[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10782-H10786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1115
    SENSE OF CONGRESS THERE BE NO INCREASE IN FEDERAL TAXES TO FUND 
                     ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 208) expressing the sense of 
Congress that there should be no increase in Federal taxes in order to 
fund additional Government spending.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 208

       Whereas Federal taxes are at their highest peacetime level 
     in history, taking 20.6 percent of the gross domestic 
     product;
       Whereas the typical American family pays 36 percent of its 
     income in Federal, State, and local taxes--more than it 
     spends on food, housing, and clothing combined;
       Whereas in 1999 governments at all levels will collect 
     $10,298 for every man, woman, and child in the United States;
       Whereas since 1989 the Federal per capita tax burden has 
     increased 27 percent;
       Whereas the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the 
     productivity of American workers--and controlled Federal 
     spending--will create a non-Social Security surplus of 
     $996,000,000,000 over the next 10 years;
       Whereas the House of Representatives voted on May 26, 1999, 
     to protect Social Security and Medicare by passing the Social 
     Security lock box by a vote of 416 to 12; and
       Whereas Congress must protect Social Security and Medicare 
     by controlling Federal spending, rather than by increasing 
     taxes on any Americans: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that there 
     should be no increase in Federal taxes in order to fund 
     additional Government spending.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H. Con. Res. 208.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak in favor of House 
Concurrent Resolution 208.
  I would like to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for introducing this important 
legislation that forces us to focus on the choices we need to make in 
order to maintain fiscal discipline.
  As my colleagues know, House Concurrent Resolution 208 expresses the 
sense of this Congress that we should not raise taxes in order to fund 
additional Federal spending.
  Indeed, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, it is the sentiment of this 
common-sense, conservative majority in this House through another 
legislative vehicle later on our Calendar to propose that we work to 
realize a savings of 13 cents for every $10 of Federal spending, 
because we need to keep in mind the bigger picture here. Taxes are at 
their highest peacetime level in the history of our country. The 
average American family pays more in taxes than in food, shelter, and 
clothing combined.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to burden working Americans with 
higher and higher and higher taxes. We must be willing to find savings 
by reducing wasteful Washington spending so that we can maintain fiscal 
discipline without asking the American people to hand over more of 
their hard-earned money to the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and that he 
be permitted to yield further blocks of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is stupid. An issue like this should either be 
brought to the floor by leadership for discussion, or someone ought to 
take a course in Economics 101.
  Now, I know the difficulty it is to count when they are trying to put 
together a budget. It is something like what is, is; and how many 
months in a year; and what is an emergency. I know the difficulty they 
are having. But it cannot be so bad that they are going to make a 
mockery out of the entire legislative process by asking this floor to 
feel good by saying that we are not going to raise Federal taxes in 
order to fund additional Government spending.
  There are only three things to do if they are going to spend. If they 
are going to have additional spending, for whatever purpose, they have 
to go to the majority. Now, I know it does not feel comfortable being 
in the majority, but they are the majority. They are the leadership. 
And so, they have to find out what they want to spend. And I guess they 
would go to the Committee on Appropriations. But we do not spend here 
in the minority. Majority spends.
  So what is the solution? The solution is that they either increase 
taxes, which the resolution they are dictating to the Speaker and to 
the Republican leadership that they cannot do that, they go into the 
Social Security Trust Fund. And then they put on commercials on TV that 
they are not doing that, even though the Congressional Budget Office 
says that they are.
  Or the third thing that they do is come to the floor and say, I never 
put my hand in the cookie jar in the first place.
  This is no way to deal with the problems that we face as a Nation. We 
do not come on the House of Representatives floor with a sense of 
Congress. We legislate in this House. We send these issues to the 
respective committees. We have hearings. And we do something about it.
  If, on the other hand, they are in a continuous resolution mode and 
they are not involved anymore in legislation and they just want the 
President to be their partner so that the Government does not close 
down, then go to the White House and tell him what to put in the bill. 
Because clearly, the President is going to have issues in the omnibus 
bill that has never come out of the committees that have been set up in 
this Congress.
  So I know maybe they want to have something to vote on. And who 
knows, maybe the public really thinks this is on the level. Maybe they 
really think that we are coming down here voting against Federal taxes. 
Normally they wait until April 15 to do something this stupid. But, no, 
now they are saying here on the brink of the Government about to close 
down because of the inability to pass the appropriations bills that 
they are going to take the Suspension Calendar, which says that it is 
noncontroversial, and then we are going to mandate and see who has the 
nerve to vote against something which says that we are not going to 
have an increase in Federal taxes.
  Do my colleagues not know that, if we could do this, nobody in the 
United States would ever have to pay taxes? We should have 435 Members 
on the floor every day passing resolutions that we do not need any 
taxes. We can pull up the Code by its roots, just pass the resolution. 
We can stop spending tomorrow. Pass a resolution.
  But one thing they will not do, they will not come up with any 
concrete ideas to cut back spending or any ideas how we can avoid 
having Social Security be a problem in the future.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that we should be doing, 
individual minimum tax, increases in minimum wage, even the extensions 
which are so important to the American people, questions of education, 
patients' bill of rights, a variety of things. But in lieu of a press 
release, we are now going to use the Suspension Calendar to say we do 
not want any further increases in Federal taxes to fund additional 
Government spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I want other people to make some type of observations on 
this historic piece of legislation that has now come before the House 
of Representatives, even though I wish the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means was here so that we could have an exchange as to how we 
could deal with these tax issues. But I will deal with the Committee on 
Rules until we can find out how we are going to do this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page H10783]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for adding to the civility of the discourse in the House.
  But, Mr. Speaker, later this week, in all probability, we will pass 
the 13th and final appropriations bill for this year. And when we do 
so, we will have spent in those bills all the non-Social Security funds 
that the Federal Government will take in next year but not one dime of 
the Social Security funds themselves. We will have a balanced budget, 
and we will not have raised taxes.
  Unfortunately, the President has already vetoed three of those bills 
and he may veto more because he thinks we are not spending enough money 
in them.
  Mr. Speaker, if the President wants to spend more money, as he does, 
for instance, in the foreign aid bill, he has to show us where he is 
going to cut spending somewhere else. Because the only alternatives are 
to spend part of the Social Security fund or to raise taxes, and 
neither of those alternatives is acceptable. We have made it clear in 
this body that we will not tolerate spending Social Security money.
  Today I believe we must send the President a clear message that we 
will not raise taxes to pay for his new additional spending, either.
  Now, when we talk about Federal taxes, it is useful to consider the 
overall context of the Federal budget, the national economy, and just a 
little bit of history.
  This first chart illustrates that Federal discretionary spending is 
higher than it has ever been; and, thus, the Federal Government is 
bigger than it has ever been.
  The second chart shows that Federal taxes are higher than they have 
ever been in our Nation's peacetime history, consuming almost 21 
percent of our Nation's entire economic output.
  Now, even after we set aside all of the Social Security funds for 
Social Security and debt retirement, as this third chart will show, we 
still have unprecedented surpluses projected as far as the eye can see. 
The administration's budget forecasts that. The congressional budget 
forecasts that. Private budget forecasters show that.
  Now, when taxpayers are paying more than it takes to fund the biggest 
Federal Government in history and, in addition to that, taxpayers are 
paying more than it takes to pay Social Security benefits over the next 
10 years and another $2 trillion more and all of that surplus is going 
to reform Social Security or to pay down the national debt, when 
taxpayers in fact are paying an additional trillion dollars before and 
beyond that, it is obvious to me that taxes are too high.
  For the President to propose adding to this record Federal tax burden 
is outrageous. We need to lower taxes and restore to working Americans 
their freedom to decide how they want to spend their money. And make no 
mistake about it, when the Federal Government takes money away from the 
people who earn it, it is taking part of that freedom away as well.
  The money this Government takes from hard-working Americans is money 
those hard-working folks will never be free to spend for themselves as 
they see fit. The money this Government takes from working Americans 
takes time for these folks to earn that money. That is time people 
cannot devote to things they would rather be doing than working for the 
Federal Government, such as spending time with their children, caring 
for an elderly family member, volunteering in their community, or just 
enjoying some leisure time.
  At a time of already record-high Government spending, record-high 
Federal taxes, unprecedented surpluses, it is just unconscionable to 
consider taking even more money away from the people who earn it. And 
that is all this resolution says, that there should be no increase in 
Federal taxes in order to fund additional Government spending.
  Mr. Speaker, America's taxpayers are counting on this Congress to 
protect them from the President's very large appetite for their money. 
I urge my colleagues to send a clear message to the President: No tax 
increases, restrain Federal spending. Vote ``yes'' on House Concurrent 
Resolution 208.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the tax writing committee.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come out here today, I have never seen 
such a weighty piece of legislation in my entire 29 years in 
Government. In the State legislature, they do not even come up with 
things as stupid as this. But here we are. And there is a pattern. 
There is a pattern.
  One week ago, the leadership sent a bunch of freshmen out here with a 
silly bill with the President's tax increases in it and nothing that it 
was going to be spent on; and, lo and behold, we slapped it down. And 
then they went down that afternoon to the White House, having insulted 
the President with that, and said, see, the House does not want to 
raise taxes. So today they are going down again to balance the budget 
this afternoon, and we come out and we find this kind of nonsense in 
front of us.
  Now, I do not know who the brain trust is over there, but I know that 
the one that was put in House Concurrent Resolution 197 had a provision 
in it that had to do with the tobacco tax. And they were against that 
tobacco tax, by God. Boy, they were really against it.
  Now in the one that is before us now, House Resolution 208, they have 
taken it out. And I think, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), what they are doing is setting the stage to raise the tobacco 
tax. Because if they were against it yesterday when they filed it, what 
has changed? Why have they come up here without it?
  I think they are going to use it. Yes, sir, they are getting ready to 
fix this budget. Does that make sense to my colleagues?

                              {time}  1130

  One of the fascinating things about this, you have always got to be 
careful when you put numbers in here. In paragraph 2, it says, 
``Whereas Federal taxes are at their highest peacetime level in 
history, taking 20.5 percent of the gross domestic product.''
  Do my colleagues know what the percentage was when the Republicans 
took over the House of Representatives? 18.6. Under their tutelage, 
under their great management, under all this great stuff they have 
done, including that tax break last year, people are now paying almost 
2 percent more taxes than they paid when they started. Now, what they 
have done, of course, is they have shifted all the income to the people 
on the top and they are paying more taxes. So their proposals actually 
worked. They have shifted all the money in the country up, under their 
tax bills, and we are paying more taxes in this country because of 
Republican policies.
  It is a wonderful thing to sit here and contemplate what the thinking 
must have been in the room. They said, well, we do not want to raise 
taxes to pay for programs. What other reason would there be to raise 
taxes? I mean, why else would a Congress come out here and raise taxes? 
Because they did not have anything else to do? No, that would not be 
it. Well, maybe, I know what it was. The only other reason would be to 
punish the rich, right, people who have got money. That is the only 
reason they would raise taxes, to take it away from them.
  Now, this is the kind of thinking that has led us to this impasse. 
They came out here earlier in the session and had a $792 billion tax 
break. Thank God that died, because they cannot balance the budget. 
They were going to give away $729 billion, and they cannot balance the 
budget. They cannot get us out of here. We are here on our second 
continuing resolution, and by God I will bet my colleagues we will have 
a third continuing resolution because they cannot figure out how to 
bring this thing to a close. Yet 3 or 4 months ago, they were willing 
to give away $800 billion. It makes no sense. It makes about as much 
sense, I guess, as this one.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making clear that no matter 
how strongly we feel about issues of substantive disagreement whether 
it is tax increases or tax relief or spending or cutting spending, I do 
not think that the rhetoric, the language using the

[[Page H10784]]

words like ``stupid'' or ``silly'' to characterize the behavior of 
other Members is ever appropriate to use on this House floor, whether 
you are a senior ranking member of a committee or whether you are a new 
Member of Congress like the principal sponsor of this legislation. I do 
not think I have heard so much hot air released at once since the 
Hindenburg went down.
  I would like to get back to the substance, to the process that 
brought us here in the first place. At the beginning of this year, 
President Clinton in good faith brought forth a budget proposal. He 
said we are going to set aside 60 percent of the Social Security 
surplus and we are going to spend 40 percent. And he laid out his 
priorities in that budget and he said, ``We're going to increase 
taxes.'' His tax increase was approximately $240 billion over 10 years. 
It was a detailed budget, as the President submits every year to 
Congress.
  The Republican Congress said, ``That's not right.'' And we put 
together a budget proposal that members of the minority did not support 
and that is their prerogative, but it was a budget proposal that said 
for the first time in 40 years we are going to set aside every penny of 
the Social Security surplus and we are going to do it while cutting 
taxes. And again the minority disagreed with that proposal, and the 
gentleman from Washington tried to describe some of the reasons they 
were against tax relief. Well, that is fine, too. But we advanced that 
tax relief proposal, to eliminate the marriage penalty, eliminate death 
taxes, give full health insurance deductibility for those that are 
buying health insurance and are self-employed, increase access to 
health insurance and the President vetoed that bill, as is his 
prerogative. But now we are at the end of the budget process and 
Republicans are holding firm to their commitment not to spend Social 
Security. We did it last year. We balanced the budget for the first 
time in 40 years without using Social Security. We can and we must do 
it again this year. That causes heartburn for a lot of members of the 
minority, feeling the pressure of having to control spending. We have 
talked about reducing spending across the board by 1 percent, allowing 
agency heads and department heads to root out waste and abuse, just 1 
percent, one penny on every dollar, in order to balance the budget in 
2000 without using Social Security. I believe we can do that. And the 
administration has indicated that they want to balance the budget 
without using Social Security, too. So we might have some common ground 
here. We will work with the administration to fund priorities if they 
can reduce spending elsewhere in the budget.
  But what about taxes? The administration has waffled on tax 
increases. The President seems to have backed off his proposal to raise 
taxes by $240 billion over 10 years. We had a vote, a legislative vote 
in this House last week where his tax proposals received zero votes. I 
think that was an important statement for the House to make. But today 
we can go on record as saying no tax increases for new government 
spending, no spending the Social Security trust fund, no tax increases. 
It is a simple, clear message to the American people. We have been firm 
in our commitment as the majority party to protect Social Security 
since the very beginning of this budget process. With the passage of 
this resolution and the continued statement on a bipartisan basis from 
all Members of the House that we should not be increasing taxes, I 
think the fiscal responsibility this year and next year will continue 
to result in a growing economy and a better quality of life for hard-
working Americans.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
If I have offended anybody, then I apologize. I just would want to say 
that it is extremely frustrating for a legislator to come to this floor 
and to believe that we can decrease, or not increase, Federal taxes or 
not have additional spending by putting a bill on the suspension 
calendar. It is frustrating to see that the tax writing committee is 
not dealing with taxes, the appropriating committee is not dealing with 
bills, but that the Committee on Rules is still pushing out bills under 
suspension.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a member of the tax writing committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe one thing that is very obvious to anyone who 
has been observing this Congress is that we would not be here today 
debating this resolution or debating anything else if our Republican 
colleagues had done their job. They have not done their job. They are 
desperate for distraction. So I expect we will have more resolutions. 
This is not the last one. There will be more of these kind of 
resolutions to distract from the simple fact that they have failed 
utterly and completely to do their work during this past fiscal year. 
They are a competitive group. They are competing with themselves. We 
thought last year's Congress set the standard for doing little. It 
certainly was the least productive Congress since the days of Harry 
Truman. But they are competing with that record and I think they are 
winning. I believe they will have an even less productive and even more 
do-nothing Congress than they did during 1998.
  That incredible record reminds us that today we are entering week 
four of the new fiscal year, and they still have not done last year's 
work. It is incredible that almost a month after the end of the Federal 
fiscal year, the bill that funds all of the Federal assistance to 
education, the bill that funds all of our health research in this 
country to try to cure dreadful diseases like Parkinson's, cancer, 
diabetes, that bill has never been presented on the floor of this 
House. That is what I mean by do-nothingism. It is the failure to do 
your work and to present for debate on the floor of the House that very 
fundamental bill. I know the Republicans, some of them still want to 
abolish the Department of Education, but at least they could bring that 
bill to the floor and let the House debate it.
  Let me give my colleagues a second example since we are talking about 
taxes. On September 24, all the members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means were called into an emergency meeting directly across the hall 
from this Chamber in which we gather today. We were told that unless we 
rushed through a bill, the tax forms could not be prepared by the 
Internal Revenue Service. It had to be done by October 7 or the forms 
would not be ready. That bill was a very important one to people in 
central Texas, because it continued the research and development tax 
credit. That is a tax credit established by a Democratic Congress. It 
is true that under Speaker Gingrich it was allowed to expire and our 
technology companies were denied the benefit of that tax credit in 
1995, but we saw an opportunity to extend it and continue it. Well, 
where is that bill? It has never been brought to the floor of the 
House. October 7 is past; we are approaching November 7, and they have 
never brought the research and development tax credit, the Sec. 127 and 
other so called ``extenders,'' employer provided education assistance, 
they have never brought these to the floor of the House to be 
considered. That is why a number of people are concerned that the 
Republican do-nothingism may jeopardize this tax credit and cause its 
loss for research and development. This credit expired on June 30, and 
we must not lose it again as happened under this Republican leadership 
with Newt Gingrich in 1995.
  I do think it is important to note one important improvement in this 
resolution, and that is the deletion of the attack on a tax on tobacco. 
The only thing this Republican Congress ever did about tobacco usage 
and the fact that 3,000 of our young people get addicted each day to 
nicotine, the only thing they ever did was to provide a $50 billion tax 
credit to the tobacco lobby. When the public found out about it, 
Republicans got so scared about it that they withdrew that credit after 
it had been approved by the House. But it is at least worthy to note 
that while the sponsors of the pending resolution initially attacked 
the tobacco tax, they have removed that language from this resolution. 
And that happens to be the only significant tax increase the President 
has proposed. It is certainly better to tax tobacco than to take money 
from Social Security.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Fossella).

[[Page H10785]]

  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us bring it back into focus again. There are only 
three things you can really do with taxes. You can cut them and bring 
relief to hardworking taxpayers. That is what this Congress did, and 
the White House vetoed, so we deprived the opportunity of American 
hardworking taxpayers to keep a little more money in their paychecks or 
at the end of the year so they can put more food on the table or they 
can buy some clothes for the kids when they go to school or they could 
put a little money away for their child's college fund. That was 
deprived because of a veto from the White House and for those who chose 
to vote against that bill.
  We can keep taxes exactly where they are, which hopefully is the 
worst we can do this year. Or we can do what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) says, is not increase taxes, that is all, to 
pay for additional spending. What is so wrong about that? If you feel 
committed, if you do, fine. But if you feel committed that we need to 
raise taxes to pay for additional spending, then you should not have 
the problem, Mr. Speaker, of coming down here and voting for it.
  I happen to believe that the people that I represent in Staten Island 
and Brooklyn are working too hard right now, sometimes two and three 
jobs, trying to put their kids through college, trying to just get 
enough money the buy that second car. They are working too hard for us 
to come down here and say, ``You know what, we don't think you're being 
taxed enough. We think we should be taking a little more out of your 
pocket.'' No, I would rather go home, Mr. Speaker, and look those folks 
in the eyes and tell them, you know what, we are doing all we can to 
provide more freedom and opportunity to you and your families and we 
are doing all we can in Washington to ensure that we are not going to 
take more money out of your pocket, we are not going to take more money 
out of your home because that is where we believe that money belongs.
  If you feel so strongly that this government should be getting bigger 
and larger because the Federal Government should be taking more of the 
taxes, then come right down here and say it. But in the meantime, 
people like the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I believe he speaks 
for the vast majority of Americans, are saying, you know what, we are 
taxed too much, do not do it. Spend the money appropriately and 
responsibly.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of this resolution. We are talking about the people of the United 
States. It is their money. It is not our money. I congratulate my 
freshman colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for 
bringing this forward today.
  The rhetoric today is incredible. One of my colleagues said we have 
not done our job, the Republicans have not done our job. It reminds me 
of the story of the farmer who hooked a horse up to one side of a wagon 
and a mule up to the back pulling in the opposite direction.

                              {time}  1145

  The reason we do not have a budget is because our colleagues will not 
do their job and vote for it.
  We believe we can live within our means. Our colleagues are doing 
nothing to help us on this. They are laughing. That is the attitude we 
have from that side of the House. When we deal with a serious issue, we 
get laughter. As my colleagues know, actions speak louder than words.
  We bring forward appropriations bills that spend within our means, 
and the Democrats vote no. Why? Because they say it does nothing for 
Social Security. Well, it has nothing to do with Social Security. They 
vote no because we will not spend more money, which means spending 
Social Security money.
  With the President actions speak louder than words. All we heard last 
year is: We need to save Social Security. What did he do in his budget 
proposal? He spent $58 billion of Social Security, this money, this 
year on new programs, and he said we need to save Medicare and Medicaid 
in 5 years. He was proposing to cut $11.9 billion out of the programs. 
That does not save anything.
  The President said: We need to save Social Security. We saved the 
first bill this year for the President to come forward with his reform 
for Social Security, and guess what that bill is doing? Doing nothing. 
He has not made a proposal to save Social Security.
  I know when I was a young man I was raised with my grandparents. We 
were poor, and I started a business off in the construction industry, 
and I had an old van that used more oil than it did gas, and I was 
willing to sacrifice, and I built a company. I want my kids to have 
that opportunity, and I even want my colleagues' kids to have that 
opportunity. But they want to tax them to death. 20.5 percent of GDP is 
in taxes; they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  What we are trying to do here is make a statement: ``Put your actions 
where your words are.'' We have heard enough rhetoric. We have watched 
them vote no. We have watched the laughter and the childishness on the 
floor, and that is fine, Mr. Speaker. I respect these individuals. Some 
are trying to do what is right, some are trying to be political.
  Let us protect the American people. Let us let people keep more of 
their hard-earned money, we do not need it. Government has grown to be 
a fatted calf and a fat hog. We do not need to spend our constituents' 
money. They earned it, they should keep it; we are trying to make that 
statement. If we are going to save Social Security, let us stop 
spending money. If we are going to help the American people better 
their lives, let us stop taxing them and spending their money.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be very sad if the majority did not understand 
their responsibility. I am going to try to run this by just one time 
because the gentleman who just got finished speaking said the mule and 
the horse are working against each other.
  The majority sets the agenda. The majority sets the budget. The 
majority sets the spending level. The majority sets the amount of taxes 
that are going to be made there. So I do not know why we need to have a 
resolution because would they be changing anything in their resolution 
that if they were going to say that expressing the sense of Congress 
that the Republican majority should not increase federal taxes? The 
Republican majority should not fund additional government spending. The 
congressional Republican majority for some reason omits now cigarette 
taxes or whatever they are going to do. Just put in there ``majority,'' 
and then we would know what we are voting for because everyone agrees 
with them. It is just that this is not the process that we control 
taxes and spending, by using the suspension calendar.
  If they want to say, let the committees do it, then do it. My God, 
they did not ask for help on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We had to 
pull teeth to get some votes out of them where the minority provided 
the leadership. They did not ask for help in cutting back the number of 
teachers the President requested and the number of policemen. They sure 
did not ask for help when they decided they wanted to cut taxes by $792 
billion, and they are asking for help by having a continuing 
resolution, and I assume they will be running down to the White House 
trying to get some help from the President of the United States.
  All I am suggesting is: If they got the majority, they do not come to 
the floor and say it is a sense of Congress, they do it. They set the 
authorization, they set the spending and they set the taxes.
  So, if it makes them feel better in coming here with sense of 
Congresses, we are going to help them. We are going to support it, and 
we are going to say we all do not want Federal increases in spending, 
and we do not want increases in taxes and we will have prescription 
drugs even if we, as the minority, have to provide the leadership for 
our aged and for our sick people, and we will pay for it, Mr. Speaker, 
but we believe in legislating

[[Page H10786]]

and not just bringing something up on the suspension calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I welcome 
the support of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 
resisting any increase at all in Federal taxes whatsoever, and I hope 
that they will pass that message on to the President, who has not 
apparently come to the same conclusion. He obviously does have a 
considerable say in this budget process as well as the Republican 
majority does, and I would simply remind my colleagues that at a time 
when there is already record high level of government spending, record 
high level of Federal taxes and unprecedented surpluses it would be 
unconscionable to consider taking even more income away from the 
American people who earn it, and that is what this resolution is all 
about. It is very simple. It simply says:
  There should be no increase in Federal taxes in order to fund 
additional government spending.
  I urge my colleagues to send this clear message to the President: No 
tax increases, restrain spending.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this Congressional Resolution is stupid. It 
is a truly a type of ``con''--designed to make a political statement 
without any real thought for the future.
  Between now and 2030, the number of Americans on Medicare will 
double, from 39 million to about 80 million. How will we pay for the 
retirement and health of the Baby Boomers.
  We can cut benefits in half as the number of enrollees doubles, thus 
holding spending fairly steady. But that would mean just transferring 
costs to people in their old age and when they are sick.
  We can cut what we pay doctors and hospitals in half, but who would 
then provide quality care to seniors?
  Or we could consider some tax increases.
  Actually, to save Medicare will take a combination of the three 
options I have just listed.
  To pass a Resolution like this to take one of those options off the 
table. Do we really want to do that? Instead of having an intelligent 
debate on how to provide for our citizens in the future, this Congress 
is just passing solgans--solgans which if taken literally would destroy 
our ability to meet the future needs of the Nation.
  That's why I'm voting ``no'' today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 
208.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________