[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 89 (Monday, June 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4147-H4149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGARDING COST OF GOVERNMENT DAY
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 102) expressing the sense of
the Congress that the cost of government spending and regulatory
programs should be reduced so that American families will be able to
keep more of what they earn.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 102
Whereas the total cost of government spending and
regulations (total cost of government) consumers 36.2 percent
of the Nation's net national product;
Whereas the total cost of government now exceeds
$3,520,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed
$785,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas the cost of government in general and excessive
regulations in particular place a tremendous drain on the
economy by reducing worker productivity, increasing prices to
consumers, and limiting the economic choices and individual
freedoms of our citizenry;
Whereas, if the average American worker were to spend all
of his or her gross earnings on nothing else besides meeting
his or her share of the total cost of government for the
current year, that total cost would not be met until July 3,
1997;
Whereas July 3, 1997, should therefore be considered Cost
of Government Day 1997; and
Whereas it is not right that the American family has to
give up more than 50 percent of what it earns to the
government: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that, as
part of balancing the budget and reevaluating the role of
government, Federal, State, and local elected officials
should carefully consider the costs of government spending
and regulatory programs in the year to come so that American
families will be able to keep more of what they earn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Sessions] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sessions].
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are recognizing the Cost of Government Day.
Next week, Americans will have more than one reason to celebrate the
ideals of freedom and independence. July 3 is the day on which we will
be free to work for ourselves instead of the Government because this is
the Cost of Government Day in 1997.
From January 1 to July 3, Americans will work to pay for all levels
of government, plus the volumes of regulations brought into effect this
last year. That is over half the year, or 183 days working to pay for
the cost of government.
The total cost of government this year translates into $13,500 for
each man, woman, and child in America. Federal regulations consume at
least $3,000 of that total. It is simply disgraceful to force the hard-
working Americans in each of our districts to fork over half of their
earnings to pay for government.
I call on all Members to resolve to stop the chronic overspending and
overregulating by supporting this cost of government resolution.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution has had no hearings before our
committee. It was just introduced last Friday. The whole idea of it is
that we should not have a waste of taxpayer's money because taxes are
too high. Well, this is a pretty silly bill, and, if anything, it is
wasting some taxpayers' money by even having it processed.
I would not argue against the bill because there is no harm, I
suppose, that could be seen in this legislation. It will have very
little impact.
So on our side of the aisle, representing the Democrats on the
committee, we never had this before the committee, and this is more a
political statement by the Republicans on how they do not want to waste
money. To me, it is an ineffective bill that is wasting taxpayers'
money to even bring it before us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the author of this resolution.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I must say, the comments from the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman], do not surprise me a bit, because it is his
party that has led us to this point over the last 30 or 40 years, that
have controlled this Chamber, that had led us to the point that we have
to introduce legislation like this to call attention to the American
people what they already know by looking at their bank statements every
month and trying to balance their checkbooks and paying their taxes on
April 15.
Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how many hard-working Americans really
know just how long it takes them to earn enough income to pay for the
cost of government. Many Americans mistakenly associate April 15 with
the end of their financial obligations to the Government. Some believe
Tax Freedom Day is the day which marks the end of their financial
obligations to pay for the cost of Government.
But, unfortunately, both of these dates are wrong, because it takes
until July 3, more than half the year, to free yourself and your family
from the heavy burden of government spending at all levels, plus the
cost of regulation.
Now, according to the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, the cost
of this Government this year equals $3.5 trillion, or 36.2 percent of
our country's net national product. Now, that amounts to $13,500 for
every man, woman, and child in America, $13,500 a year per individual
to run this Government.
Mr. Speaker, that means that the average American will work 183 days
this year to pay for the government's insatiable spending appetite and
the thousands of regulations that emanate from this town every year.
In the last 14 months, over 4,700 new regulations have been issued by
Federal agencies of the Clinton administration. The era of big
government goes on and on and on. Over 50 percent of a family's hard-
earned income goes to the country. Fifty cents out of every hard-earned
dollar a family makes goes to the government. No wonder it takes one
parent to work for the Government while the other parent works for the
family. So, Mr. Speaker, no American should have to work more than half
the year to pay the cost of government. We need to commit ourselves to
reducing this burden.
This week, when the House passes the Taxpayer Relief Act, we will
have begun to make a down payment on providing middle-income American
families the tax relief that they need, tax relief that they have not
seen in 16 years, since Ronald Reagan was President of the United
States.
But I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, this is only a small down payment. We
have
[[Page H4148]]
to continue to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on working
Americans because they are constantly struggling to hold on to their
earnings. Whereas the parents' generation, their parents' generation
got to keep 80 percent or more of the fruits of their labor, today's
families are lucky to keep 50 percent of their earnings, and, for most
families, that is with both parents working full time.
Speaker Gingrich was right on the mark this weekend when he said that
we would strive to make sure that no working American should have to
turn over more than 25 percent of their hard-earned income to pay for
taxes or other government costs. The Lord God only wants 10 percent,
and the Government should have no more than 25 percent.
Also this week, Mr. Speaker, we will receive recommendations on the
IRS from the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. That will
provide the necessary framework to begin the national debate on what
kind of tax structure we need to rephrase today's 800,000 word maze,
that takes 480 forms with 8 billion pages of instructions to
administer.
{time} 1300
So, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this government is too
big, it costs too much, and it increasingly impinges on the earnings
and freedoms of our constituents.
I just urge my colleagues to think seriously about the implications
of the Cost of Government Day, and to consider that any tax and
regulatory relief that we can send to working families in our districts
is much deserved and much needed and much demanded.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to point out as a public service that when we talk about the
cost of Government, we are talking about the salary of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the cost of his staff, but we are also
talking about protecting our national defense and supporting the brave
men and women who are on duty for that purpose; we are talking about
the cost to pay for our Social Security system, which has done more to
stop the poverty rates among the elderly than anything else, as well as
with the Medicare Program. We are talking about the expenditures to
protect the environment, help students go to college; all of the things
that people would have to pay for on their own if they could afford it.
If we did not have these Government services, a lot of people would
not be able to afford it, and we would find that large numbers of
people would be denied the benefits that they look to Government to
provide.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the State
of Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct the
gentleman from Texas. He used the figure of families spending more than
50 percent of their income, but that depends on the family. If one is
rich enough, thanks to the Tax Code, one is spending a much smaller
percentage of one's income, and by the time we get through with the tax
bill, if one is rich enough, that will be even less. The CEO's who are
making a couple of million dollars are not spending 50 percent of their
income. We have very differential effects according to how much money
one makes.
Second, I do welcome, though, the gentleman from California is of
course correct. I do not think we are spending enough on the
environment, I do not think we are spending enough on, for instance,
the Cops on the Street Program, which is so helpful, or helping kids
going to school. But we can economize.
We will be voting today and tomorrow on the military bill. The
military bill, the National Security bill, represents 50 percent of the
discretionary spending of the Federal Government. If we set aside
Medicare, we set aside Medicaid and Social Security, 50 percent of what
is left spent by the Federal Government will be voted on by this House
over the next couple of days, and I am delighted at this spending,
cutting zeal on the other side. I look forward to them helping us
defeat the unnecessary B-2 bomber at the cost of tens of billions.
I will be offering an amendment, along with a Republican cosponsor,
the gentleman from Connecticut, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Condit], to put a limit on the amount that we spend for NATO so that
our European allies stop getting subsidized. We continue to subsidize
our European allies.
So I agree we should be conscious of that spending, and while I hope
we will not be passing a Tax Code that will make it more unfair, so
that the bigger income families will in fact pay a bigger share, I also
look forward to seeing some of this spending reduction zeal which we
are hearing voiced today. I trust that the spending zeal in general we
are hearing will not disappear when we get to the particular, because
remember, the National Security bill represents 50 percent of the
discretionary spending of the Federal Government.
The bill we are going to vote on today will contain more spending
than the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and several other major Federal departments put together;
throw in the Environmental Protection Administration.
So let us see some more of that cost-cutting zeal, and we will begin
today when we start to vote on the military budget.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thought that having this bill up today would be a useless exercise,
but I think it is quite valuable in light of the comments that the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has made about how we need to
cut back on spending in areas where we are spending too much.
I also want to point out that if we look at some of those higher
income Americans who are going to get a huge tax break, rather than
find July 3 as their tax independence day, some of them are going to
celebrate on Valentine's Day, because at that point they will have paid
all they are going to pay in for the Government funding for all of
these different services, while a lot of hard-working Americans,
especially middle-income Americans, will continue to pay on into the
months to the summertime.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again today, Mr. Speaker, we have an argument, we have a
discussion, we have a debate here on the floor of the House of
Representatives, to talk about not only Government, but its performance
and how that works. As we have seen for many, many years, the other
side refuses to understand that what we are talking about here is that
we need a Government that works, a government that does not put more
rules and regulations on people. Even if Government were free, there
were certain parts of it that I would not want.
I would like to bring us back to what is germane about this argument,
and that is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], in offering House
Concurrent Resolution 102, talks about expressing the sense of Congress
that the cost of Government spending and regulatory programs should be
reduced. We are talking about the governmentwide programs. We are not
just talking about the military today. We are not just talking about
the men and women who preserve freedom for America.
What we are talking about is the Government that is made up of
bureaucrats, those faceless, nameless people who we never see in our
lives, but who have a controlling factor on us.
Mr. Speaker, what this is all about is a resolution by the House of
Representatives that this is a sense of Congress that is part of
balancing the budget and reevaluating the role of Government. Federal,
State, and local elected officials should also carefully consider the
cost of Government spending and regulatory programs in the coming year.
That is exactly what this resolution is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, many Americans mistakenly associate April 15
with the end of their financial obligation to the Government. Some
believe Tax Freedom Day is a day which marks the end of our financial
obligation to pay for the cost of government. Unfortunately, it takes
until July 3,
[[Page H4149]]
more than half the year, to free yourself and your family from the
heavy hand of the Government's costs.
The average American will be working 183 days this year to pay for
the ever-growing spending and regulations that originate from this town
every year. According to the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation,
Government spending at all levels equals more than $3.5 trillion.
The resolution of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] sends a
message to American taxpayers that this Congress understands their
burden and we are committed to doing everything possible to deliver tax
relief as well as relief from the web of regulations that burden so
many Americans each year.
I urge my colleagues to support resolution 102.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I appreciate
his comments.
In summary, I would like to say that House Concurrent Resolution 102
talks directly about the problem that we have about Government spending
and overregulation in our Government. Whereas there are $3 trillion 520
billion that are spent each year, of this, $785 billion is related to
Federal regulatory costs. This body will be taking under hand the
opportunity just in the coming weeks to talk about a tax cut for hard-
working Americans that is only $85 billion. Mr. Speaker, of that
figure, we can see that $785 billion, a larger, much larger figure, is
just for regulation. We can do a better job.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time.
I yield myself such time as I may consume only to point out that this
resolution does not save a dime of taxpayers' money. It simply tells
the American people we feel your pain, and we are spending a little bit
more money to process a resolution on the House floor to tell you that.
I do not know what other purpose it serves, and I have no other point
to make.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent
Resolution 102.
The question was taken.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________