[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6573-H6580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ADJOURNMENT TO THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1999

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 
29, 1999.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2300

  They set up special secret accounts. Out of these accounts, they paid 
for expenses that are inappropriate, illegal. There is not adequate 
accounting for these funds. If I can make this last point, they even 
pressured one of their employees to approve a funding request by an 
anti-hunting group, using funds paid in by hunting and fishing men and 
women, to use those funds to fund an organization fund for the animals 
in an anti-hunting campaign.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr Speaker, will the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) 
repeat his assertions, because I think, given the culture of the 
present day, given the media proclivities here on Capitol Hill and 
beyond, sometimes, quite often, these stories are missed for whatever 
reason. Could the gentleman repeat what he has found in the Committee 
on Resources.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, what this general accounting 
report, and this is a preliminary report, we have asked them to do a 
more thorough examination, but they have created several administrative 
accounts, one that the chairman has even labeled a mystery 
administration account, and used the funds in those accounts to fund 
projects that would not normally meet the criteria.
  They have looted those funds, tried to direct those funds into anti-
hunting efforts. In some instances, there is evidence that they used 
those funds to pay for expenses that are not authorized by Congress. In 
other instances, they have failed to account for those funds. They have 
failed to establish any criteria for the approval or the granting of 
those funds. This is at the very highest levels of the administration.
  Now, the person that revealed this information to our committee was 
fired for failing to go along and has recently entered into a 
settlement with the Fish and Wildlife Service. But, interestingly, that 
settlement has a confidential clause, a gag order attached to it. So at 
our hearing, that employee was unable to give us all the details that 
he wanted to give us.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman from Montana, 
is it his impression that this administration was using those different 
entities, those different people to campaign for a certain point of 
view, using these people in a way in a campaign that would be unlawful?
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, this is certainly consistent with 
the agenda of this administration, which is to restrict the public use 
of lands. I long suspected that part of that effort is to reduce access 
by hunters and people who fish and use the public lands for that 
purpose. This is consistent with that pattern of activity and that 
agenda.
  But in this instance, this is not a small sum of money. This is $550 
million a year that goes into this trust fund, and they were peeling 
off between 6 and 8 percent of this fund, which is $40 million a year 
for this purpose. What we also discovered is they took money. 
Understand, this is a trust fund for habitat, and they were taking this 
money to backfill the other parts of their budget because they were 
running short of money in different areas. So they took money from this 
account for that purpose.
  So there are extremely serious allegations here. We are going to 
continue to have more hearings on it. I am advocating for the committee 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service to find a way to lift the gag order 
on this former employee so this person can tell us the whole truth. 
There were questions that I asked at the hearing that this person was 
unable to answer because of the confidentiality agreement that had been 
entered into. But these are very serious matters.
  But I know it is troubling to the sportsmen and women in Montana who, 
through the purchase of guns and ammunition and sporting goods and 
fishing gear, are paying an excise tax into this fund for habitat 
purpose, to have this administration using that money or trying to use 
that money, meeting with, conspiring with anti-hunting groups to try to 
undermine the very people who are paying the tax.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is we probably would 
not have discovered this scandal were it not for a handful of 
conscientious employees and others who work with the Interior 
Department on management of this fund who found the courage to stand up 
and represent and think about the taxpayers and what is morally proper 
and risk their jobs and perhaps their future careers as well. They came 
forward to Congress and explained what was going on, which it allowed 
us to have the hearing and move forward. This is a scandal of major 
proportions.
  The gentleman touched on a point that I want to move into next, and 
that is he said that there is a pattern in the administration when it 
comes to public use of public lands. That is also true of private 
lands. There is a deeply held belief in this administration that human 
beings are a problem, that human beings should not be enjoying our 
national parks, our national wilderness areas, our National Forests, 
and so on; that these should be off limits for human activity, whether 
it is hunting or recreation or even when it comes to private property 
when it comes to responsible land use.
  We talked earlier about the Endangered Species Act and the impact 
that that has on the ability of an individual private property owner to 
use his or her land as they see fit.
  I want to use an example for my colleagues briefly, and that is one 
of this apple, just to dramatize the importance of these public lands-
private lands use issues when it comes to agriculture.
  If this apple represents the surface area of the globe, we have to 
keep in mind that approximately three-fourths of the Earth is covered 
with water. So if I cut this apple into quarters, we have represented 
here the available use of land mass that exists on the earth.
  Now, keeping in mind that also of this land mass, approximately half 
is

[[Page H6574]]

mountains or desert or arctic regions or areas that are too hot. That 
leaves us with about an eighth of the land mass that could be useful 
for growing food.
  Now, of this one-eighth, we have a certain portion, about a quarter, 
that is simply too wet or too hot. We have another quarter that is 
simply not habitable for or not useful for growing agricultural 
products. The land is just not rich enough. Then we have another 
quarter that we can cut away because of concrete, because of 
infrastructure, roads, bridges, and municipalities and so on.
  That leaves us with one thirty-second of the land mass on the entire 
planet that is available for agriculture. Bear in mind that we are just 
talking about the surface.
  So let me show my colleagues what that represents from the whole 
apple that I started with. Here is how much we are talking about. 
Whenever the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Government, or any 
other Federal agency proposes to move farmers and ranchers off of this 
little piece of land and take that land out of production, that puts 
the human population at great peril over a long period of time, and it 
is the reason we need more sensitivity in Congress and in Washington in 
general in looking out for these rural individuals.
  I am proud to say that this Congress just last week reached out to 
some of the people who worked that tiny patch of land, and we reached 
out in a way that has powerful impact. Because when the farmers and 
ranchers who work that land reach retirement age and start 
contemplating planning their estates and handing that land to their 
children, they are confronted with a very unfortunate reality; and that 
is, upon their death, when they hand that farm or ranch over to their 
children, the Federal Government walks in and demands upwards of 50 
percent of the value of that asset before the children can use that 
farm or ranch to keep it in production.

  That is true for any business owner. It is true for any homeowner who 
wants to hand their family's assets and wealth over to their children.
  We put forward in our tax plan, among the $792 billion in tax relief 
over a 10-year period an effort to eliminate the inheritance tax all 
together. That owner's tax that I just referenced, in 10 years, will be 
gone if this tax is able to move through the Senate and ultimately be 
signed by the President.
  I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is joining us 
here tonight, was very helpful and has long been one who has been 
pushing this Congress to move toward tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding to me, and I am glad that I can join my colleagues here 
tonight to really talk about some of the issues that they have been 
talking about earlier, but also to put the tax relief plan in context 
of what we, as a majority, are driving for in the House of 
Representatives, an agenda that we identify as enabling us to secure 
the future for American citizens as we move into the next millennium. I 
know we are going to focus on the tax relief package tonight. But we 
need to put it in context of the other elements of our plan.
  We are focusing on education. We have passed a number of different 
education bills in this Congress. The most important, or one of the 
bills last week, again was the Teacher Empowerment Act focusing on 
enabling local school districts to make sure that every teacher in the 
classroom was qualified to teach our children, giving local school 
districts additional flexibility.
  We are also, as we move through the tax plan and the tax relief 
efforts, ensuring as our first step to set aside in a lockbox all of 
the FICA taxes that the American taxpayers are paying in each and every 
week. As part of that, there is a right-to-know provision of the tax 
relief bill that is going to enable taxpayers, when they get their W-2 
form, not only to see the amount of FICA taxes that they pay each and 
every year, but the matching amount that their employers pay each and 
every year.

                              {time}  2310

  So that they are going to see that it is not 6.5 percent of my 
income, it is 13 percent of my income that never comes home with me but 
goes directly to Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. Speaker, at times Washington tends to operate on what former 
President Eisenhower called a policy of sophisticated nonsense. That 
is, we get so caught up in the micro and macroeconomic implications of 
a decision that we allow ourselves to over-intellectualize what, in 
essence, is a very simple operation. And it is thus with the tax cut, 
to hear some folks and pundits in this town talk about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the American people to think of the 
surplus that we confront not in terms of trillions of dollars, but let 
these three $1 bills represent the $3 trillion surplus as calculated by 
the Congressional Budget Office. Now, it is worth noting that almost $2 
trillion of that surplus we have locked away to save Social Security 
and Medicare. We have locked $2 trillion, or close to that, of the 
surplus away to save Social Security and Medicare. But, Mr. Speaker, 
that leaves $1 trillion to consider.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it is the intent of the new 
majority to learn the lessons of history, which are fairly simple and 
which boil down to this. If we leave this money in the hands of the 
Washington bureaucrats, it will be spent. Therefore, our mission in 
this commonsense conservative majority in this 106th Congress is clear: 
We must return the money to the people to whom it belongs, the American 
taxpayer.
  This money does not belong to the government, Mr. Speaker. It belongs 
to all of those who work hard and play by the rules and pay their 
taxes. Therefore, our legislation that provided tax relief, which we 
passed last week, is intent on returning the money to whom it belongs. 
Because, Mr. Speaker, the money belongs to the people, not to the 
Washington bureaucrats.
  And whether it is estate planning reform, putting to death the death 
tax over a 10-year period; whether it is special accounts for education 
to empower parents to plan not only for a child's college education but 
also to seek alternatives in the grades K through 12; whether it is 
reducing the marriage penalty; or whether it is an across-the-board 
decrease in the rate of taxation, we hold to this simple truth, Mr. 
Speaker: The money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the 
American people. Therefore, the American people should hold on to more 
of their hard-earned money to save, spend and invest as they see fit.
  Mr. Speaker, that stands in stark contrast to the vision offered by 
the President of the United States, who came to this well of the House 
to deliver a State of the Union message in January and said that it was 
his intent to save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social 
Security. Hello. That means he intended to spend the other 38 percent 
on new programs. And, indeed, as he stood at that podium, he outlined 
in the span of 77 minutes some 80 new programs that would cost the 
American taxpayers at least an additional $100 million in new taxation.
  And, indeed, his budget was so reprehensible that not one member of 
the minority party would bring that budget forward in legislative 
language to have it voted on. It was up to the majority to bring it 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer), who can make the case graphically for us.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Well, I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from 
Arizona just said.
  When the President came and made his State of the Union address, here 
is what he proposed. Of the $137 billion estimated surplus in the 
Social Security Trust Fund and in Social Security income, he proposed 
keeping 60 percent of it in Social Security and spending another 40 
percent of it. In other words, taking it away from the Social Security 
program and spending it on more bureaucracy, more government, and an 
increasing the Federal budget.
  Well, our Republican plan is very different. We have proposed and 
have

[[Page H6575]]

moved forward on our plan to lock up the entire $137 billion. This 
graph, this chart, could not be clearer in showing the difference 
between the Clinton-Gore plan to raid the Social Security funds, spend 
40 percent of it on more government, versus the Republican plan to lock 
up, to effectively put the cash in a locked box and not spend it, to 
keep it and devote it toward its intended purpose of Social Security.
  That is the dramatic difference between the two visions in 
Washington, D.C. and the dramatic difference that we stand for and 
propose that is in the interest of America's retirees and those who are 
planning for retirement.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, when I 
am at home, I ask my constituents if their bosses came to them and said 
they were going to give them a raise amounting to $3,000, what would do 
with that money. None of them say they would give it to the Federal 
Government. Most of them say they would put some aside, maybe save some 
for retirement, or use some of it to pay down their debts, or maybe 
spend a little of it on their family.
  Really, that is what we are talking about doing here, putting some of 
this money aside for retirement, for Social Security, and to pay down 
the national debt. And one-third of it, one-third of that money, is 
going to go to help families decide how they can better spend their 
money and let them set those spending priorities.
  Now, the President says that is reckless. The President said we would 
give the money back if we could just trust that the American people 
would spend it the right way. I guess my view is that the people I 
represent know better how to spend their money better than anybody here 
in Washington, or anybody in this chamber, including myself. They have 
a better understanding of how they need to spend that money than I 
have, And they should have the right and the privilege to make that 
decision.
  Now, if any of them want to give that money back to the U.S. 
Treasury, I am sure the U.S. Treasury would accept it. But the fact of 
the matter is, they have needs for their families.
  I just want to make one point following up on something the gentleman 
said about this death tax issue, because I firmly believe this could be 
the last generation of family farmers and ranchers that we have in 
America if we do not do something. Our farm economy is in trouble, and 
we have issues that we need to deal with there, trade and regulatory 
issues, but the death tax issue is overwhelming.
  Most of the farmers and ranchers in my home State are not making any 
money. They are not generating cash flows. They have no mechanism to 
finance the death tax. They cannot buy life insurance, they cannot pay 
the lawyers and the high-priced accountants. They have no way to do it, 
so they are compelled to sell. Who do they sell to? To movie stars that 
want to recreate on the land, not farm or ranch it. Or they sell to 
subdividers.
  If we want to have family agriculture and we want to have this green 
space and these open places, and we want to retain the rural character 
that we all have roots to, we have to do something now to help folks in 
agriculture. There are a lot of things we need to do, but one of them 
is to lift this burden.
  The lowest marginal tax rate on the death tax is 38 percent. When 
they hit the exemption, the threshold, they are paying 38 percent of 
the value of that estate in taxes. There is no way that a family farmer 
and a family rancher in my home State today can afford to pay that tax.
  We are going to wipe out these family farmers and family ranchers. I 
do not want to see that happen. I do not want to see the destruction of 
those rural communities. I do not want to see the unraveling of the 
culture of agriculture and the importance that is to our history and 
the heritage of this Nation. So that is why this provision of this bill 
is so essential, and we have to make sure that we defend it.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  When we take a look at what is in the tax cuts, I find it a very 
interesting discussion to try to identify exactly what part of the Tax 
Code is the most unfair. I mean, I think we all started out by saying 
tax relief is essential. When we combine State, local, and Federal 
taxes and have a tax system that takes 40 percent of the average family 
income, I think we are united. That is unfair. That is too much.
  That means that in a two-wage-earner family, one wage-earner works 
the entire year to pay the tax bill. We think that is unfair and that 
puts too much stress on the family. That is why we support an across-
the-board tax cut so that every individual in America will benefit from 
that.
  Then we go to the inheritance tax, which clearly we work all of our 
lives, we pay taxes all of our lives, and then we want to leave part of 
that to our children. And Uncle Sam again is one of the first ones in 
line and makes the dream of passing a family farm or small business on 
to our children, makes it so much more difficult to realize.
  Another part of the Tax Code that is unfair is the marriage penalty. 
We penalize people for being married. Interesting concept. I think 
again we are united in saying this is an unfair element of the Tax 
Code.
  For the individual who wants to go out and buy health care, does not 
receive health care from a corporation or a large buying organization, 
they have to buy with after-tax dollars. If they work for a large 
corporation, they get it provided and there is no tax consequences to 
it. That is unfair for the entrepreneur, for the person who wants to 
start off their own business. We are trying to remedy that.
  For the family that wants to set aside dollars for education, we are 
putting that in so that again it enables people to invest in their 
people. We think that that makes this a better Tax Code.
  So we all have our own personal problems with the Tax Code, but we 
recognize that there are a lot of inequities and unfairness in the Tax 
Code. But it starts with tax relief, and then it moves on to these 
individual elements.
  I think we are all looking forward to the day as this Tax Code starts 
to address fairness, saying we need to make this Tax Code fairer that 
we can move on to the next debate after 2000, which is how do we 
simplify the Tax Code.
  Two essential elements I think of our longer term vision of what we 
want to have, which is a fairer Tax Code and a more simple Tax Code. 
And as we move in that direction, we will make a lot of progress.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the way I try to see it as the first Arizonan in history to serve on 
the Committee on Ways and Means with the authority to deal with this 
Tax Code, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, is to say it this way: Tax 
relief first. Tax reform next.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, if there is any lesson we have learned from 
this current administration, it is that words essentially mean nothing.
  That is a shock for those of us who grew up under the notion that we 
would play by the rules, obey the existing law of the land, and then 
move forward.
  Sadly, what we find with this administration and, Mr. Speaker, I 
think my colleagues, especially my friend from Michigan, will bear me 
out since he arrived after the election of 1992, a full term prior to 
my presence in this Congress, the irony of this fact.
  It has been said and is a basic tenet of our civics training that the 
President proposes and the Congress disposes. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I 
think my colleagues would be interested, as would others, to hear and 
to understand that throughout this second term of this administration, 
indeed since 1993, this administration has not shown the common 
courtesy of delivering to the Congress of the United States executive 
branch proposals in legislative language.
  The last time that happened, Mr. Speaker, was with a proposal in 1993 
to socialize our health care. And so, therefore, Mr. Speaker, all the 
talk of administration plans for Social Security, of administration 
plans for tax relief, of administration plans for bolstering our 
national defense are as the wind; there is nothing to them.
  For this administration lacks the courage and the ability to summon 
candor to actually help us govern. And we see it most egregiously when 
it comes to the death tax.

[[Page H6576]]

  My friend from Montana is quite right. And when we represent folks in 
Arizona, as do I, on family farms and on ranches, in Colorado, Montana 
or Michigan, the fact is this for many a land holder, they are to use 
the proverbial term, ``land rich, cash poor.''
  And when the patriarch of a family dies, the one in whose name the 
family ranch or the family farm belongs, the survivors are asked to pay 
a tax, that is unfair and that is onerous.
  Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, those who hear these words should 
remember this fact, that our common-sense conservative majority is 
committed to ending, to putting to death, the death tax over the course 
of the next decade. Because fundamentally, as my friend from Colorado 
said so well and it was quoted in the Wall Street Journal well near 2 
years ago, when he said there should be no taxation without 
representation, he understands the unfairness of this tax.
  And compounding it, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that with all the sturm 
und drang, with all the trauma introduced into the lives of the 
survivors, with all the basic unfairness of taxing the work and the 
labors of those who have gone to their heavenly reward, still in all, 
the Federal Treasury only takes from the death tax one percent of the 
total accrued revenue for the Treasury of the United States.
  And yet, Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of that one percent is spent 
tracking down and harassing survivors, forcing families to sell their 
farms, forcing families to sell their small businesses, and it shows 
the inequity of this Tax Code.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we are cognizant of realities. A President who 
would stand in Buffalo, New York, one day after standing at this podium 
and saying that he wants to save 62 percent of the Social Security 
surplus for Social Security and, therefore, spend the extra 38 percent, 
as my friend from Colorado holds up the words, January 20 of this year 
the President of the United States, in a rare moment of candor, said 
the following quote: ``We could give it,'' meaning the budget surplus, 
``we could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right. But . . 
.''
  Mr. Speaker, that embraces the central difference. This current 
President, despite his obvious failings in terms of personal honor and 
a knowledge of accountability to the people of the United States and, 
dare I say, accountability of the executive branch to the legislative 
branch to help us govern, this President stands by a fundamental tenet 
of faith that is jaundiced and is misguided.
  Because, Mr. Speaker, he believes that the Federal Government can 
spend the money of the people better than can the people. That is a 
serious problem.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will leave that statement 
up, it is exactly how this President thinks, that Washington can spend 
the money better than the American people.

                              {time}  2330

  When this President came into office in 1993, total Federal revenues 
as a percent of gross domestic product, it was 18.4 percent. And under 
this President, that has never been enough, because he does not believe 
that the American family, the American taxpayer, knows how to spend 
that money better than what Washington can.
  Today, or projected for the year 2000, Federal revenue will be 20.6 
percent of gross domestic product. So the amount of revenue going into 
Washington as a percent of our gross domestic product is increasing. 
And actually as we provide and attempt to provide tax relief, our 
attempt will not even get us back to the level of 1993, which means 
that the Federal Government is getting bigger and bigger.
  Some people believe that this tax relief package that we are trying 
to provide, this fairness that we are trying to give back to the 
American taxpayer, is coming at the expense of the Federal Government. 
No, what we are trying to do is we are trying to get back to where we 
were in 1993 and 1994. It is a rightsizing of the Federal Government. 
It is not a downsizing. It is a rightsizing, of getting back to where 
we were in 1993 after that tax increase.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I think it is really important for people to 
understand that $800 billion is a large sum of money, but the Federal 
Government over that 10-year period is going to spend $23 trillion. So 
it is $800 billion of $23 trillion. Your comments about a fairer, 
simpler tax code, I think it is also important to note that we are 
making a down payment in this bill on simplifying taxes. We are 
eliminating the alternative minimum tax, some of the more onerous 
provisions and complexities of the tax code.
  I asked the Committee on Ways and Means to tell me what this means to 
the people of my district. In my district, we do not have high incomes. 
We are about 46th in the Nation in terms of the average income. But in 
my district over the course of the next 10 years, this is $2.4 billion 
that will be left in my economy, in the economy of my State. It comes 
out to just under $10,000 for the average family of four in Montana, 
how much they will save in taxes with the tax package.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. This goes on top of the tax bill that we did in 1997. 
This tax relief plan does not have the signature element that we had in 
our last tax relief package, of the $400 to $500 per child tax credit, 
but the impact will be as big on the American family as what that tax 
relief package is. So this definitely means more money in a family's 
pocket at the end of the year.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Certainly in 1997, we said we have to focus on 
families. We saw the erosion of the value of the exemption for families 
and so we provided a tax credit. That was the feature, and lowering the 
capital gains tax for investment. This is a much broader package of tax 
reductions. Every taxpayer will enjoy reductions in taxes as a 
consequence of this and there are also some targeted elements. But the 
important element from my judgment is the average family of four in 
Montana is going to have $10,000 they can invest in a house or in their 
children's education or to buy a car or to buy or build a home, the 
values that they consider the most important. $10,000 is a fair amount 
of money, I think, to any family. So this is significant, it is 
meaningful tax relief.
  But the gentleman is right. We have the highest tax burden today in 
the peacetime history of the country. Even with this tax reduction, we 
still are going to have a tax burden in this country that is higher 
than when President Clinton took office. We still have not unraveled 
the largest tax increase in history that was passed in 1993 with all 
Democrat support. The most important element here, though, is that we 
are dealing with the most unfair provisions of the tax code, we are 
working to try to simplify it. Of course we want to provide tax relief 
for the working men and women of this country.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is important to point out because, Mr. 
Speaker, as I have appeared on different media outlets to hear the 
predictable cacophony and chorus from the left and indeed, Mr. Speaker, 
it has become so reflexive, I daresay my colleagues who join me on the 
floor can offer an answer to filling in the blank.
  My friends on the left talk about tax cuts for the rich, which is 
totally false but apparently alluring to those who are captured by the 
politics of envy, to those who would believe that they do not control 
their own destiny but, Mr. Speaker, it is patently false and as I heard 
my colleagues talk and thought about what occurred in the State of 
Arizona, I could not help but think of the President of the United 
States during our most recent recess coming to the State of Arizona, 
specifically coming to South Phoenix.
  Now, he could have visited a lot of areas, the Navajo nation, the 
sovereign Navajo nation where there is chronic unemployment, or San 
Manual, Arizona, site of the largest underground mine in North America 
that has been closed thanks in part to the Clinton-Gore-Babbitt War on 
the West, but this President, Mr. Speaker, chose to go to an area that 
might be more politically hospitable, to South Phoenix in Arizona, and 
he proposed what he called the New Market Initiative. Again, Mr. 
Speaker, this has not been put into legislative language and again like 
cotton candy, it appears alluring but when you get to it, the details 
are somewhat sticky and inconvenient, the President of the United 
States proposes $100 million in loans for depressed areas but, Mr. 
Speaker, understand the taxpayers must provide some $45 million to set 
up that loan process, the Federal taxpayers must pay two-thirds of the 
overhead for the so-called New Market Initiative and yet, Mr. Speaker, 
I look to

[[Page H6577]]

the plan to help the neediest among us offered in our tax relief and 
tax fairness legislation, a plan championed by our good friends the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Watts) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a Democrat, that 
deals with those depressed areas not just in terms of business start-up 
and not in terms of make-work for Federal bureaucrats but true 
empowerment that deals with savings, that deals with home ownership, 
that also deals with business start-ups, and yet the President of the 
United States has the audacity to come before the American people and 
claim that this responsible bipartisan plan to help those who need help 
is somehow irresponsible and reckless.
  Mr. Speaker, it simply is something we have seen all too often with 
this President, an inability to tell the truth and to deal candidly 
with the American people.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The gentleman really points out the dramatic difference 
in the approaches that the two parties take in Washington, the party 
represented by the President, the Democrat Party, and the party that we 
represent, the Republican Party. Because I believe both parties care 
about rural and depressed areas, but there is a difference in the 
sincerity and the tenacity with which we approach real and meaningful 
help.
  What the gentleman would describe as the President's proposal is a 
typical one of the liberal agenda in Washington, which is to raise 
taxes on the American people, send that cash here to Washington, D.C., 
and have politicians redistribute the wealth to the charities of 
certain politicians' choices. That does work but it is not fair.
  What we had proposed and what we have actually passed through the tax 
relief effort is not tax provisions for the rich but tax provisions for 
average Americans and in fact tax provisions that help those who are 
the poorest among us.

  Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples. The commercial 
revitalization deductions allow for tax relief for those individuals 
who are making investments in depressed areas around the country. We 
provided a section that deals with work opportunity tax credits. These 
are provisions that assist those who hire individuals who live and 
perform most of their work in these renewal communities, depressed 
areas that are targeted for economic growth and special assistance and 
help. We also provided for an effort to encourage employers to hire 
people off of welfare and put them to work. Now, imagine that. In a 
country right now that is enjoying very, very low unemployment and has 
enjoyed phenomenal success in welfare reform, over a 50 percent 
reduction in the welfare caseload over the last 2 years, we use the tax 
bill to reduce the burden on Americans so that we can help even more 
people come off the welfare system, to leave the situation of 
dependency on the Federal Government and enjoy full economic 
participation as real Americans, as entrepreneurs, as fully employed, 
fully engaged citizens. That is a dramatic difference in our efforts to 
help the very same people that the President suggests he wants to help.

                              {time}  2340

  Our method works. Our method has been proven to work, it has met the 
test of time, it has met the realities of history. Growing the size of 
government, increasing taxes is a formula for failure, and it is one 
that the President would like to see us do; it is one that we have a 
very different direction on, and fortunately, the Congress has ruled, 
collectively, in our favor, on our side. Less government, lower taxes, 
more opportunity.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
really want to reinforce some of the comments that my colleagues from 
Arizona and Colorado have made.
  When we are talking about what we would like to do, we are not 
talking about an idea or a direction or a hope, we are talking about 
legislative language that has been introduced, that has been debated, 
and that has passed. The National Security authorization bill, passed 
legislation that is written and has passed. The education bill, whether 
it is Ed Flex, which gives more flexibility to local school districts 
and how they deal with the red tape and the mandates from Washington, 
legislation that has gone through committee and has passed. The Teacher 
Empowerment Act, legislation that that has been written and has been 
passed, the Straight A's bill, the legislation is written. The lock 
box, the legislation is written, is passed, has moved out of the House 
and we are waiting for the other body to deal with it. The Tax Relief 
package, the bill is written, has gone through committee, and has 
passed the House of Representatives.
  So it is awfully easy for people on the other side to talk about what 
they would like to do, and I think my colleague from Arizona has said 
they have spent a lot of time talking about what they would like to do, 
but the few times when they have given us legislative language on the 
budget, not one person voted for their legislative language. So we have 
met the challenge. We are not only talking about what we would like to 
do, we are actually here on the floor each and every day passing 
legislative language that is going to make a difference, that is going 
to help us secure the future for our kids, for working Americans, and 
for our retirees. We are making a difference and we are getting the job 
done.
  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  One last point I want to make and that is that the disingenuous 
argument coming from the President that somehow this tax package 
competes with Social Security or Medicare or paying down the debt, that 
is not true. This tax package fits together with our plan to lock up 
every dollar of Social Security taxes for Social Security retirement 
and to pay down the national debt $2 trillion. There are funds set 
aside for us to deal with reforming Medicare, if the President will 
come to terms with us to be able to reform the pharmacy benefit and 
also to provide this tax relief for the American people. We can do all 
of this; it is a unique opportunity to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, what this tax relief package does compete with is bigger 
government. The fact of the matter is what the President is arguing for 
is to set these dollars aside for new government programs, more 
wasteful spending. All of the education bills that we have just passed 
are saying, before we put more dollars in education, and we are 
prepared to do that, our budget provides for it, we are saying, let us 
spend the dollars we are spending now smarter and better and more 
effectively. We are prepared to put more dollars into some of those 
programs, but what we want to do is reform them first, and that all can 
be accommodated with this tax package.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. It is very simple, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. Who 
do you trust? Those who say one thing and do another? Those who believe 
that money, power and influence should be concentrated in the hands of 
the Washington bureaucrats? Those who believe, as evidenced by their 
statements in Buffalo, New York, and from this podium behind me here, 
that you should not be trusted with your own money to save, spend and 
invest as you see it? Or, should you embrace the philosophy of the 
common sense conservative majority that believes it is our mission to 
transfer money, power and influence out of the hands of the Washington 
bureaucrats and back home to people living on the front lines, who 
understand their lives better, who understand that the money belongs 
not to the Federal Government and to the Washington bureaucrats, but to 
the people.
  Mr. Speaker, on that stand we make our case, and with that, I yield 
to my friend from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on this topic for 
a few moments, but first, a little earlier I mentioned the field 
hearing that was conducted in Colorado on the Endangered Species Act, 
and I have a brief summary of that which I would like to submit for the 
Record.
  Secondly, I want to move a little deeper into the discussion on tax 
relief. But we have spoken a lot tonight about rural areas.

[[Page H6578]]

  Mr. Speaker, at this time I include for the Record the documents 
previously referred to.
  On Saturday, July 24, 1999, Congress came to Greeley, Colorado, to 
hear about the impacts of the federal Endangered Species Act on 
Colorado. Along with ESA Chairman Richard Pombo and Senator Ben 
Nighthorse-Campbell, I heard expert and first-hand testimonial about 
the far-reaching and frequently-devastating effects of the Act on 
farmers, ranchers, landowners and water-users. These people represent 
some of the best and brightest Colorado has to offer in its defense, 
and all can personally attest to the onerous, confusing, costly, 
contradictory and dictatorial burden the federal ESA regulations 
impose. I would like to share some of their insightful testimony so the 
experiences of Colorado can be better understood and can help encourage 
the improvement of the ESA for the benefit of all forms of life in this 
great country.
  Bennet Raley, water-rights advocate: ``If I had a choice, I believe 
that the existing law should be repealed and Congress should start over 
and develop a program that achieves national interests in the 
protection of endangered species without encroaching on private 
property and the prerogatives of states. Federal agencies simply take 
water from irrigated agriculture or municipalities in the west because 
the Endangered Species Act is so powerful.''
  Alan Foutz, CO Farm Bureau VP: ``Farmers' water rights evaporate as 
federal regulators attempt to protect fish. Ranchers fear loss of 
livestock as predators are introduced and protected. Producers 
throughout the nation are forbidden from performing such basic 
activities as clearing brush from fence rows. In the current act, 
private property rights are laid aside when recovery plans stop 
agricultural practices without compensation. An endangered species must 
be protected at all costs under the current law.
  ``The act serves as a disincentive for landowners to protect an 
endangered or threatened species because major constraints are placed 
on agricultural practices when a species is found.
  ``Seventy-eight percent of the species listed reside on private 
lands. The public will need to spend more resources if they want full 
protection of endangered species.
  ``A single individual can petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, The USFWS must perform an initial investigation and taxpayers 
must pay for all the research, even on bogus petitions.
  ``Accurate population numbers are not available, therefore, goals for 
recovery cannot be defined.''
  Mark Hillman, CO State Senator: ``The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
threatened to fine a Utah man $15,000 for farming his own land and 
allegedly posing a risk to a protected species of prairie dog, even 
though no prairie dogs could be found there.
  ``Restoration and preservation of prairie dog habitat as it may have 
existed 100 years ago would mean shutting down some of the most 
prolific wheat producing land in the nation. Sam Hamilton, former U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife administrator has said: `The incentives are wrong. If 
a rare medal is on my property, the value of my land goes up. But if a 
rare bird is on my property, the value of my property goes down.
  ``It is patently absurd to proffer a policy based on the asserting 
that Washington lawmakers--much less Washington bureaucrats--care more 
about environmental quality in Colorado, or any other state, than do 
the residents who live there precisely because of our priceless 
environment.''
  Don Ament, CO Commissioner of Agriculture: ``In its current form, it 
serves the needs of neither the endangered species nor the taxpayers 
who provide the funds to support the program. Western farmers and 
ranchers view the ESA as a law that grants a federal agency the ability 
to unilaterally determine how their land is farmed or ranched and which 
could decide the economic future of their enterprise; the ESA grants 
too much authority to a ruthless bureaucracy.''
  Ralph Morgenweck, USFWS Moutain-Prairie Regional Director: ``The 
Service is fully committed to finding this balance between economic 
development and endangered species protection. To continue making 
progress in implementing the ESA, an increase in funding for our 
endangered species program is necessary.
  As of May 1, 1999, there were 1,181 domestic species on the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Species; this represents a 30 percent 
increase in just 5 years.''
  Larry Bourrett, WY Farm Bureau VP: ``At this time there are no 
listings in Washington, D.C., therefore it is imperative that Congress 
come to the areas where problems exist to get a real flavor of what is 
happening daily to some of the nation's citizens.
  The Act is benign for those who do not have to suffer the 
consequences of having a listed species on their private property. 
However, for those private property owners who happen to be within the 
identified range of, historic range of, habitat of or potential habitat 
of a listed species, it is an entirely different story. It is a story 
of frustration and fear.''
  Jack Finnery, WY cattle rancher: ``It seems to me that just as the 
rancher and farmer must strike a balance that allows him or her to make 
a living from the land today while preserving habitat and natural 
resources for generations to come, the endangered species requirements 
must be changed to work in harmony with the many other programs that 
dictate how land should be managed. The ESA requires landowners to 
leave the land around irrigation ditches in a natural state to protect 
the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, but ranchers who fail to maintain 
those ditches may be faced with the loss of their water rights.
  Under the Conservation Reserve Program, landowners contract with the 
federal government to protect land from erosion and curtail the 
resultant deterioration of water quality. However, the ESA may call for 
these lands to be opened up to overgrazing to create habitat for 
prairie dogs and mountain plovers.
  The Clean Water Act calls for the protection of water quality in 
streams, but this mandate contradicts ESA requirements that call for 
the overgrazing of land to develop habitat for the plover and prairie 
dog.
   A FWS biologist told me, `I feel sorry for you landowners. As a 
result of being good stewards of the land, you now have to pay the 
price.'
  What is that price landowners have to pay? Well, that price can be a 
crushing blow for an agricultural industry already wracked with some of 
the lowest commodity prices in recent memory and the continued decline 
in the number of full-time farmers and ranchers who are struggling to 
make ends meet in what is already a highly regulated industry.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has 
expired.


                      Continued Republican Agenda

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Upon the designation of the 
Majority Leader, the gentleman from Michigan may proceed, but not 
beyond midnight.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Speaker and I invite my colleagues to stay 
with me until midnight so that we can continue this dialogue on our 
agenda for securing America's future, and I will yield to my friend 
from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that when it comes to 
the inheritance taxes, we wonder why, as the gentleman from Arizona 
pointed out that the inheritance tax only generates a little less than 
1 percent of the revenue to the Federal Government. It is relative 
inconsequential when you factor in the fact that the majority of the 
Federal revenue received by the Federal Government is squandered and 
wasted as a result of bureaucracy and other waste.
  However, there is also deep-seated resentment in many corners of 
Washington when it comes to rural America. That was exhibited by the 
head of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, the chairman, 
who recently said right outside here that the Democrats have written 
off, and I quote, ``written off the rural areas,'' and that quote was 
one that has been discussed repeatedly on the House Floor.
  I have written some remarks on that subject, and I would ask that 
they be inserted at this point into the Record.

                     Don't Write Off Rural America

                  (By: U.S. Congressman Bob Schaffer)

       Rural America is hurting these days and the rest of the 
     country should take notice. The current period of relative 
     economic prosperity has abandoned most sectors of the 
     agriculture economy, often because of deliberate decisions 
     made at the White House.
       For example, U.S. trade policy presently favors 
     manufactured products, high tech equipment, and medical 
     supplies in exchange for easy access to American markets for 
     foreign farmers. Nor are trade policies fair for our farmers 
     and ranchers. Foreign growers enjoy far easier access to our 
     markets than we do to theirs.
       Westerners tend to be closely tied to agriculture. That's 
     why so many of my rural constituents find it hard to believe 
     there are actually people in Washington, D.C. who harbor 
     hostility toward them.
       Just last month, after his party voted against several 
     rural issues, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 
     chairman told reporters Democrats have ``written off the 
     rural areas.'' The DCCC Chairman Rep. Patrick Kennedy (R.I.) 
     later admitted he shouldn't have said it. I agree, but he 
     did, and in doing so illustrated the disdain with which some 
     in Congress view rural America.
       Coloradans understand America must count on rural areas, 
     not dismiss them. Statistics confirm the importance of rural 
     settings. Agriculture is still America's number one employer 
     providing more jobs, more

[[Page H6579]]

     business transactions, more entrepreneurial opportunities, 
     and more paychecks than any other sector of the economy.
       In Colorado alone, agriculture accounts for over 86,000 
     jobs, resulting in over $12 billion of commerce. Clearly, 
     agriculture is integral to our economy and should not be 
     ignored or ``written off.''
       Colordo produces an impressive variety of commodities in 
     addition to cattle, wheat, corn, potatoes, sugar beets and 
     dairy products. Growers also raise pinto beans, carrots, 
     mushrooms, barley, sunflowers, watermelon, oats, sorghum, 
     quinoa and wine grapes. Our ranchers' expertise raising 
     cattle, sheep, lambs, poultry and hogs, is expanding to 
     include specialty livestock--bison, elk, emus, ostriches, and 
     fish.
       Agriculture products extend beyond food. Colorado is well-
     known for its production of fresh-cut flowers, sod and turf 
     grass, and hay. Colorado's agricultural-based inputs also 
     contribute vital components to the manufacturing of soaps, 
     plastics, bandages, x-ray film, linoleum, shoes, crayons, 
     paper, shaving cream, tires, and beer.
       As consumers, rural Americans provide markets for goods and 
     services, injecting much-needed capital into the marketplace. 
     Rural purchases of trucks, tractors, houses, implements, 
     fuel, computers, and other items have an enormous impact on 
     the economy providing jobs and income for salespeople, 
     waitresses, homebuilders, real estate agents, feed dealers, 
     mechanics, and bank tellers, just to name a few.
       Still there are other reasons rural America matters. 
     Colorado boasts over 24,000 farms and ranches, accounting for 
     over half of our state's 66 million acres. People who live on 
     the land are the best environmental stewards. Landowners work 
     actively with soil conservation districts to protect water 
     resources, manage wind erosion, reduce pollution, and control 
     water runoff. In fact, Colorado's farmers are credited with 
     saving an additional 51 million tons of topsoil annually for 
     the past 10 years. They have also seeded 1.9 million acres of 
     private land to permanent grassland under the Conservation 
     Reserve Program, thereby producing thriving wildlife habitat.
       Most of all, America's soul is found in its rural 
     communities. A nation launched by planters and preachers, 
     America's founding strength was mustered and sustained by the 
     moral character of rural people. Their values of hard work, 
     honesty, integrity, self-reliance and faith in God thrive in 
     abundance today.
       It is truly unfortunate anyone finds such attributes 
     offensive. These are the very values our country needs if the 
     new Millennium is to be as prosperous as the present.
       Clearly, rural America is the bedrock of our culture and 
     the salvation of our Republic. Before more of Washington's 
     elite determine otherwise, they would do well to check their 
     facts, consider the farmer, and possibly even say a word of 
     thanks before supper.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we stand at an epic juncture in American 
history, because despite the protestations from those who would belong 
to a third party movement, there is no clearer difference that exists 
in American political life than what exists in this Chamber. Because my 
friends on the left, so trusting of the powers of the Federal 
Government, powers that have grown excessive, that have grown 
overreaching, that have grown abusive throughout this century; so 
abusive, Mr. Speaker, to the point that the power of the Federal 
Government reaches into the pocket of every law-abiding American, my 
friends on the left place their faith in that burgeoning bureaucracy. 
Mr. Speaker, the contrast could not be clearer, because those of us in 
the common sense conservative majority take literally the first 3 words 
of this document, the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note, and not without some irony, especially 
given the tenor of the rhetoric from the White House and from the Vice 
President and from our friends on the left, the first 3 words of this 
document are not they, the bureaucrats. No, Mr. Speaker, the first 3 
words of this document read, ``We, the people.'' And despite the fact 
that a Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll taken in the space of the last 10 
days of 500 Americans at large, when asked, where does the Federal 
Government get its money? Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that some 50 
percent of those respondents replied, oh, the Federal Government has 
its own special supply of money, and 39 percent answered correctly that 
the money with which the Federal Government operates comes from the 
people, the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, we understand our mission loudly 
and clearly. As Abraham Lincoln said, Mr. Speaker, the American people, 
once fully informed, will make the right decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here tonight to reaffirm this basic truth. The 
money does not belong to Washington bureaucrats.

                              {time}  2350

  It does not belong to they, the bureaucrats. It belongs to we, the 
people.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, it is not only what the Constitution says, 
although it drives who we are and what we should do, but the lessons as 
to why the Framers of the Constitution were so brilliant, we only have 
to go back to when we reformed welfare.
  When welfare decisions were being made by bureaucrats in Washington, 
we were not moving people out of welfare. When we debated here on the 
floor of the House, and we took the examples of like the State of 
Wisconsin, that the State legislature, the Governor, they came up with 
a program to move people off of welfare into the work force, and the 
bureaucrats here in Washington said, no, you cannot do that; or even 
worse than that, they did not give them any answer at all.
  I think it went on for over 300 days, when we had to stay unified, 
Democrats and Republicans saying this is what we want to do to help our 
people in Wisconsin, and the bureaucrats did not even have the courtesy 
of sending them a reply.
  But when we took the welfare program and gave it back to the States, 
we have seen phenomenal results. It is the same model that we want to 
put on one of our priority projects, education. We do not want more 
bureaucrats here in Washington telling people who know our kids' names 
what they need to do in the classroom. Let the people at the local 
level do it. Let us empower people at the local level.
  It is why we are having a tax relief package that says, let people, 
let families, let moms and dads, decide what to do with an 800 or 1,000 
or 1,500 hours a year. Let them decide how they want to allocate that 
among the priorities that they have, whether it is a car, whether it is 
education, or whether it is health care. But let us not let a 
bureaucrat or politician in Washington make that decision for them.
  The same thing with retirement. Let us make sure that we secure the 
future for our seniors by setting aside 100 percent of the FICA taxes 
over the next 10 years. Let us set that aside to save social security 
and to save Medicare, to remove that stress from them.
  I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and I thank 
the gentleman for joining us.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me, 
to allow me to discuss the subject. Something has been bothering me 
ever since the debate on the bill that we had on the floor of the House 
on the issue of the tax reduction.
  I was observing the debate. It was heated. It was, I think for the 
most part, articulate and to the point. But one member of the 
opposition, a very prominent Democrat, stood at the well and said that 
he had been in this body for a number of years and he could remember, 
he said, that in 1981 we in fact put through a tax reduction package. 
It was actually I think in 1983.
  He was talking about the fact that at that point in time, he was 
suggesting we were watching the same phenomenon, that we were going to 
put through a tax reduction package again and that we would see 
something similar occur.
  He said what happened after we reduced taxes, essentially after the 
Reagan tax cuts, he said we saw an explosion of debt, and that the 
national debt increased dramatically. He was concerned, he said, 
because he believed the same thing was going to happen here.
  I wanted to, at the time, come to the floor just to have the 
opportunity, and that is why I appreciate this moment now, to remind 
the gentleman that in fact what he said was accurate, we did have a tax 
rates reduction and we did have an explosion in debt, but it was not 
because we gave the people back their money, it was because there was 
such an increase in revenue to the Federal Government that it was, of 
course, spent by the Congress.
  It was not a problem with the reduction of taxes, it was a problem in 
the increase in spending that caused the explosion in that debt.
  That is exactly what we are trying to avoid with this tax cut 
proposal, because there is not a soul out there, Mr. Speaker, I do not 
care which side of the aisle Members are on, and I do not care

[[Page H6580]]

where Members are on the political spectrum, Members cannot believe, 
with history as our judge, Members cannot believe that this Congress, 
whether it was controlled by the Republicans or Democrats, would be 
given another $800 billion in the till, and we cannot believe that it 
would be used to ``pay down the national debt.'' It would be spent.
  That is why this Congress, this majority, is hoping against hope that 
we can give that money back before it gets spent, or the gentleman from 
the other side who was talking the other night will be right, it will, 
of course, increase the national debt, because we will spend every dime 
of it if it is left here.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I thank the gentleman. That is precisely right. The 
remarkable thing that this Congress needs to remember, that history 
shows us, and particularly the opponents who tried to stop us last week 
when we passed tax relief, is the lesson of President Kennedy, 
President Reagan, and in fact the lesson, unwillingly, the unwilling 
lesson learned by the present occupant of the White House. That is, 
cutting tax rates increases tax revenues to the Federal Government.
  That is what President Kennedy discovered when he reduced tax rates. 
The economy grew, revenues poured into the Federal Government, people 
in Washington had all the money they needed to accomplish the things 
that they wanted to accomplish, and that is indisputable.
  President Reagan reduced tax rates. Overall revenues to the Federal 
Government grew. The gentleman is right, at that time there was a 
different Congress in charge. They spent. What President Clinton 
discovered when the Republicans took control of the Congress was that 
when we reduced tax rates, the economy grows, and the Federal 
Government now has a surplus estimated to be to be at $800 billion over 
the next 10 years.
  We voted last week to give it back to the American taxpayers.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, it 
bears repeating, because, Mr. Speaker, there are those in this town, 
principally those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue but also 
those who occupy the left side of this Chamber, who would earnestly 
yearn for a type of collective amnesia to embrace the American people.
  The President of the United States has engaged in incredible 
revisionist history where he calls the largest tax increase in American 
history noble and justified; when he fails to recognize the 
contributions of this new commonsense conservative majority, which came 
in and reined in excessive spending, which led to this surplus; but 
also with his comments in January of this year, when again he stood at 
this podium and said, and Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating, that it was 
his intent to save 62 percent of the social security surplus for social 
security, which meant, of course, that he intended to spend the other 
38 percent; and how that stands in stark contrast, Mr. Speaker, with 
our lockbox to lock away 100 percent of the social security surplus for 
social security.
  Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating, consider these three $1 bills again 
to represent $3 trillion. Take away the zeros. This is what our 
commonsense conservative majority maintains should happen. Let us take 
two of those dollar bills, lock them away to save social security and 
Medicare, and Mr. Speaker, we are left with this dollar bill, 
representing roughly $1 trillion of additional surplus.
  We have a choice, Mr. Speaker. If we leave it in Washington, given 
the proclivities of our president and the temptations which he cannot 
withstand, that money will be spent. We believe, as the commonsense 
conservative majority, that the money belongs to the people who sent it 
here. It should go back to those people.
  For my friends on the left to claim these are tax breaks for the 
wealthy, it is an interesting definition of wealthy. Apparently they 
think folks who make $40,000 a year are wealthy because those folks pay 
almost four times as much in taxes as the folks who earn $20,000 a 
year.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I thank my 
colleagues for joining me this evening.
  Just on a final note, the problem here in Washington is not revenue. 
In 1999 we will collect $1,821,000,000,000. By 2009 that will have 
increased by 50 percent; that government revenues, if we do not provide 
tax relief, will have increased to $2,725,000,000,000.
  The problem in Washington is not revenue, the problem is we are 
collecting too much. We need to give tax relief and we need to control 
spending. We are not cutting spending, we are just slowing the growth, 
so Federal programs can continue. We just need to control our appetites 
here in Washington and secure America's future by giving American 
families and American individuals some of their money back.

                          ____________________