[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1140-H1147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  COMMON CONCERN AND ENTHUSIASM FOR THE PROSPECTS OF REDUCING THE TAX 
                     BURDEN ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  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, I am joined here on the floor by a number 
of Members from the Republican Conference, and those of us in 
particular tonight are gathered out of common concern and enthusiasm 
for the prospects of reducing the tax burden on the American people. 
There are many of us here in Congress who believe very firmly and 
passionately that the size of the Federal Government not only is too 
big but that this government collects far more income and revenue from 
the American people than is necessary.
  Furthermore, we are united in the firm belief that this surplus, this 
additional revenue that the Federal Government collects, confiscates 
from the American people and transports here to Washington, D.C., would 
be better utilized and in fact more powerful if left in the hands of 
those who work hard to earn this income in the first place.
  Very, very clearly, what President Kennedy and President Reagan as 
well, have shown the Nation is that by reducing the effective tax rates 
on the American people, through economic growth and productivity of the 
American people, that the Federal Government actually generates more 
revenue.
  Again, it is the entire distinction between growth in a strong 
vibrant economy and strengthened family budgets as opposed to slower 
economic growth and larger government budgets that divides the 
Congress, quite frankly, and it is the ultimate basis and difference 
between the Republican Party and the Democrat party.
  We do stand squarely for a smaller Federal Government, for a lower 
tax burden, for stronger family budgets, and for economic prosperity 
through a deliberate plan to grow the economy of the United States of 
America.
  We are joined and honored to be joined tonight by the majority 
leader, and I yield the floor to him immediately, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) for yielding and let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
reserving this hour for us to discuss this.
  We are joined by a good many of our colleagues here. I thought it 
might be interesting to sort of set the stage, for the American people 
to have a look at where it is we have brought this budget situation to, 
since we took over in the elections of 1994 and, of course, commencing 
in 1995.
  Remember, in 1995 we had deficits for as far as the eye could see, 
and obviously because we were successful in restraining government 
spending, we have transformed this situation. The fascinating thing, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) made a reference to it 
earlier, we have now in just these few short years, moved from the 
public policy discussions of deficits for as far as the eye can see to 
the current discussion of budget surpluses for as far as the eye can 
see.
  Yet it seems like the terms of the debate between the two major 
political parties have not changed a bit. Republicans are still saying 
essentially that the Federal Government is too big and takes too much 
of your money and that we ought to use the surplus to fulfill our 
obligation to the American people. Whereas the Democrats seem to say, 
no, the problem is we really need to grow the government larger and we 
ought to do so by further prevailing upon the American people for tax 
increases.
  This really centers around this next fiscal year, fiscal year 2000, 
the first new year of the millennium. We have now, as we look forward 
to next year, a $137 billion surplus in the Federal budget; that 
surplus in the budget comes almost exclusively from payroll taxes that 
are paid in excess of current, particularly Social Security outlays.
  Let me just talk about that a little. My daughter, who is a young 
working professional in her early thirties, who probably represents 
that generation of Americans that is most worried about their own 
retirement security in America today, wears a little pin on her lapel 
and the little pin says, who in the devil is FICA and why is he taking 
my money?
  I think that question is being asked by a lot of our young working 
people starting their new families and trying to get started in their 
life.
  FICA, or the payroll taxes that we all have withdrawn from our check, 
is the money that the Federal Government takes for the purpose of 
fulfilling our obligations to our senior citizens for their retirement.
  The youngsters, who are feeling the burden of this tax, are indeed a 
very loving and generous generation of Americans. We will hear them 
talk, and I hear them across the country, and they will say, look, 
these taxes are tough on us, they are tough on our young families. We 
have our own hopes for our children and our own retirement, but if it 
is for grandma's and grandpa's retirement, we will pay the taxes.
  Now what these youngsters are discovering is, in just next year 
alone, they will pay $137 billion more in those taxes to that entity 
called FICA, in

[[Page H1141]]

their payroll taxes, than what is necessary next year for grandma's and 
grandpa's retirement.
  The young people are quite correctly coming to us and saying, let us 
have an accounting on that. The first thing they will say is we owe 
that to grandma's and grandpa's retirement, and bless their little 
hearts they are saying do not spend it on other government programs 
like has been done; put it aside for grandma and grandpa. That is what 
they intended.
  This is what we have done. We set aside the entire $137 billion for 
our seniors. The President has $52 billion of new government spending, 
growth in the government, and only $85 billion set aside for the 
seniors.
  If one translates this over the next 5 years, what the Republicans 
are saying to our youngsters on behalf of their grandma and grandpa is, 
look, we will take $768 billion of your hard earned taxes and for the 
first time in the history of Social Security we will actually lock that 
away to make sure that grandma and grandpa are taken care of. The kids, 
bless their heart, are the first to demand that.
  How many times have we heard a 20 or 30 year old youngster, starting 
their own family, look at that tax and say, this is a moral obligation 
to grandma and grandpa? It just warms the heart to see the generosity 
and the love.
  President Clinton and Vice President Gore, on the other hand, they 
are saying, well, only $569 billion, because we need the rest of that 
for these government programs of growth.
  We have also said that to the youngsters, we understand your concern 
that government grows out of control and it costs too much money. Look 
down the road. Take a young married couple today with a two or three 
year old baby, and they are thinking about now where will I get the 
money, when that youngster is 15 and 16, for the braces and so forth? 
They feel the burden of the taxes imposed on them to support the 
government, and yet what the Clinton-Gore people are saying is, we are 
going to continue growing the government even in these times.

  What we have said is, look, in 1997, the Republican majority in the 
House and the Senate, every one of the gentlemen who are here, made an 
agreement with the President, and that agreement was that we would hold 
the line against further growth in the government. That is known as 
caps on spending, to stop the growth.
  What the Clinton and Gore budget says is, let us increase that budget 
spending each of those years.
  We believe that is wrong. We think a deal is a deal. We think we 
should hold those caps and we should do so in regard to those young 
people.
  Then finally, the Clinton-Gore budget says they are going to raise 
taxes on those very same young people over the next 5 years, while we 
say not only can we hold the caps, not only can we set aside every bit 
of that Social Security payroll tax that these young people are paying 
for their grandma and grandpa, but we can get them a $146 billion tax 
reduction. So we find ourselves back to where we were.
  The President and his party look at these tax cuts that we are trying 
to get for the American people. They throw up their hands with despair 
and they say, oh, that is just Republicans getting tax cuts for the 
rich. They, in turn, want to have tax increases.
  Let us just stop for a moment. Where would their tax increases fall? 
Look again at that young married couple just trying to get their life 
together, finally out of their mom's and dad's home, into their own 
home. They have got a wonderful Tax Code that they work within. We know 
how generous our Tax Code is, that gives every one of those a home 
mortgage deduction so they can buy their own home and then they hit 
them with a marriage penalty so they are tempted to live out of 
wedlock, but the youngsters are dealing with that tax, doing the best 
they can. When we take a look at this and say, my gosh, the largest 
number of people hit are who, it is those people making $24,000 or 
$25,000. That is the young folks just getting out of college, just 
finally getting on with their lives. They are the people that bear the 
burden of this tax; those people who so desperately need the most take-
home pay they can get right now because they have a new baby on the 
way. They want to redecorate that one extra room they have in that 
house that they managed to put together at the lower interest rates 
because of the budget deficit being eliminated, so that they can build 
a nursery.
  Yet the other side is saying that money which would be put into 
redecorating that room for that nursery we need to, what, build some 
new government program.
  Then after that, the $25,000 to $50,000 income category. So once 
again, relatively low income, younger people struggling to make ends 
meet, trying to build their family, are being asked by President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore to pay the tax increase so we can have 
the new government programs, and that is where we want to focus our 
attention tonight.
  I believe when the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) contacted 
me and talked about this special order and invited all these other 
folks, he wanted to focus the Nation's attention on this question. When 
we have this area where finally after all the years we have struggled, 
where we can get to surpluses, where we can honor our commitment to 
grandma and grandpa on their retirement, and hold the line on the 
growth of government, and literally give these young people starting 
their young families a chance to have a little relief from the burden 
of this taxation that they feel so heavily, we feel like we have an 
obligation to all of these generations to step up and do our best. I 
think we have done that with our budget.
  What have the President and Vice President said? Let us put big 
government first.

                              {time}  1945

  That is where we are, and that is what this debate is all about.
  I know I have gone on too long, but it seemed to me, and I know the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) had been looking at these charts 
and perhaps might want to use these charts and I want to leave them for 
the gentleman to use. But I think we ought to have a real candid 
discussion about that matter.
  To the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), I again appreciate the 
gentleman yielding me this time, and perhaps if we have a few questions 
we can talk about it and get some of the rest of us involved.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McINTOSH).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me say, because our leader is a modest 
man and is not going to brag about one of the things that he has done, 
but I think it is important that we bring this forward and let people 
know what we are doing to try to reduce that tax burden.
  One of the things I want to commend the majority leader on is his 
America Deserves A Refund campaign that the gentleman launched here in 
the Capitol, bringing a family with, I believe it was 6 children who 
were able to benefit from the prime tax cut that Republicans put into 
the 1997 agreement, the $400 this year and $500 in future years tax 
credit per child. For that family, that is $2,400 more in their 
paycheck that they get to keep this year because of that Republican 
initiative that we were able to put into law.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is so neat to 
see the 6 daughters, the family had 6 daughters, and when they realized 
as mom and dad were sitting there working out their taxes that gee, 
this meant $2,400 more take-home pay for mom and dad because of that 
new provision we put in the law, I believe it was in 1995 or 1996, and 
in 1997 we finally got the President to sign it, the girls had a lot of 
fun thinking, gee, what can be done with mom and dad's new $2,400, and 
I kind of laughed, and they all kind of thought it might be a good idea 
to put that money away and save it for a new baby brother. That was a 
good consensus for the girls.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that struck me about that 
was a statement the majority leader made about using a hypothetical 
family, the Smiths. What does this tax burden mean in our everyday 
life? When they get up in the morning, they flip on the lights and they 
pay a utility tax. They run the water to brush their teeth or take a 
shower, and they pay the water and the sewage tax. They have breakfast 
and everything that they bought for breakfast they paid a

[[Page H1142]]

sales tax on. Then when Mr. Smith gets in his car to head to work, he 
pays a gas tax and, in most States, a car tax which Republicans here in 
Virginia are working to eliminate. Then, when he gets to work, he pays 
an income tax, a FICA tax that the majority leader discussed earlier on 
this payroll, and if he is investing any of that money in a savings 
account or in the stock market, he pays a capital gains tax on the 
returns of his investments.
  Mr. Smith comes back home, and the gentleman was kind enough to 
mention a bill that my colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) and I have been working on to eliminate the marriage tax, 
because he and Mrs. Smith have decided to stay married, in spite of the 
fact that they pay on average $1,400 more just because they are 
married. Then, they pay property tax on their home, and if they then 
reach the end of their lives and want to pass that on or the other 
assets on to their children, they pay a death tax. That is just 11 
taxes, but it is a huge chunk, as much as 50, 60 percent of many 
people's incomes that go to taxes at all levels of government.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for taking the 
initiative and focusing our effort here in Washington on engaging the 
American people for this campaign of America Deserves A Refund, rather 
than using those taxes to grow the size of government. I thank the 
gentleman for doing that.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, this is a topic that as a Republican 
majority we care about, not only from the perspective of managing 
government and trying to run a more efficient and leaner government, 
but from the perspective of our concern for middle class Americans. I 
want to share a couple of sentences here from a letter, and then I will 
yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  This is a letter I received from a constituent from my district, and 
I will point out that what we are hearing here in Congress are the 
concerns of average American people who are realizing that the $52 
billion in tax increases that are being proposed by the President of 
the United States and the White House is not consistent with the best 
interests of average American families. Average American families want 
to see tax relief. Here is a good example.
  ``Dear Congressman Schaefer: 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. Providing for retirement and securing your 
family's financial security should not be a taxing experience,'' the 
writer claims.
  ``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, and I strongly encourage 
you to do the same this time around. Please oppose any new direct or 
indirect taxes like those that commonly are referred to as DAC or COLI 
on annuities or life insurance products.''
  Here is a letter from an average American family in Colorado urging 
us here in Congress to avoid the kinds of tax increases that the 
Clinton administration is proposing. They are looking to somebody here 
in Washington, and I am proud to say that the Republican Party is 
listening to things like this.
  Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) to help assure not only this constituent, but others like him 
around the country who are looking to us for real leadership and 
guidance on trying to shrink the size of the Federal government and 
provide real meaningful tax relief for families just like his.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding and organizing tonight's discussion on some of the issues that 
are so important for us.
  Mr. Speaker, think about it. I have been here now 4 years, I have had 
the privilege of serving in this body, and we were told time and time 
again that there was so much that we wanted to do that we could not do 
it, it could not be done, we could not accomplish it. We balanced the 
budget for the first time in 28 years; we cut taxes for the middle 
class for the first time in 16 years; we reformed welfare for the first 
time in a generation, and we tamed the tax collector, reforming the IRS 
for the first time ever. Those were all accomplishments that we were 
told we could not do. It had never been done before, so you cannot do 
it, but we did.
  As a result of that, we have a big challenge and opportunity before 
us that is something new in Washington. That is, we have some extra 
money. We have a projected $2.8 trillion surplus of extra tax revenue 
that is burning a hole in Washington's pocket. And the debate this year 
is what are we going to do with it?
  Of course, the President came in and gave a great speech on his State 
of the Union and basically promised to spend it all. He says, we will 
save Social Security and we will spend it. I went back home after that, 
because I stood up and applauded several times, because it sounded 
great. But folks back home said, well, wait a second. If we have all of 
this extra money, why is the President asking for $176 billion in new 
tax increases in his budget? And then they said, but he says he wants 
to save Social Security, but he raids the Social Security Trust Fund by 
$250 billion. I do not understand that. Wait a second here. We have a 
surplus; why do we need a tax increase? We have a surplus; why do we 
need to dip further into the Social Security Trust Fund?

  That is why I appreciate the leadership that the majority leader and 
others have shown with the decision that has been made just in the last 
few days to do something that the seniors back home in Illinois have 
told me they would like to see done, and that is that we are going to 
wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, that we are going to put an 
end to a practice that has gone on since LBJ was President, and that 
is, hands off Social Security. For once and for all, we are going to 
wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, and we can no longer spend it 
on anything other than Social Security. That will also put a stop to 
the President's idea of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
  I think that is an important issue, and I really want to salute the 
Republicans in the House and Senate who took that issue on over the 
last 4 years, because it is a big victory, and I see it as a bright 
light at the end of the tunnel as we go through the budget process, 
doing something this year that seniors have asked us to do.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, talking about 
that increased spending the President has before us, in his budget he 
proposed 120 new government programs. Not expansions of existing 
programs, but 120 new Federal Government programs. I just have to ask 
Mr. and Mrs. America, when you see where all you find the Federal 
Government in your life and in your community with this program, that 
program and the other program, does anybody in America believe that 
America today needs 120 new government programs? It seems to me that is 
just wanton growth, almost as if for the sake of the government alone.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, in response to the majority leader, the 
President wants to pay for these 120 new programs by dipping into the 
Social Security trust fund. We see the young men and women many of us 
know back home in our home communities, just graduating from high 
school, they are in college or entering the workforce and they are 
paying 12.6 percent of their income into the Social Security Trust Fund 
with little hope, many of them tell me, of ever receiving Social 
Security benefits.
  So unless we wall off the Social Security Trust Fund and stop 
Washington from dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund to spend on 
new government programs, our young people may never see Social 
Security. That is why it is so important that we make this change in 
how we budget the process.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, bless the hearts of kids. I love listening to 
the young people today. They are so good. They are paying these taxes 
for grandma and grandpa's retirement. They know that is an obligation 
and responsibility. They are happy to fulfill it. It is just that they 
cannot understand why then would we take that money that they work so 
hard for, that they are so willing to give up for grandma

[[Page H1143]]

and grandpa and give it to 120 new programs they have not even heard of 
before. It is a fundamental thing, the families that we know and love 
and trust and we feel responsible for, putting them ahead of new 
ventures in life, and the kids understand that.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, in yielding back my time to the gentleman 
from Colorado, perhaps I could pose a question to the my colleagues, 
and that is a question that was posed to me at an union hall back in 
Joliet, Illinois just a few days ago. This gentleman said, you folks in 
Washington, you have so much extra money right now, that surplus, over 
$2 trillion over the next 10 years in extra money, why does the 
President want to increase taxes? Why does the President say we need 
$170 billion in new tax increases on the American people and the 
American economy?
  I think that is an important question, and we should be asking the 
President, but we should also be asking the Congress, why in the world 
would anyone consider new taxes in a time when we already have all of 
this extra money.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, we do not need new 
taxes.
  Let me again refer to another real American who wrote to me from Fort 
Collins, Colorado.
  ``Last year, we withdrew an additional $1,000 from our IRA and found 
it increased our Federal income taxes by $515. That's right. We only 
had $485 left. President Clinton's tax increase to 85 percent of Social 
Security for affluent seniors,'' and she puts affluent seniors in 
quotes, ``is what did it.''
  She goes on, she says, ``In the 28 percent bracket, each additional 
dollar is of course taxed at 28 cents, and it also makes an added 85 
cents of each Social Security dollar taxable at that rate. So the tax 
is 28 cents plus 24 cents, or 52 cents on each dollar.''
  She asks, with exclamation marks, ``Who else pays at that marginal 
rate?'' She says, ``If we are wrong about any of this, please let us 
know. But if we are right, please help.''
  Well, we are pleased to be joined here this evening by the gentleman 
from the great State of New York (Mr. Fossella) who is here to help, 
and I yield the floor to him.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, she should go see her Congressman from 
Colorado. He is going to give them all the money back.
  Let me just commend the gentleman from Colorado as well for putting 
this together, and also the majority leader, and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh); 
we are joined also here by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) of 
Wisconsin and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), all of whom 
are speaking for the American people who feel that they are overtaxed.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) posed the question about how 
can we be doing this? How can the White House be making these 
statements about a so-called surplus and yet spending more money.
  I would like to refer folks back to the movie the Wizard of Oz. 
Remember Oz, the wizard who would say, do not look behind the curtain. 
Well, in a way, that is what happens here in Washington. Just do not 
ask those questions. Trust us. Trust the White House spending your 
hard-earned money. And if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) goes 
back home and sees that gentleman again and he asks him the question, 
does he trust people in Washington or the President to spend the money 
he earns every single day of the year, or would he prefer the freedom 
and the opportunity and the liberty to spend that?
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is really 
an important fundamental question we should be really answering here in 
Washington and the Congress, and that is who can better spend the hard-
earned dollars of the folks back home, those of us here in Washington, 
or real people trying to meet their own family's needs? When we think 
about it, if we allow people to keep more of what they earn, and of 
course I would like to eliminate the marriage tax penalty that punishes 
21 million married working couples an average of $1,400 each just 
because they are married. Now, $1,400 in the south side of Chicago and 
the south suburbs, that is a year's tuition at a local community 
college. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. It is a 
washer and a dryer in the utility room.
  The point is, it is real money for real people, and if we allow 
people to keep more of what they earn, they can also make choices 
themselves, because we in government really are not in the best 
position to make the best decisions for folks back home, for families. 
Because if they have more money in their pockets, they can choose 
whether or not to take care of their children's needs or set a little 
aside for Johnny's college education fund or give a little extra money 
at the church or the temple or for a charity that is important to their 
community.

                              {time}  2000

  That is an important choice. That is a fundamental decision that we 
are really going to be deciding this year, is whether or not we let 
folks keep more of what they earned, or do we spend more here in 
Washington.
  That is why I am so concerned about the President's $250 billion raid 
on the social security trust fund and his $176 billion in new tax 
increases, because that is taking more money out of the pocketbooks of 
hardworking folks back home in Illinois, New York, and other States.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, the interesting point here is we are from 
all parts of this country: New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, South Dakota, 
Colorado, Texas. I think we represent really what the heart and soul of 
what the American people want from us.
  That is, those are the folks who work hard every single day to send 
that money back home, because ultimately in life we have a choice. We 
have a choice here in Washington, by sending people who want to spend 
that money, much of it unnecessarily, or send it back home where it 
belongs, and at the same time set aside money where it belongs in the 
social security trust fund so it is not treated as a slush fund instead 
of a trust fund. That is the decision that is going to be made every 
single day of this Congress and the next.
  I believe strongly, despite what the polls say, despite what the 
pundits say, that the people at home in my district on Staten Island 
and Brooklyn, and in that of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), 
feel they pay too much in taxes. I say we give them that $1,400.
  Would they prefer to spend it back in Illinois? People I represent 
would rather have that $1,400 in Staten Island to spend how they see 
fit, whether it is education, a vacation, a new car, whatever it is, 
because we believe in what this country is all about: the fundamentals 
of freedom and liberty, and the notion that if you provide the 
incentives to go out there and work hard we will see economic growth, 
we will see new jobs created, we will see new innovation, we will see 
the creativity, we believe in the American spirit.
  I want to thank all my colleagues for taking time out to really be 
the voice of the American people here in Congress, and I thank again 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for putting this together.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. From Erie, Colorado, I received this note: Dear 
Representative, please cut taxes. The proposed 10 percent tax rate cut 
is so little, but at least it is a cut. Please cut taxes, sincerely, 
and the writer or the author of this e-mail was from Erie, Colorado. I 
mention this just to let this woman from Erie know that somebody is 
listening from Washington, cares, and is interested in moving in that 
direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado, for yielding, and my other colleagues on the floor this 
evening for participating in this dialogue.
  I think it is fair to say that a tax cut of a $1,000 probably goes 
farther in South Dakota than it does in Long Island, but in South 
Dakota, that is a lot of money.
  I think the basic question we are all talking about here in 
Washington right now is who are we going to trust to fix social 
security, to save Medicare, to pay down the debt, and to see that the 
American people get to keep more of what they earn. Are we going to 
trust the group that for 40 years was in charge of this institution and 
did not do anything to protect social security,

[[Page H1144]]

or the people who in 1994 came to this town, were elected, the 
Republican majority in the Congress, and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) was part of that group, and we were able to join him 
later, who said we are going to reform welfare and then did it; who 
said, we can balance the budget, and then did it; who said, we can cut 
taxes, and then went ahead and did it? Or are we going to trust the 
other group, that for years and years and years continued to squander 
the taxpayers' money?
  Just to give an example of this, if we look at 1995 and what the 
projection was, and we have seen a lot of numbers out here this 
evening, but in 1995 the Congressional Budget Office projected 10 years 
out into the future. They projected that we would have a $3 trillion 
deficit, year after year of deficits accumulated. Now the Congressional 
Budget Office is projecting out for the next 10 years $2.6 trillion in 
surplus.
  The American people I think can do the arithmetic on that and see how 
far we have come in a very short period of time, 4 year's time. I think 
it is a great tribute to the hard work and fiscal responsibility of the 
Republican Congress when they came to this Congress and said that we 
were going to change business as usual.
  I think the ironic thing is that now we have the President of the 
United States coming up here and saying, we have to pay down debt. We 
need to invest more in national security. We have the leadership in the 
Congress on the Democrat side saying that, one, we need to live within 
the budget caps; and two, we need to look at what we can do to cut 
taxes.
  That tells me we are winning the argument. When we are winning the 
argument, I think the American people are winning, because it means we 
are getting more control and more of their hard-earned money back into 
their hands.
  All of us come from different parts of this country. I think we are 
all a product of those we represent. Where I come from, we have a lot 
of farmers, a lot of ranchers, a lot of small business people, a lot of 
hardworking families. It is a place where your word is your bond. It is 
a place where business deals are still conducted with a shake of the 
hand. I am proud to represent a place like that.
  But they are people who understand that the big hand of big 
government in Washington is choking them and their existence, if we 
look at the cost of regulations and the cost of taxes to people who 
work hard in farming and ranching, and all the ways they get hit. Many 
of the proposals we are talking about that would reduce the tax burden 
on people of this country would be directed at people like those I am 
talking about.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has talked about, for 
example, putting a package together that allows for the deductibility 
of health insurance premiums for self-employed people. That is critical 
to farmers and ranchers.
  Talk about the death tax, one of the concerns that we have in rural 
America is how can we keep the family farm and the ranch together? How 
can we pass it on to the next generation? One of the ways we can do 
that is to make it easier, so when it comes time and you want to make 
that transition, and the young person wants to stay on the ranch or the 
farm, that we do not confiscate it from them through taxes.
  If we could do something about the death tax, we would go a long way 
to preserving the fabric of family farming and ranching in America, 
which I think strikes at the very heart and soul of the value system of 
this country. We want to preserve that, and we are not making it easy 
for them to do that.
  If we could address the death tax, if we could address deductibility 
of health insurance premiums and the burden that we place on 
hardworking people in this country, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) has been a leader on the marriage penalty.
  I think, again, that is something that has been in the tax code for a 
long number of years, that we have had this notion that somehow if 
people get married, they are going to be penalized through tax policy. 
That is just asinine. It is high time we changed it.
  The proposals that we are talking about, one, walling off social 
security and seeing that we preserve that program, and again, I think 
it is the hard work of the American people and the hard work of this 
Congress in trying to control spending that has given us the 
opportunity to say we are going to set the FICA tax aside. We are not 
going to spend it. The other side, the President, the administration, 
and the other side of the House, want to, again, raid that social 
security trust fund.
  We are going to set it aside, take that issue off the table, and then 
let us have a debate, an honest debate in this country about when that 
is done, are we going to spend more money in Washington on bigger 
government and more programs, or are we going to give it back to the 
American people? I think that is one that we win with the American 
people.

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) will yield further, that is an important question the 
gentleman is raising that we probably should ask as we go through the 
budget process this year. When the President is calling for 120 new 
government programs, maybe the question we should ask is, who is going 
to pay for that?
  Clearly, in his budget he says that we should take $250 billion out 
of the social security trust fund and we should increase taxes on top 
of that another $176 billion. That tells us where the money is coming 
from, from the pocketbooks of hardworking folks in South Dakota, and 
also the social security money for young people down the road, as well. 
I think that is an important question we should ask, where is that 
money coming from? If they propose a new government program, clearly 
they are raiding social security to pay for that new government 
program.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the gentleman for making that point. The irony is 
that in all of this, we hear an awful lot of demagoguery and an awful 
lot of rhetoric about what they want to do to protect social security, 
and yet the numbers bear out. The numbers do not lie.
  If we look at the commitment that is made in terms of the rhetoric 
that comes out of the White House, and then if we look at how this 
thing actually goes when we read the fine print, it is a very different 
story.
  I would simply say that I think we have a responsibility as guardians 
of the public trust and as those who defend the people who work hard in 
this country and pay taxes to see that we do not take any more from 
them than is absolutely necessary.
  If we look at the tax burden, the regulatory burden, and the 
gentleman was reading some letters, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer), from people. We got one the other day. We have a situation 
in South Dakota where there is a small business deal where a city is 
taking gravel out of a pit, putting it on the back of a pickup, but 
because they used a conveyer belt to do it, they fall under the Mine 
Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor. It is 
considered mining, because they used a conveyer belt.
  Under the regulations for mines, one has to have a porta-potty, so 
they had to put a porta-potty out there for 2 weeks' time, and it costs 
them $300. It did not get used once, not once. Then they were fined for 
other things, because they were not complying with some silly 
regulation because they were trying to move some gravel to the back of 
a pickup. This is just how ludicrous and ridiculous some of the stuff 
becomes.
  I am not saying for a minute that there is not a need for health and 
safety type regulations, but there are an awful lot of people in this 
town who I think have way too much time on their hands who come up with 
some very ridiculous things.
  That is what really this debate is about; again, how do we come up 
with a government that is more user-friendly, that is modernized, and 
that sees that because of the hard work of the American people, that we 
are not taking any more from them than is absolutely necessary.
  If we look at what they can spend, if we take a $1,200 tax cut and 
think about how America could spend it, 15 weeks of child care, 24 
weeks of grocery bills, 3 months of rent and housing, three car 
payments. This is real stuff. This hits people where they really live.
  I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and talk 
about what we can do to preserve the way of life

[[Page H1145]]

where I come from, which is rural America, and how we address some of 
these agricultural issues, and the tax issues and big government come 
right into that debate. So I appreciate the chance to visit this 
evening with my colleagues here.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to brace themselves for 
this. This is a woman from Fort Morgan, Colorado, who writes that she 
needs to know that there is a Republican Party back here in Washington 
who cares about her.
  She writes, ``This January I resigned my job and retired early at the 
age of 50 to cut our taxes. We are penalized for being married and we 
have no children, so you guys really sock it to us,'' she says. ``The 
higher fees on everything we buy or use are taxed at higher rates.''
  She says, ``We have been putting almost the maximum allowed into our 
401(k) to help cut our taxes, but I may not live long enough to spend 
that money, because you look at my retirement dollars as your money,'' 
and she is speaking about Washington, D.C. and the Federal Government, 
of course, ``and are determining for me how and when I can spend it.''
  She says, ``When I watched the Senate hearings of Mr. Clinton's 
budget, it became apparent to me that the era of big government is 
back. The felon''--her letter may not be compliant with our House 
rules. Let me skip to the bottom.
  ``I do not want to hear you guys in Washington say one more time, we 
have to save social security. Do it now and do it right.'' She says, 
``Give us our money.'' Well, Members can hear the frustration and just 
the tone of the letter from an average constituent. I would suspect 
that the sentiments that are expressed in this letter are also 
expressed in the great State of Wisconsin.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to 
elaborate further on what he is hearing from the people in his home 
district.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado for yielding to me. I am a new Member from Wisconsin, and I 
was very honored and privileged to serve on the Committee on the 
Budget. What we have been doing in the Committee on the Budget has been 
two things, analyzing the President's budget proposal, taking it very 
seriously, and crafting our own budget proposal.
  It was my first time to sit in this well of this House to watch the 
State of the Union Address. When the President stood right behind me 
here and talked about his plans to save social security, everybody 
remembers that 62 percent number, saving 62 percent of the surplus for 
social security, well, I was wondering and scratching my head at the 
time, why 62? Why not 100 percent? Where did the 62 number come from?
  We have been analyzing that in the Committee on the Budget. It looks 
like actually he is not saving even that much for social security. But 
what that policy that the President has subscribed to allows the 
President to do is to continue raiding the social security trust fund.
  Where I come from in Wisconsin, people believe that if they pay taxes 
for social security off of their payroll taxes, their FICA taxes, it 
ought to go to social security, not to other government programs. For 
30 years our Congress, our presidency, this Nation has been raiding the 
social security trust fund. We have been taking money out of the social 
security trust fund that we have been paying every paycheck in our FICA 
taxes and spending it on other government programs.
  I had thought that we would be able to end that process. Today we 
have two surpluses coming in Washington. We have a social security 
surplus and we have an income tax surplus, a surplus from non-social 
security taxes. In my opinion, what we have to do, and in fact what 
this Republican Congress is going to do, is to end that 30-year 
practice of raiding social security.
  This chart right here beside me shows the differences that exist 
between our emerging budget plan and the President's budget plan. It 
shows that this year we have a $137 billion surplus, this year, 1999. 
It is all from social security.
  The President wants to take $85 billion and put it toward social 
security. Some $52 billion of social security dollars are going to go 
to new spending. We are putting all of social security dollars back 
into social security. We are putting a firewall in our budget back in 
place that simply says that from now on, Congress can no longer raid 
the social security trust fund; that every ounce of FICA taxes we pay 
for social security plus interest will be dedicated solely to social 
security. Then when Washington starts running other surpluses from non-
social security parts of the budget, from our income tax overpayment, 
we should get our money back.

                              {time}  2015

  The good point about the Social Security surplus is that that is part 
of our national debt as well. We have been raiding our Social Security 
for so long that we owe over $700 billion back to the Trust Fund. The 
Trust Fund contains nothing but a bunch of IOUs.
  But our budget plan is going to pay down that debt. We are going to 
pay down our publicly held national debt. The President's plan actually 
increases the national debt by about $1.6 trillion.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) talked about the new tax 
increases in the President's budget. It is very clear that what is 
emerging here is a sharp division of philosophy, a difference of 
opinion on the role of the Federal Government, on whose money is whose. 
Are we the stewards of the taxpayers' money, or does the government own 
their paychecks? That is the difference.
  I think the President did a very good service to the Nation when he 
was speaking about the budget in Buffalo, New York about 4 weeks ago. I 
want to quote him, because I do not want to put words in the 
President's mouth. In talking about the surplus, the other 38 percent 
of the surplus he planned for other programs, he said this, ``We could 
give you your money back in the surplus, but we would not be sure that 
you would spend it right.'' Therein lies the difference. Therein lies 
the difference of philosophy.
  We are going to take all the money that people pay in Social Security 
taxes and dedicate it to Social Security. We are going to stop the raid 
on Social Security from now on. Then we are going to pay back the money 
that was stolen out of there in the first place. Then when people start 
paying overpayments in income taxes over the next 10 to 15 years, we 
are going to let them have their money back.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the point the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is making, I appreciate the 
gentleman from Wisconsin discussing this, because I serve on the 
Subcommittee on Social Security. The President has had a series of town 
meetings, televised town meetings around the country. His very first 
one was in Kansas City. He asked four of us to participate in satellite 
TV hookups with groups in our districts to talk about Social Security.
  So I was in South Holland, Illinois with about 400 senior citizens. 
We had a discussion before we hooked up with the President. It was 
almost like the Wizard of Oz. There was this big screen, and there was 
the President's big smile. But they said, ``Congressman, when you ask 
the question of the President for us, would you ask this one that is 
really important?'' This gentleman said, and he is very sincere, ``Ask 
the President when the politicians in Washington are going to stop 
raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.''
  Of course all the seniors broke into applause because they all agreed 
with that question. So when I had the opportunity to ask the President 
some questions on behalf of those in attendance at this televised town 
meeting with the President, I said, ``Mr. President, the first question 
they want me to ask of you is they want me to ask, and let me quote 
this gentleman, when are the politicians in Washington going to stop 
raiding the Social Security Trust Fund?"
  The President just kind of paused and put on a real sincere look and 
said, ``We are not raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. We are just 
borrowing it. We are going to pay it back again someday.''
  Well, all the seniors laughed because they do not believe it is going 
to be paid back. I am proud to say that this Congress, this Republican 
Congress is answering that question from those 400 seniors at the South 
Holland, Illinois town meeting.

[[Page H1146]]

  We are saying, ``You are right. We are going to stop that practice. 
This Republican Congress is going to wall off the Social Security Trust 
Fund and ensure that 100 percent of Social Security dollars go to 
Social Security.'' That is a big victory once we get that done this 
year.
  That is why I am just so excited that, finally, after those of us, 
like the gentleman's predecessor, Mark Neumann, who really was a leader 
in this effort, and all of us that worked on the Social Security 
Perservation Act wall over the last few years, to save the Social 
Security Trust Fund, to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, that 
the light is at the end of the tunnel.
  By the time we finish this budget process, we want to stop raids in 
the Social Security Trust Fund. When the President proposes taking 
another $250 billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund in the next 
few years, that tells us why our effort is so important this year, and 
we want to win this effort.
  I really hope that our friends on the Democratic side will join with 
us to protect Social Security because this is an important fight. The 
President says 62 percent. We say 100 percent of Social Security 
dollars must go to Social Security.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I 
think it is important to look at why were they raiding the Trust Fund 
in these early years. I wanted to find out why could they possibly 
justify taking FICA taxes and spending it on other government programs 
when they were dedicated to Social Security in the first place.
  What we found out is that we have been running these massive deficits 
on the general revenue side of the government, the general fund. To pay 
for this deficit spending, rather than Congress passing the balanced 
budget amendment, which we have passed out of this House in prior 
Congresses but the President will not sign into law, rather than 
balancing the budget and cutting spending when we have deficits, they 
raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay to these other deficits on 
the other side of the government ledger book.
  But now we are even running surpluses over there. So there is 
absolutely no conceivable justification for continuing to raid the 
Social Security Trust Fund, no justification whatsoever.
  What we are simply saying is this, from now on, under this Congress 
and under the budget we are going to present, every dollar coming from 
Social Security will go to Social Security plus interest. Then when we 
start overpaying our taxes on the other side of the government ledger 
book through income taxes and other types of taxes, one should get 
one's money back.
  We are going to accomplish three historic goals that have not been 
accomplished here in my lifetime, which is this: we are going to stop 
the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. We are going to pay that 
money back. We are going to give people their money back when they 
overpay their income taxes, and we are going to pay down our debt. We 
are going to start paying down massive payments of our publicly held 
national debt.
  For the first time, because of the fiscal discipline of this 
Congress, we made the first down payment on our national debt last year 
to the tune of about $60 billion.
  But here is the question that is being posed to all of us, and here 
is the question and the alternatives that America is facing: Do we want 
to continue to go down the road where Congress still plays this shell 
game, where they continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, as 
the gentleman mentioned, the President continues to raid it by $252 
billion; or do we say enough is enough, stop the raid, put the money 
back that was taken out?
  Then when Americans start overpaying their taxes for the next 15 
years in income taxes and other areas, do we plow that money into new 
spending as the President has asked for for these 120 new programs he 
is proposing in this budget, or do we let people have their money back? 
That is the difference.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I want to 
commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for taking this issue 
on. The freshman class that joined us here as sophomores now, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) as junior, I would like to think 
at least that we have had a lot to do with trying to get this thing 
switched around.
  I want to elaborate on one point the gentleman makes. I think the 
American people should not miss this. Make no mistake about it, the 
President is going to continue spending out of the Social Security 
surplus. That is simple fact.
  What we are saying tonight is in the budget that will be presented 
here, that that is going to be walled off. What I would like to do is 
elaborate on one point the gentleman made earlier about what he said in 
New York, because I think it ties in, it links to what is also being 
said by the administration and by the leadership, the Democrat 
leadership in the Congress.
  That is that, once we have done that, once we have gotten a surplus, 
the Social Security is walled off, we have paid that back, and we are 
starting to generate a surplus in the other aspects of the budget, the 
question then becomes, are we going to have this debate about whether 
or not to spend it in Washington on new programs or give it back to the 
American people?
  It is interesting what they say about that. Because what they have 
been saying in the quotes I have been reading, at least from the 
Democrat leadership that I have been reading, ``We cannot afford to 
spend the surplus on tax cuts.'' Now think about what that means. I 
mean right there they are making a basic assumption that it is 
Washington's money. They are essentially saying that we are going to 
spend your money giving it back to you.
  See, I think that the mentality which we are trying to crack around 
here is that it is not Washington's money. It is not the government's 
money. It is the American people's money. That is a fundamental 
difference in the way that we approach these issues.
  I hope that we get to the point where we actually have a surplus 
beyond Social Security so we can engage this debate and talk about 
whether or not we build new bureaucracies in Washington or we get the 
money back. It is not spending the surplus on tax cuts, it is giving 
the people back their money in the first place.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to 
me, in going down the same direction the gentleman from South Dakota 
was, what our budget plan is going to include is, we are going to make 
sure that Social Security is walled off, $100 percent of Social 
Security goes to Social Security. We then use that money to pay off the 
Social Security debt and our publicly held debt. So we get our national 
debt going down, the debt held by the public.
  All those bonds that are out there by individual Americans, we are 
going to start retiring those bonds. But in the non-Social Security 
side of the surplus, that is what we are trying to spend. These 
surpluses are growing very rapidly over the next 10 years.
  Our budget is going to include a budget mechanism, a trigger 
mechanism which simply says, we are going to save us from ourselves, we 
are going to save Washington from itself by making sure that these non-
Social Security surpluses, when they materialize, that that money can 
only be used for reducing our debt or reducing our tax burden, not for 
new spending. Because if we do look at the President's budget, he is 
dedicating all of those new surpluses for more spending. Our budget is 
going to protect against that.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think one 
of the benefits of tonight's discussion, and I really appreciate my 
colleagues bringing out all they are, because I think the American 
people deserve the truth, and what my colleagues are doing tonight is 
presenting them with the truth, is we are having a healthy conversation 
about tax cuts as well.
  Now there may be differences of opinion, for example, within the 
Republican Party as to what tax cuts should be. I support Mr. Weller's 
efforts to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. Mr. Thune's constituents 
in South Dakota as well as mine would benefit from a reduction in the 
death tax. The constituents of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) will benefit from a 
reduction in the capital

[[Page H1147]]

gains tax. I happen to believe that we need a reduction in marginal 
rates across the board.
  The important thing to note is it is not just a simple choice between 
what we are discussing in terms of tax cuts for the American people, 
and none at all on the other side and what the White House is saying, 
we are talking about saving Social Security, strengthening Social 
Security, and tax cuts as opposed to more spending and higher taxes. 
That is what we are hearing from the other side.
  I think the more the American people look at the details of what the 
Republican Congress is doing, what it has done up until now when given 
the ability to do so, despite the rhetoric, despite the fear, despite 
the sky is going to fall from the other side, ultimately, at the end of 
the day, the American people are going to place their trust in the 
people who are true to them.
  I want to congratulate all my colleagues again.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I 
just want to bring up one more point, and that is the question that I 
get asked in a lot of my town hall meetings. What if these surpluses 
never materialize? What if the money does not come? We have to do 
everything to assure that it does materialize.
  But by creating 120 new government programs in Washington, that can 
become and will become tomorrow's tax increases above and beyond the 
$176 billion of tax increases in the President's current budget. That 
becomes tomorrow's debt increases.
  One thing that is very important that we need to keep in mind as we 
look at these budgets is we need these surpluses to materialize so we 
can pay off these obligations, so we can get ready for the baby boom 
generation on Social Security, so the money is there in the Trust Fund 
to pay out benefits when the baby boomers begin to retire, when younger 
generations begin to retire.
  The best thing that we can do to assure strong economic growth which 
gives us more jobs, produces more taxpayers paying more taxes, giving 
us the surpluses that they are projecting is to reduce the burden of 
taxation on the working families of Wisconsin, Colorado, New York, 
South Dakota, and Illinois.
  The best thing that we can do, in addition to keeping our interest 
rates low by reducing our national debt, which we are doing, is to let 
people keep more of their own money time after time. Every time we have 
done that in this century, cut tax rates under Hoover, under Kennedy, 
under Reagan, we increased economic growth.
  We actually increased revenues from those taxes which are going to 
help us keep the economy growing, produce more jobs in this country, 
keep these surpluses coming in, so we can pay off our debt, so we can 
fix Social Security. Because if these surpluses do not materialize, if 
we go into a recession, all bets are off, and we are stuck with these 
new government programs. So that is why it is so important to make sure 
that we pay these obligations down and let people keep more of their 
money.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the remaining 2 
minutes that are left, I yield half of that to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) to wrap things up for us.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me first salute my colleagues here for 
talking about an important subject tonight, and that is what are we 
going to do this year in the budget? How are we going to save Social 
Security? How are we going to lower the tax burden? How are we going to 
meet our financial obligations and pay off the debt?
  The President says that extra money that is burning a hole in 
Washington's pocket, that $2.6 trillion surplus, he wants to spend it 
on new government programs and raid Social Security to the tune of $250 
billion over the next 10 years.
  We have a different approach. The Republican Congress says, look, we 
are going to stop something that has gone on in Washington for 30 
years. We are going to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund 
and end that practice that President Clinton wants to continue.
  We are going to lower the tax burden by eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty. We are going to pay down the national debt. That is our goals.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
Speaker for recognizing a representative sample of the Republican 
majority here in Congress during this special order.

                              {time}  2030

  In Fort Collins, CO, a woman writes, ``Although our family is not 
wealthy, it makes sense to me to give the extra money back to the 
people who paid it.'' That is the operative sentiment that drives us 
here in Congress.
  We, as a Republican majority, ultimately believe that any surplus 
that this government manages to acquire is better reinvested back into 
the people who earn that money in the first place. That is a far more 
profitable prospect than what the Democrats prefer, which is to invest 
other people's cash into the government charity of the Democrats 
choice. We stand for something very different. We stand for all these 
constituents who believe that they should come first; that people 
should come before bureaucracy.

                          ____________________