Darman: I wanted to share with you a copy of a 
     letter I recently sent to President Bush on the need for the 
     Administration and the Republican party to be strongly on the 
     offensive in the area of family policy.
       The battle for the middle class and the American family is 
     on. Family tax relief and ``family friendly'' work issues are 
     winning issues for the President as well as the right thing 
     to do. I hope you find this information helpful.
       Thank you for your time and consideration of these 
     important issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.
     

                          ____________________