[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H870-H876]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OBVIOUS BENEFITS OF A CONSERVATIVE, HUMANITARIAN APPROACH TO GOVERNING 
                               IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, before I start, let me just invite all of 
our colleagues who are watching and following the floor proceedings on 
the Republican side who have been looking forward to this evening's 
special order as an opportunity to showcase and feature a number of the 
successes of the Republican Conference here in Congress.
  Our agenda is one, of course, of fighting for lower taxes, fighting 
for strong national defense, insisting that we find methods to secure 
and safeguard the Social Security Administration, and creating and 
providing the world's best education structure. I want to talk about 
the obvious benefits of a conservative, humanitarian approach to 
governing in America.

[[Page H871]]

  I want to do that, Mr. Speaker, by highlighting a couple of articles 
that appeared in the Denver Post over the last few days. Here is the 
headline: ``Welfare rolls drop 42 percent. State's decline is faster 
than the U.S. average.''
  This is important to note because Colorado, among the 50 States, is 
considered a low-tax State. Colorado is a State where the regulatory 
burden on Colorado businesses and those who create job opportunities is 
relatively low. It is a State where we have been serious, quite serious 
about putting the welfare reform proposals passed by this Congress into 
place at the State level, and the result is very dramatic and very 
positive for the people of Colorado. Again, a 42 percent drop in the 
welfare caseloads over the last 18 months.
  It is a real credit and a dramatic bit of evidence as to what can be 
achieved through lower taxation at the Federal level, lower regulation 
burdens on those who are creating jobs, and a healthy economy and 
business climate.
  Mr. Speaker, here is a quote from one individual. He said that this 
is primarily due to employment opportunities and to a ``work-first'' 
model of welfare reform. This is a quote by Maynard Chapman, Welfare 
Reform Program Manager for the Colorado Department of Human Services.
  ``But if job opportunities are not out there, I don't care what type 
of welfare reform design you're using, it is not going to work because 
the job opportunities are not out there.''
  It highlights, that comment, what the Republican Party has been 
suggesting and promoting for a long time. That by focusing on a 
stronger, more vibrant economy we can structure welfare reform in a way 
that works, as it has for a woman named Teri Higgins who was quoted in 
the article.
  Reform for her has meant a new way of life. After being on welfare 
for 3\1/2\ years, she is almost completely self-sufficient. She was a 
full-time student halfway through her associates degree program in 
business administration when welfare reform kicked in 2 years ago. 
Under the new system she had to work, so she decided to work in a work-
study program at Community College of Denver. Within a year, the 37-
year-old single mother of three boys went from being a welfare 
recipient to the office manager for the Division of Business and 
Government Studies at CCD.
  Mr. Speaker, here is what she says. ``What made the difference were 
the extra things,'' such as helping her provide for day care so she 
could go to school, the emotional support from counselors. She said 
that she still struggles. She makes a decent wage and it is hard to 
make ends meet, ``but when I sit down and write checks out for all my 
bills and everything is paid, that is really a good feeling.''
  I suggest that for Teri Higgins, and for millions of people just like 
her, this pathway to self-sufficiency is the definition of liberty and 
freedom in America. It is made possible by the Republican majority in 
the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate 
that, for the last 4 years that we have had the majority, heading into 
our fifth year, we have focused on tax relief. We have focused on 
families. We have focused on reducing the regulatory burden on those 
who provide the kind of jobs that Teri now enjoys. That, in the end, is 
by far a better definition of a caring, compassionate, humanitarian, 
conservative philosophy designed to put people first and help Americans 
help themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding to me. I am especially interested in some of the definitions 
that tend to waft around inside the Beltway here, one being 
``compassion.'' I think, if one saw the New York Times last week, they 
saw an example of this. The noted commentator and columnist, Tony Snow, 
mentioned it this past Sunday on Fox News Sunday when a front page 
article in the New York Times bemoaned the reduction in applications 
for food stamps.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply affirm that the truest form of compassion 
is not adding people to the welfare rolls, not adding people to the 
food stamps program. The true definition of compassion is helping those 
people, just as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned, move from 
welfare to work so that they have the opportunity to provide for 
themselves and their families, so that they have the chance to realize 
their hopes and their dreams. That is the true measure of compassion.
  Mr. Speaker, I must also note with great interest some of the 
comments in the preceding hour. It is sad to hear some come to this 
floor and so passionately try to sell an agenda of fear to the American 
public, rather than facts, to merchant or to market the politics of 
fear as opposed to the policies of hope.
  Mr. Speaker, this common-sense conservative majority, in the 
tradition of welfare reform, is moving four major goals:

  Number one, to protect, save and improve Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Number two, to offer meaningful tax relief for working Americans.
  Number three, to improve education, not by micromanagement from 
Washington bureaucrats but by empowering parents and students and 
teachers and local school districts.
  And, number four, to strengthen our national defense and security.
  Indeed, I was walking over with a constituent, a man who lives in 
Winslow, Arizona, part of the Guard and Reserves and also a Federal 
employee. He was telling me on the way over to this Chamber how he and 
his wife embrace the notion of lower taxes for everyone because they do 
not want to see someone punished for succeeding. They understand that 
as they will experience this year, with a child under 17 still at home, 
a $400 per child tax credit. That $400 stays in their pocket to save, 
spend, or invest as they see fit.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the challenge, is it not? Is there not a central 
choice here? Who do we trust, Washington bureaucrats or our family, to 
make decisions? That is the key and that is what we champion in this 
common-sense majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see another of our colleagues, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), one of our newcomers. I welcome 
him to the Chamber. We are glad that he is here.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, my 
friend and colleague, for yielding to me. I certainly concur with the 
remarks that have been made to date with regard to the issue of 
taxation, the impact it has on the country, the effect it has on 
productivity, the ability for this Nation to move ahead, to create 
jobs, to create wealth.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that whatever we tax, we get less of; 
whatever we subsidize, we get more of. The fact is that when we tax 
productivity, when we tax jobs, we are going to get less of them. It is 
not, as they say, ``rocket science'' to realize that this is the effect 
of overtaxation.
  We are now at a rate of taxation in this country that has never 
before been seen. Many people do not realize that because times are 
good. We hear it all the time: Times are good. And so there is an 
assumption that if everybody is employed, that everybody enjoys paying 
a high level of taxes just because they have a job.
  But, Mr. Speaker, they do not. As a matter of fact, even those people 
who are employed and making good wages deserve a tax break, deserve a 
tax reduction. Even those people who are on farms and who have spent a 
lifetime investing in the land and bring food to our tables, those 
people need a tax break. Those people need to have the abolishment of 
the inheritance tax. This is something that this Republican Congress is 
going to put forward. It is one of the many issues that we will drive 
forward to attempt once again to bring into line this Federal 
Government that is, in fact, oppressive enough to actually raise almost 
20 percent of the GDP now going to taxes. Most families in this country 
are paying upwards of 40 percent of their income in taxes.
  I cannot believe that there are people even here in this body, but 
certainly on that side of the aisle, who would suggest that that is 
anything even remotely near fair. There is nothing fair about taking 40 
cents out of every single dollar that a man or woman working in this 
Nation makes and giving it to the government. There is nothing fair out 
of that. We do not get that much out of it.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, when we listen to our constituents, as the

[[Page H872]]

gentleman from Arizona mentioned a little earlier, our constituents 
will tell us and help us to understand how important this issue is. I 
want to share with my colleagues a letter I received from a woman in 
Fort Morgan, Colorado. She said, ``Since Republicans gained control of 
the House and Senate in 1994, my husband and I have been eagerly 
looking forward to some kind of tax reduction.'' And she said this 
January she is going to be retiring early. Her biggest concern, number 
one urgent need, is further tax relief to allow her and her husband to 
do some better financial planning and to deal with the situation that 
is about to change in their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I brought a stack of letters from constituents back home 
and over and over and over again these constituents tell us that the 
upwards of 40 percent of taxes, when we consider the Federal, State and 
local taxes and when we consider the cost of regulation on top of that, 
the cost of being an American citizen is well over 50 percent of 
income. By no one's definition can that be regarded as being fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) who 
has joined us.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think we get some of the same letters. I 
have a letter from a woman in Savannah, Georgia. ``Dear Mr. Kingston, I 
recently heard you say how much taxes have increased since the 1950s. 
Can you give me those statistics again? I am a homemaker in Savannah, 
Georgia, with four children and would greatly appreciate the ability of 
our family to keep more of its hard-earned money. Signed, Elizabeth 
Morris.''
  The income tax burden in the 1950s, as the gentleman from Arizona 
knows well, being on the Committee on Ways and Means, was 5 percent. In 
the 1970s when we were growing up, most of us in this room, it was 16 
percent. Today it is 24 percent.
  That is just the income tax. That is not talking about the property 
taxes and all the other incurred taxes that our constituents and hard-
working middle-class people have to pay. But the reality is the higher 
our tax burden, the less time we have to spend with our family, with 
our children imparting values, teaching them the work ethic, teaching 
them right from wrong, because that second income in the family often 
is going to pay for Uncle Sam and our excesses.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a point that needs to be brought home is 
something borrowing from the gentleman from Colorado who talked about 
the percentage of our gross domestic product that now goes to taxation. 
Though I fear, Mr. Speaker, from time to time that is a very salient 
point and factually correct, sometimes we need to translate that into 
everyday language by offering other examples, and the gentleman from 
Georgia has done so.
  I would say it this way, borrowing from my other colleague from 
Colorado: There has come to be in this Nation an observance of a day 
that is not exactly a holiday, though it offers emancipation from the 
burden of taxation.

                              {time}  1715

  We call it tax freedom day. Depending on the calculation, whether we 
are talking exclusively about Federal taxes or if we combine them all, 
as the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, the cost of all taxation 
and the hidden costs of regulation, quite often, American citizens work 
from January 1 through our Independence Day or close to it on an annual 
basis to free themselves from the yoke of taxation. That is what we are 
talking about here.
  These deal with flesh and blood human beings who are facing 
decisions, who, oft times, in a household, we will see both parents 
working, not by choice but by necessity, as my colleague, the gentleman 
from Georgia, points out, because one spouse is working essentially to 
continue to pay and satisfy the gaping wall of taxation.
  It is a very simple concept here. One works hard for the money one 
earns. One should hang onto more of it and send less of it here to 
Washington, D.C., because now we find ourselves in the day of an 
overcharge. We are overcharging for government services.
  When money hangs around the Federal Treasury, it is kind of like 
cookies in the jar in the Hayworth household. Somehow somebody gets to 
it. In the case of the money, it is spent by bureaucrats. As the 
attorneys would say, there is a preponderance of physical evidence to 
say what happens to the cookies in the cookie jar and who might get 
them from time to time.
  So what we again must embrace is this notion of broad-based tax 
reform. Despite the calls of those who would offer the politic of fear, 
we embrace the policies of hope when we say that every American who 
succeeds ought to have the opportunity to hang on to more of what he or 
she earns and send less of it to the Federal Government; and understand 
that those who have succeeded through their investment, through their 
risk taking, if you will, in the marketplace, create jobs and create 
more opportunity and help to fuel an economic boom.
  So that is what we champion here, along with our three other pillars 
of policy in the 106th Congress, to strengthen and protect Medicare, to 
improve education by empowering parents and local communities and, 
thirdly, to improve and bolster our national defense.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, our new colleague, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), has been sworn in for a little less than 2 
months; and I am curious, what has his constituents been telling him? 
Has he been hearing about the issue of taxes in the short time that he 
has been a Member of Congress?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Colorado, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have certainly been hearing a great deal. As a matter 
of fact, I do not believe that I can put it more succinctly or more 
profoundly than a constituent from Aurora who writes, ``The American 
dream has always been to get married and raise a family, to own your 
own business, to own your own farm, to build a secure and better future 
for your children to enjoy, to pass on what you have worked so hard for 
and paid taxes along the way for the next generation.
  ``For the past 20 years, I have successfully built several 
dealerships, providing jobs and revenue to several communities. These 
past years, I have given my all to build and make a secure future for 
my heirs. This can all be taken away from them if I should die and they 
should have to pay 55 percent on the estate. Would they have to 
liquidate or sell to be able to pay the estate tax? What would happen 
to everything that I worked so hard to provide for them? I support the 
estate tax reform so that not just me but all who have worked hard and 
built a nest egg for the future generation can keep it, not the 
government.''
  Now I say, Mr. Speaker, again, a profound communication from a 
constituent who understands fully the implications of this. I recognize 
that, for years, the idea behind an estate tax or let us call it what 
it is, it is a death tax, the idea behind that, it is a class envy 
thing, to a certain extent, where people felt, well, if people amass 
too much, we should actually just take it away from them and divvy it 
up again; that is only fair. Well, it is not fair. Again, this idea of 
fairness, to whom is it fair? It is not fair to this gentleman. It is 
not fair to his family.
  Another thing, if one cannot accumulate for oneself and for one's 
heirs, for whom will one accumulate? The government? Would we be 
expecting the people in this country to go out and work day in and day 
out, again, creating real value, something the government knows very 
well about the actual creation of value? Do we expect John and Jane Q. 
Citizen to go out every single day to do that, only to give it away 
upon their death so they cannot pass it on to their heirs? No, of 
course not.
  This is as socialistic a tax as we have in this country, and it 
should be done away with; as well as all tax reform efforts I think on 
the part of this Congress should move forward dramatically.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for one question. The 
common misconception by the liberals on the House floor when we debate 
reductions in the death tax or the inheritance tax is that this is a 
tax that one only needs to be concerned about if one is extraordinarily 
wealthy. But the inheritance tax applies to anyone who has parents and 
who is part of a will or a trust or estate. It is virtually every 
American.

[[Page H873]]

  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) agree 
with me that this is a tax that every single American ought to be 
concerned about?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a tax that every American 
should be concerned about. Not only that, the idea that the only people 
who pay it are the wealthy, I mean, go and look at the farmers of 
America today. Find me, this wealthy farmer out there who has wealth, 
as I say, yes, he has got wealth in the land, but it is just in the 
land. In order to transfer that wealth into true, hard, honest dollars, 
he has to dispose of it or his heirs do in order to pay this tax.
  So it is bogus to suggest it is Daddy Warbucks, as the liberals and 
the Democrats want to suggest. That is the kind of picture they want to 
conjure up when we talk about eliminating the inheritance tax or the 
death tax. Well, it is not. It is the family farmers in Kansas and 
Colorado and Oklahoma and throughout this land that work every single 
day to put food on our tables. So my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), is absolutely right in that 
respect.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, just to 
bring home the point again, mindful of the letters the gentleman 
brought from constituents, and as pleased as I am, Mr. Speaker, that 
one of my constituents from Winslow, Arizona, joined me on the stroll 
over, this topic of death taxes came up at a town hall meeting last 
year in Winslow, Arizona. As our schedule worked out, this was a 
noontime meeting.

  One of the great satisfactions of this incredible honor of serving in 
the Congress of the United States is we meet so many people who want to 
make a difference. Two young men had gotten an excuse from school on 
their lunch hour, an early dismissal, to come to the town hall. These 
two young men had aspirations of attending one of our military 
academies.
  They came, and they heard some of the seniors and other citizens in 
the room discussing just what my colleagues have pointed out, Mr. 
Speaker, this incredible unfairness of the death tax. Indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, it was reminiscent of the franchise that Art Linkletter used 
with such great effect over the years, ``Kids say the darnedest 
things.''
  Here was this young man standing there just at the height of his 
youth and enthusiasm and wanting to do the right thing and wanting to 
join the military. He stood there ramrod straight and said, 
``Congressman, sir, do you mean to tell me the Federal Government taxes 
you when you die?'' And there was laughter, just as this response 
comes. But as I reminded the citizens assembled, it really was not 
funny.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), was quoted 
in the Wall Street Journal during his first term who evoked memories of 
our early colonial days when he said of the death tax, ``No taxation 
without respiration.'' That particular observation has stuck with me.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it goes further than that. Understand that this tax 
is so oppressive and our mission as a constitutional republic has gone 
so far afield. Remember what Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's 
Almanac, ``There are only two certainties in this life: death and 
taxes.''
  But even Dr. Franklin with his tax and his ability to invent and to 
almost see into time and foretell the future, even Dr. Franklin would 
be shocked to come back to this constitutional republic that he helped 
to found, and his reaction would be much like the reaction of the young 
man. Do you mean to tell me this government taxes you when you die?
  We have seen it in our districts, in our States, across the country. 
Energetic enterprises, businesses that are not huge conglomerates but 
family-owned businesses, whether on Main Street or on the ranch or on 
the farm, those businesses broken apart, the assets sold, to satisfy or 
try to satisfy this most egregious tax that reaches in even to the 
grave to rob those who have accomplished.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned young people, 
mentioned those who are trying to establish businesses. My colleague, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), mentioned farmers and 
ranchers, that literally every American is affected by the inheritance 
taxes.
  I want to share with my colleagues another letter that I received 
just a few weeks ago. This was sent as a Mailogram, as it was addressed 
to me. It says, ``The administration's 2000 budget plan presented to 
Congress on February 1 imposes new taxes that will make it harder for 
millions of American families to save for their own retirement needs 
and will seriously jeopardize the financial protection of families and 
businesses.''
  The writer goes on, and this is a writer from Loveland, Colorado in 
my district, ``Providing for retirement and securing your family's 
financial security should not be a, quote, taxing experience. Americans 
are taking more responsibility for their own financial futures, and 
they have made it clear that they oppose both direct and indirect tax 
bites that jeopardize their retirement security and their ability to 
protect their families. Congress on a bipartisan basis soundly rejected 
a similar approach last year.''
  I will interject, it is true that the President, under the 
administration's budget, proposed a litany of new taxes on the American 
people, which the Republican Congress was fortunately here to prevent.
  He goes on, ``And I strongly urge you to do the same this time 
around. Please oppose any new direct or indirect taxes.''
  At a time when the Federal Government confiscates upwards of 40 
percent of an average family's income, it is almost incomprehensible 
that, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, they are conjuring up 
new plans for the 2000 budget to raise approximately 73 new taxes, new 
taxes on businesses, on farmers, ranchers, on financial institutions.
  In the end, what it does is it takes away the liberty and freedom and 
the success that is being discovered throughout the country in States 
like Colorado where we are seeing again headlines like this, ``Welfare 
Rolls Drop 42 Percent.''
  The reason those welfare rolls are dropping is because Colorado in 
this case is a State with relatively low State taxes with a very high 
regard for a favorable and growing business climate. These high taxes 
rob the American people of opportunity. They rob average families from 
the ability, from the assets necessary to do the simple things in life, 
like raise a family and keep a roof over your head and put food on the 
table.
  It makes it virtually impossible for the entrepreneurs to fully 
captivate and capture the great American spirit of self-sufficiency, 
not only to provide for themselves through an economic enterprise, but 
to provide jobs for others who need them, jobs like those that I 
mentioned that used to be welfare recipients who are now self-
sufficient. That is really what is at stake.
  The tax debate in Congress is not about simply cutting taxes or 
trying to win elections on the basis of tax reform. The tax relief 
debate is about real people, about real Americans, real farmers and 
ranchers who are struggling today, real business owners who are trying 
to provide more jobs and allow for more people to escape welfare. It is 
about the children of these families who deserve the same kind of 
America that we all enjoy and rally around.
  That is what this tax debate is about. It is a very personal, 
humanitarian debate. It is one that we need to win. We do need to stand 
in the way of those people over in the executive branch of government 
who think this is the perfect year to raise more taxes, new taxes on 
the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is so true that the perception that is 
held by so many people, even here in this town, certainly on the other 
side of the aisle and over at the White House, is that the country will 
actually not only survive another tax increase but we can get away with 
it because, again, as I say, times are good. Somehow this blanks out 
everything else.
  We assume that we can then start promising everything to everybody 
again. We can come up with how many hundred programs were mentioned, 
how many hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures were suggested 
by

[[Page H874]]

the President in his budget? All of this, with keeping a straight face 
and suggesting that we are not going to, quote, bust the budget; we are 
going to maintain an agreement.
  Of course, the only way that he could possibly make that statement, 
Mr. Speaker, the only way is because he was able to play a shell game 
with the Social Security issue. He was able to suggest that we could 
take, as he says, 62 percent, the President of the United States in his 
State of the Union message, and since then has suggested that we could 
take 62 percent of the ``Social Security surplus,'' apply it toward 
Social Security and, somehow or other, that would solve our problem; 
and that would allow for, of course, us to do other things. It would 
create other programs.
  Well, we know why, my friends, is because if we are talking about not 
correcting and not reforming the Social Security system, if we are 
talking about not actually building a firewall between the Social 
Security fund and the rest of the government expenditures, then we can 
do it.

                              {time}  1730

  Because what he is really suggesting is an increase over whatever 62 
percent represents of this ``surplus'', however much money that is. 
That is what he is suggesting he is going to do to increase the Social 
Security debt. Because it is truly debt. It is not money.
  When our friends and neighbors pay money to the government, when they 
send in their FICA taxes, they think they are actually putting money in 
a bank. That is the thought, because it is a fund. It is called the 
Social Security fund. Well, that is not it at all. There is nothing in 
the fund. There are no dollars in the fund. There are $750 billion 
worth of papers stamped nonnegotiable bonds. That is the only place an 
instrument like that is in use in this whole Nation. Nonnegotiable 
bonds.
  Well, what the President is suggesting is that he is going to correct 
this by adding 62 percent of the surplus to that debt, to those 
nonnegotiable bonds, and take the actual revenues, bringing it into the 
general fund again and creating more new programs. It is a shell game. 
But he is masterful at it, there are no two ways about it.
  So I suggest to my colleagues that we should clear up this issue and 
we should bring to the attention of the American public the facts 
regarding Social Security and tax reduction. We should, in fact, create 
that fire wall between the Social Security fund and the general fund, 
and we should still move, I think quickly and dramatically, toward tax 
reduction and reform.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. My colleague makes a very, very good point. It has been 
echoed by several economists and several columnists. Indeed, Robert J. 
Samuelson in this town talks about the double counting.
  We have dealt so much for so long on so many topics, sadly, in an 
atmosphere of doublespeak from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. 
Indeed, my colleague from Colorado, perhaps unintentionally, was 
describing quite accurately the feeling of many Americans when he used 
the phrase ``get away with it'', an abdication of responsibility so 
breathtaking and shocking not only in terms of personal conduct but 
also in terms, Mr. Speaker, of the sacred trust which we assume as 
constitutional officers.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder to see some who come to this chamber, as 
did our President for his State of the Union message, and stand at the 
podium behind me here. I took my own copious notes, and by my count the 
President proposed 80 new programs, 80 new programs, in the span of 77 
minutes. And now, when our friends put a sharp pencil to paper and 
check the very real cost of those programs, to really pay for those 
programs we must have close to 80 new taxes or fee increases. And yet 
those who would tell us that they would guard the surplus, that they 
somehow are true guardians of the public trust, are engaged, in fact, 
in double count and doublespeak.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we heard it in this very chamber in the hour 
preceding this one, when those who look for shortcuts to political 
advantage continue to market and play upon the politics of fear rather 
than the policies of truth and hope. That is what we hear, Mr. Speaker, 
even in the wake of today's passage of a bipartisan resolution 
recommitting this Congress to the safety and sanctity of Social 
Security. We had one gentleman from Texas come to this floor and, in 
essence, say that Social Security was going to be destroyed. How sad 
and how false.
  We have a responsibility to our constituents who have called upon us 
to represent them, to govern, because we have been selected by the 
people and for the people. And, oh, how I yearn for straight talk and 
taking a look and making the tough decisions. Because as I said in this 
chamber earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we cannot approach this as 
Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans to solve this problem. And 
yet the temptation of political advantage and the siren song of 
notoriety inside the beltway tends to propel others in these very 
partisan directions.
  Let us at long last, Mr. Speaker, call for truth in personal conduct 
and in leveling with the American people both on matters of demeanor 
and policies of government. Is that too much to ask?
  Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to hear the Vice President of the United 
States say to the assembled press corps 1 year ago, ``My legal counsel 
informs me there is no controlling legal authority.'' I think the Vice 
President was wrong. There is a controlling legal authority. It is 
called the Constitution of the United States.
  And, moreover, there is a compelling and controlling moral authority, 
and it is called the oath of office that each of us take. And how those 
succumb to temptations to ``get away with it'', whatever ``it'' may be, 
is both galling and not to be easily understood; and, in the final 
analysis, reprehensible, because it ignores and it counterfeits the 
sacred trust that citizens have placed in us.
  That is the challenge we face; not to be facile and glib and get away 
with it, but to be about the business of the people; not to fly from 
place to place for campaign-like rallies, but to join with us and 
govern; and not to double count or double deal or doublespeak, but to 
work out legitimate differences and speak as best we can with one voice 
to confront these problems. These are the challenges we face.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, these unfortunate strategies that the 
gentleman has described that we typically see coming out of the White 
House are really emblematic of, I think, what the White House realizes 
the American people want to see, what they want to hear, and what they 
intuitively know and believe, and that is the belief that a large 
Federal Government is inherently bad for the American society. So they 
do go through all of these machinations and smoke and mirror strategies 
to try to mask and conceal what it is they really are pushing for and 
pushing toward.
  The bottom line is their vision for America is a larger Federal 
Government that defines a society. Our vision as a Republican majority 
is for a smaller Federal Government and a greater American people. And 
I say a greater American people in the context of what the budget 
debate in this Congress is generally all about.
  Thomas Jefferson said that there will always be two prevailing 
parties in a political system, the side that believes that we organize 
ourselves around a central government structure and there is the other 
side that believes that we organize ourselves around the strength of 
individuals. Those two parties are alive and well today.
  The Democrat party that the gentleman described is one that is using 
remarkable linguistic gymnastics to double count imaginary money to 
suggest we should feel safe and secure that the government is not 
growing, when, in fact, it is growing by leaps and bounds. The national 
debt continues to grow on a year-by-year basis.
  Our mission as a Republican Party is precisely the opposite. We want 
to invest the public's wealth in appropriate ways. We believe, however, 
that that wealth is better invested with the people who earn it. We 
want to shrink the amount of cash that makes its way to Washington, 
D.C., thereby strengthening the amount of cash that stays in the 
pockets of the American families, the American farmers, the American 
business men and women who work hard every day, who are the true 
individuals who define what it means to be an American.

  In the end, we care about saving and rescuing the Social Security 
System

[[Page H875]]

and rescuing the Medicare trust fund. We care about a strong national 
defense and having world class schools second to none. In order to do 
that, we can raise the resources necessary to accomplish these goals by 
focusing on economic growth, not a growth in the tax rate. And that is 
a key distinction and a key difference.
  I notice the gentleman from Georgia is here, and I will yield the 
floor to him.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I have a letter that somewhat ties into this, and I 
wanted to bring it up. It is from Mr. Jones Taylor of Saint Simons 
Island, Georgia, and he just says, paraphrasing here, that ``I was 
disappointed in the Republican lack of agenda during 1998. Are you guys 
going to do that again or what is your agenda?''
  I can say very easily what my agenda is, and I regret that I have not 
been here the whole time, so my colleagues may have discussed it, but I 
call it the BEST military, health care and agriculture: ``B'' for 
balancing the budget and paying down the debt; ``E'' for excellence in 
education; ``S'' for saving Social Security; ``T'' for lowering taxes. 
A strong military, a health care system that is affordable and 
accessible and a safe and abundant food supply.
  Now, in that context, the gentleman mentioned stimulating the 
economy. One of the great ways to do that, of course, is to pay down 
the debt. We pay down the debt and then the big bear, the big monster 
in the interest market, in the borrowing market, the Federal 
Government, takes a smaller percentage of the interest out there. And 
that is a great way to stimulate the economy.
  And if we do have a strong economy, revenues to the Federal 
Government go up and we will have a lot of money for expanding and 
strengthening our military, to increase the pay for our hard working 
soldiers, and, of course, to give the teachers in the classroom the 
educational funds that they need, and to shore up Social Security and 
Medicare. BEST military, health care and agriculture. That is a very 
solid agenda.
  I know in each area of the country there are different things that we 
can emphasize. Agriculture in Colorado will be a little different than 
agriculture in Georgia, but the fundamentals of having a safe and 
abundant food supply is just as important in Colorado or Arizona as it 
is in Georgia.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Does the gentleman from Colorado have anything else to 
add?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Well, I would just say that I have learned a lot of 
things in this last month and a half from my experience here in the 
Congress, and I must tell my colleagues that one of the scariest 
realizations that I have come to is that there is the possibility that 
there are, I do not know, certainly a large number, maybe a majority of 
the people even in this body who believe that, in fact, the government 
is not big enough; that, in fact, we have not paid enough taxes and 
that we need to pay more.
  I keep thinking to myself that either I am certainly out of touch or 
the rest of these people are. My colleague from Colorado knows, because 
we have spoken to some of the same groups, I can go home and there is a 
group called the Jefferson County Men's Club and there is the Arapaho 
County Men's Club, and I always think to myself when I hear people say 
things like this, that taxes are not high enough, that government is 
not big enough, I think how would this play in front of the Jefferson 
County Men's Club or the Arapaho County Men's Club? What would they say 
if I came back to them and said there are a lot of people there who 
think government is not big enough and ask them what they think. I can 
tell my colleagues I know what they would say; that we are out of our 
minds. And sometimes it sounds like it.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Let me once again, Mr. Speaker, bring this issue to the 
perspective of those who are not business owners, who are not those who 
enjoy extravagant wealth, but every day Americans who are struggling 
hard to make ends meet.
  Once again I use the State of Colorado as an example: A low-tax 
State. A small government State. Here is another news article from my 
State that is just a couple days old. It says, ``The boom boosts 
fringe: Transients among many landing jobs. Colorado's booming job 
market has given a boost to those who historically have lived on the 
outskirts of the economy, from the homeless veterans to the working 
poor. Clients of the Salvation Army, the Harbor Program'', which is in 
downtown Denver, ``are landing jobs above minimum wage.'' That is 
according to the resident manager Mark Garramone. Here is a quote from 
him. He says, ``As a matter of fact, they are finding a lot of good 
jobs.'' He says, ``Among those jobs cited were car salesmen, chauffeur, 
a few work at U.S. West.'' At the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
listen to this, here is a quote, ``We placed in jobs the highest number 
of veterans in 1998 that we have ever placed.'' That according to Greg 
Bittle, Chief of the VA's Regional Office for Vocational Rehabilitation 
and Counseling. He says, ``In fact, the booming economy tends to pull 
people away. We are basically a training and education program, and the 
economy has been so robust that we will have vets drop out of school to 
take jobs.'' It just goes on and on.

                              {time}  1745

  Here is another example that was mentioned in here. Laurie Harvey, 
Executive Director of the Center for Women's Employment and Education, 
I went and visited this facility in Denver 2 years ago. It places low-
income women, largely from the welfare rolls, in jobs. They say that so 
many of Colorado's welfare recipients have moved off the rolls and into 
employment that her nonprofit is now seeing more and more people who 
are harder to serve.
  So when it comes to public assistance for those who are looking for 
employment, we are narrowing our focus to those who have the legitimate 
needs for some kind of assistance, whether it is some kind of 
disability or handicap or whatever the case is.
  It even goes beyond that. Listen to this last quote I will mention. 
It says, I would say there is probably a shortage of entry level labor. 
This is from Timothy Hall, chief executive officer for Larinden, which 
trains and places developmentally challenged people. He says, it is 
easier to convince employers to hire people with disabilities.
  Low taxes, low regulation, small government in a State like Colorado 
is the model that we ought to look toward here at the Federal 
Government. The model of Colorado is putting people back to work who 
are veterans, those who suffer from disabilities, those who have been 
on welfare for years and years and years, those who are clients of the 
Salvation Army. Charity after charity after charity is celebrating the 
positive benefits of a strong, vibrant economy accomplished through 
smaller government, lower taxation, less regulation and more attention 
to growing a prosperous economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just follow the observation and say it is my 
honor to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means; and our good 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), currently 
chairs the Subcommittee on Social Security but in the 104th Congress it 
was his job as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources to put 
in place welfare reform.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I cannot help but remember that 
essentially the same welfare reform package intact was passed once by 
this Congress and vetoed by the President; again by this Congress and 
vetoed by the President; and finally, when it was sent the third time, 
as we understand from press accounts, one of the President's political 
consultants used the baseball analogy, saying, Mr. President, you do 
not want three strikes and you are out; sign this legislation.
  I appreciate the fact and indeed, Mr. Speaker, we all know from our 
civics class, that we enact laws, but the President must execute his 
signature to see those laws implemented. So we welcomed at long last 
his signature. This is an example of a contentious challenge that was 
met head-on even in the atmosphere of contention in that 104th Congress 
to bring about a desired change, to now where we can measure compassion 
by a more accurate barometer by the number of people who voluntarily 
leave the welfare rolls in favor

[[Page H876]]

of work; by the news that there are fewer applicants for food stamps 
because people are becoming self-sufficient.
  Again understand, we make no pretense of ripping away the social 
safety net, but welfare reform helps prevent that safety net from 
turning into a hammock. That is what we have accomplished on both sides 
of the aisle. And that spirit, that example, should serve us well as we 
deal with this very difficult question of Social Security reform. How 
do we best save it? How do we maximize opportunities for all of our 
citizens, regardless of their age or their station in life?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. In our remaining few minutes, I want to really talk 
about the importance of communicating with Members of Congress. The 
four of us who are here tonight I think are very representative of the 
Republican majority Members who serve in the House of Representatives. 
We rely heavily on the letters and phone calls from constituents, those 
who show up at the town meetings and find ways to communicate with 
their Members of Congress directly.
  Those kinds of letters, phone calls and communications from 
constituents really arm us, as Members, with the real-life examples 
that are necessary to take on the party of the large bureaucracy, take 
on the White House and those who believe that, in a year like this, 
that higher taxes, for example, is a good idea. It is letters from 
constituents that tell us and remind us every day that bigger 
government is a thing of the past.
  Let me use one more example from my district. This is under the 
letterhead of Tri-City Sprinkler and Landscape. It is from Loveland, 
Colorado. It says, Dear Representative Schaffer, I am your constituent 
from Loveland. As a business owner and grandparent, I am very concerned 
about the serious economic problems facing our country. I feel our 
current income tax structure is having a very negative impact by taxing 
production, savings and investment, the very things which can make our 
economy strong. Therefore, I support replacing the income tax and the 
IRS with a national consumption tax such as suggested in H.R. 2001, the 
National Retail Sales Tax Act. I urge you and your staff to look into 
it and cosponsor it. Please let me know where you stand on this 
important matter.
  I will write back to the constituent and give her my opinions and 
thoughts on that. I mention this letter and others that we have gone 
through tonight just to let the American people know that this 
government does not belong to the President. This government does not 
belong to any single Member of Congress. It does not belong to the 
Supreme Court. It belongs to the people just like the woman who wrote 
this letter, just like the people who write all of these other letters, 
and we really do rely on their advice and their assistance and their 
help in helping make the case on behalf of individual Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) the 
remaining few minutes that we have left.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I would like to mention when the gentleman talks about 
the issue of tax reform and going to a simpler and fairer tax system, 
Newsweek Magazine a few months ago on its cover had a story, a cover 
story about the IRS; and it said, The IRS: Lawless, Abusive, Out of 
Control.
  When any major department or agency of the Federal Government can be 
described by a mainstream magazine like Newsweek as lawless, abusive 
and out of control, things have gotten to a pretty sad state. It is 
especially sad when an agency as intrusive as the Internal Revenue 
Service can be accurately described in that way. So I think we 
basically should just take the Internal Revenue Code that we have now 
and junk it and start over again. I think about 85 or 90 percent of the 
American people feel that way.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. On the matter of constituent input, how helpful do you 
find that representing your district in Tennessee?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I find it very helpful. For those who think that we have 
cut taxes too much, a few years ago we had a $90 billion tax cut spread 
over 5 years because that was the most we could get through at that 
time. Some of the more liberal Members kicked and screamed about that, 
but that was spread over 5 years.
  That was a tax cut of slightly less than 1 percent of Federal 
revenues over that 5-year period. Now the average person pays about 40 
percent of his or her income in taxes and another 10 percent in 
government regulatory costs, at a minimum. So today you have one spouse 
working to support the government while the other spouse works to 
support the family.
  I know the President said in Buffalo that he could not support a tax 
decrease because the American people would not spend it wisely. I can 
say I think they would spend it much more wisely than this wasteful, 
inefficient Federal Government that we have today.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Following up on the comments of the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), it is amazing that the President would say that 
the hard-working people who earn the money cannot spend it as well as 
some of the people here in Washington, maybe including the four of us. 
But I can say one thing. I believe people can spend their money better 
than we can spend their money.
  The tax cut that you alluded to last year, it was an $18 billion tax 
cut for one year; $18 billion out of a $1.7 trillion budget. It was 
just a slither of a slither in this huge $1.7 trillion pot, and it was 
killed by the Senate.
  Now, the Senate and the White House ganged up on the House to kill 
the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act, and I think that it is ridiculous 
to have that kind of obstruction to doing something that is common 
sense for the tax system. I hope this year that if we pass it that the 
other body will find their senses and quit siding with the liberal 
White House on everything and act like conservatives and pass tax 
reductions.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. In the remaining minute, I would ask the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), is there anything he can do to dramatize the 
difference between the Democrats and the White House and what they 
stand for and the Republican majority in Congress and what we stand 
for?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is funny my colleague from Colorado 
should ask me that question. Because, just as our good friend from 
Tennessee pointed out in paraphrasing the words of our President, Mr. 
Speaker, these are the words of the President, if memory serves, one 
day, probably less than 12 hours, after he outlined 80 new programs 
involving close to 80 new taxes. Mr. Speaker, he said in Buffalo, New 
York, and I quote, speaking of the budget surplus, ``We could give it 
all back to you and hope you spend it right but,'' closed quote. There, 
Mr. Speaker, therein lies a major difference. It comes down to a 
question of who do you trust? The President thinks you ought to trust 
him to spend your money for you.
  We say, if there is ever a choice between Washington bureaucrats and 
the American people, Mr. Speaker, then we side with the American 
people, because, Mr. Speaker, Americans know best how to save, spend 
and invest for themselves and their families. Therein lies a 
difference, a difference of freedom and a real contrast between the 
politics of fear from those who make outrageous claims about Social 
Security and our budgetary process and the true policies of hope that 
we embrace with lower taxes, stronger schools, a stronger military and 
a real plan to save Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Republican colleagues 
who joined me here on the floor tonight to talk about our Republican 
vision for America. I want to thank the thousands of constituents who 
write to our offices individually virtually on a weekly basis. Their 
voice does matter. We are here tonight to assure them that the 
Republican majority is listening. It is important for the American 
people to express their thoughts and sentiments on whether the 
government should continue to grow as the President would propose or 
whether the government should be constrained in its growth as the 
Republican Party proposes.

                          ____________________