[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 44 (Monday, April 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2004-H2010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity tonight to discuss
a very important issue that is going to be on the floor of the House of
Representatives this week. It is called the tax limitation amendment.
The tax limitation amendment, known as H.J. Res. 37, is a very, very
simple amendment that was first brought to life some 10 years ago by
the gentleman from the 6th District of Texas (Mr. Barton).
Last week we had a press conference where we talked about, in
essence, the passing of the mantle from the gentleman from Texas to
myself, being the lead for the tax limitation amendment where we will
bring to the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday an
opportunity for all Members not only to fully debate but also to vote
on something which I believe is very, very important.
The essence of H.J. Res. 37 is that we are going to make it more
difficult for Washington to raise taxes on America. That is what this
debate is all about. It will be about doing those things that
Washington talks about, making it more difficult by requiring a
supermajority, a two-thirds vote on the floor of the House of
Representatives and in the Senate to raise taxes. Part of what we are
talking about today, we would assume, is just a conservative idea, and
I think that that would be correct. But it is a bipartisan idea. It is
an idea not only that has grassroots all across America, people who are
pro-business but it also has people who consider themselves Democrats,
Democrats even, who understand that raising taxes should not be easy,
because taxes come from people who get up and go to work every day,
work diligently, honest people, taxpayers, and then are giving too much
money to Washington, D.C.
One of the persons who is the cochairman of this effort, a coleader
in this effort, is the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas (Mr.
Hall). This evening I am very honored to have the gentleman from Texas
with me to help not only the discussion about the tax limitation
amendment but also for an opportunity for us to discuss this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas,
a lifelong Democrat, a conservative, and a man who understands it is
important to make it more difficult to raise taxes on taxpayers.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today, of course, to express my support for
the tax limitation amendment. I have been for this amendment from the
word go. I really do not understand that it ought to be a Republican or
a Democratic thrust or a liberal or conservative thrust because I think
it is an American thrust. Requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes
would force very serious consideration on this legislation at any time
that they would attempt to raise taxes; and it would require, as the
gentleman from Texas has said, a supermajority vote on any proposal
that would impact the pocketbooks of every hard-working American.
The major test of this legislation would be not what class supports
it. We are in for at least 5 wonderful years in this country. We now
have, rather than the deficits of the 1980s and the 1990s, a surplus;
and we are going to have good times for the next 5, maybe for the next
10, years to have money to be that that we ought to be for people who
have no lobby, pay a lot of it on our debt. That is tantamount to a tax
break for everyone.
I think that if we would go into our district, and I say ``our
district'' because the gentleman and I share districts in Texas. I have
part of Dallas County in my district. He has a much larger part of it.
I have most of Kaufman. He has a part of Kaufman in his district. He
has a part of Smith County which is Tyler; Tyler, Texas. We represent
the same type of people, people who want less government, people who
want to keep the money that they work for, people who want to plan
ahead, people who want to have money in September to buy school clothes
without having the taxes that are put on them, that have been
historically put on them by a 50 percent vote. A lot of those votes
like the Tax Reform Act of 1986 would never have happened if it had
taken a two-thirds vote.
{time} 2030
So I think if they would go out into their district, into any part of
our district, and talk to the first 10 people they see and ask them
would you like to see it a little bit more difficult for the Congress
of the United States to take money out of your left hip pocket, what do
you think their answer would be?
Mr. SESSIONS. Let me say this: the gentleman from Texas, whose
district
[[Page H2005]]
is literally overlaid on my district, the 4th District overlaid on the
5th District, very, very similar, the kind of people, the kind of
people's thoughts and ideas, I believe that if you went in the 4th or
5th Districts of Texas, that people would say, I think Washington, D.C.
has enough money. First of all, they have got enough money. They don't
need to tax us more. They ought to be more efficient.
The second thing I think they would say, as the gentleman has pointed
out, is let us make it more difficult. There is no need to go back to
the American public to ask for a tax increase, especially when we are
in a surplus condition. Right now, today, in America we are working off
of a surplus, and yet we know that there are people in Washington,
D.C., that want more and more and more money.
I would say to the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas that if
we made it more difficult, it would immediately cause this Congress and
the administration, whoever is President, to have to go and look within
the administration, to go look in these agencies to find where there is
waste, fraud and abuse, to find where there was opportunity to save
money, rather than going back to the taxpayer.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I think as the gentleman well knows, we represent
a conservative area. We both represent a part of the old Rayburn
congressional district. We talk about balanced budgets and all that.
Mr. Rayburn had a balanced budget the last 8 years of his service here;
and as he went back home to Bonham, Texas, to die, he looked back over
his shoulder at a balanced budget.
I think we could use some of that good common horse sense now. I
think the people of this country want to be able to keep more of the
money they are making. I just do not believe the argument that we have
a lot more money now, so this amendment is not as important. I think
this amendment is more important now than it was during the deficit
times, because they have more to lose, and it is going to look like it
is easy to put taxes on people.
I just think it is a golden opportunity to raise the bar and protect
hard-working Americans from tax increases in the future that are not
supported by a majority of two-thirds of the people. I think it is
critical that we make a statement that we are committed to controlling
government spending, rather than raising taxes, in order to maintain a
balanced Federal budget.
I just think that the 10 people that I would talk to on Front Street
in Tyler, Texas, or any part of Kaufman County, or any part of the
district we share in Dallas County, we would talk to these people and
ask this simple question; and I think we ought to invite the rest of
the Congress to go home and do the same thing, ask them what do you
think about the fact we are trying to make it a little bit more
difficult to put taxes on you. What do you think their answer would be?
Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. I believe the answer from people, if you
talk to people who live in the districts that get up and go to work
every day, they would say, We are very pleased. We love America. We
support government and the essence of what it does. But today there is
more than enough money in Washington, D.C. Make do with what you have.
Do not come back to us. We are out producing, meaning the people back
home, producing not only in efficiencies, but to the economy, to the
local communities and to government, to make it work. This needs to be
a bar that gets raised because it is that important of an issue.
You know that there are several parts of the Constitution that put a
two-thirds vote that is a requirement to be able to pass something. I
believe, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) agrees, that
raising taxes should be one of those things that we make more
difficult, that should require a consensus and a two-thirds vote.
I thank the gentleman. I know that the gentleman has got a dinner
that he has got to go to, but I thank the gentleman for not only
working on behalf of the people of the 4th District of Texas, but also
doing it in a national leadership capacity here tonight. I thank him so
very much for being a part of what we are doing.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman for the time, and I
certainly am pleased that he has accepted the leadership of this
amendment. I pledge that I will work side by side with the gentleman
and we will work this floor.
I do not know how we are going to come out, but I do know that we are
going to still be swinging at it. I suggest that, no matter how the
vote turns out, that we start anew the day we have either won or lost
it, to working the other end of the situation and asking those 10
people what they think about it, and asking each Member of Congress
here to go home and ask their first 10 people what they think about it.
Maybe we are working at the wrong end of the deal here in Washington,
D.C. Maybe we ought to be working at home.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman so very much.
This evening we are also joined by one of the stalwarts of freedom,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who is not only a very good
friend of the taxpayer, but a person who understands whose money this
really is we are talking about. At this time I would yield to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I thank my
colleague from across the aisle from Texas also for joining us here
tonight.
Mr. Speaker, observers could not help but note the differing tone of
those who preceded us in this Chamber this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I was astounded, but I guess not really surprised, at
the level of bile, the venom, the mean-spiritedness and deliberate
mischaracterizations that preceded us in this Chamber, and I could not
help but notice the difference, Mr. Speaker, as we come here on a
bipartisan basis.
Our good friend from Texas asked, what would the people at home say?
And, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I hear repeatedly is how sick and
tired they are of the endless partisan haranguing and insults and
deliberate mischaracterizations of matters of public policy, because,
Mr. Speaker, we are involved in dealing with the public trust. All 435
of us in this Chamber are entrusted with an awesome responsibility, to
represent the peoples of our districts to the best of our ability,
commensurate with full allegiance to the Constitution of the United
States.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would just appeal to the American people to
understand that we are talking about a bipartisan amendment, and, in
the words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), it really should not
be liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat. It is
quintessentially American, because what will take place on this floor,
through the leadership of my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and
many of others of us, we will come to this floor and ask for a
supermajority vote, ask for 290 of us to line up to say that it should
be harder for Congress to raise taxes on the American people.
We were talking about what folks say at home. The 6th Congressional
District of Arizona, in square mileage almost the size of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. From the small hamlet of Franklin in
southern Greenlee County, north to Four Corners, west to Flagstaff,
south again to Florence, encompassing parts of Phoenix, Mesa,
Scottsdale, a fast growing area, where people come from all over the
country, a near universal lament has been well, you common sense folks
can get some things done, but that is no guarantee that in 2 years if
there is a change in the composition of the Congress, if something
happens, that your hard work will not be reversed.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, that is precisely why we are bringing
this amendment to the floor of the House again, this proposed
amendment, because we believe, just as important, just as challenging
as it is to amend the Constitution of the United States, to deal with
questions such as impeaching a chief executive, or, in the other body,
ratifying international treaties, we believe the same standard should
apply to the Government reaching into the pockets of everyday, hard-
working Americans. That is the key to this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, as is often the case, many of
our States, often characterized as laboratories of democracy, the
places where we apply with our dynamic system of Federalism the
principles of our constitutional Republic, 14 of our 50 states
[[Page H2006]]
have already adopted State tax limitation provisions, including my home
State of Arizona, when in 1992 the legislature and the people decided
that a two-thirds vote would be required for any, any, increase in
taxation.
Now, it is important, Mr. Speaker, to make this distinction: this
does not prohibit tax increases, but it does say to the American people
we understand a simple truth. The money does not belong to the
Washington bureaucrats; it belongs to you. And we believe that if you
work hard, play by the rules, want to provide for your family, want to
provide for your children, have an obligation to your parents and other
seniors in your community, are glad to shoulder that obligation, since
it is your money, it should be tougher for Washington to get to it. It
should be a question every bit as important as amending the
Constitution of the United States.
So we will come here again seeking a supermajority to enact this
notion of a higher standard for tax increases. We are reminded over the
last 2 decades, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1990, and, of course, the largest tax
increase in American history, which passed in this Chamber and the
other body by one vote, which was characterized by some in this town,
principally those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, as an
``investment on our future,'' when in fact it really was an assault on
seniors, on children, on Americans who had even left the here-and-now
to go to the hereafter, so excessive was that tax increase it was
retroactive to the first of the year in the grave, if the Congress or a
future administration is tempted again to take the easy way out, to
pickpocket hard-working American citizens, Mr. Speaker, this amendment
would say, whoa, not so fast. Because we are a government of laws,
because we are a government where the first three words of the
Constitution talk about ``We the people.''
We are accountable to the people, and we want to make it more
difficult, we want to raise the standard, so that the same Americans,
whether they are in the 5th or 4th Congressional District of Texas, or
the 6th Congressional District of Arizona, or any district across the
country, will understand that we are going to think long and hard and
have compelling reasons to make a change, should we decide to do so
collectively in this body with the support of the American people. But
that will take away a temptation that has been too often easily
employed.
Let us raise the standard and return to the notion that the money
belongs to the people, not to Washington. I know my friend from Texas
has a few things to say.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Arizona has now
clearly laid out is not only the essence of the reason why this is
important to people back home, but I now want to add to those reasons
and talk about why Washington needs to pay attention to the tax
limitation amendment, H.J. Res. 94. I said H.J. Res. 39. That is wrong.
That was last year. I have caught up now. H.J. Res. 94.
We must make it harder for Congress to raise taxes on the American
people. Now, many people would say, Well, Washington has it down. We
have already created a surplus. We are going to have a surplus now for
as far as the eye can see.
I would say that, yes, that probably is true, provided we stay in
power. But there is so much more that must be understood, and that is
that just because the majority party believes that that is the right
thing to do, it does not mean that that is what everybody agrees.
Back in 1995, when we were in the midst of the battle, the battle to
determine that we would have a balanced budget, that we would be able
to work within the confines to balance the budget based upon what the
American people have given us before the Committee on Ways and Means,
Alice Rivlin, the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, personnel
director, said, ``I do not think that adhering to a firm path,'' which
means a balanced budget, that you are going to stick to it, ``for a
balance by 2002 is very sensible.''
{time} 2045
She did not believe it was sensible. It is not always a good policy
to have a balanced budget.
Let me say that that was 1995. Here we are, the year 2000, and lo and
behold, not only does Alice Rivlin represent her boss, and they said in
1995 the way things would be, but here we see it in print now, this
President's budget that he presented, that he took 2 hours to describe
to the American public in the State of the Union Address.
We find out that President Clinton and Vice President Gore have more
tax increases. Even when we are in the middle of trying to not only
take care of and shore up not only social security and Medicare and a
lot of other things, but we have a surplus, and what do they want to
do? They want to raise taxes, a $96 billion tax increase, President
Clinton and Vice President Gore, tax increases.
Yet we know that there was another person, another group of people,
who were right there saying, we will not raise taxes. We are in a
surplus circumstance.
Now what we have to do, because we recognize that we have people who
even when we have a surplus they want more and more and more not only
spending but tax increases, we have to go tell the story. We need to
make it more difficult.
Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker,
as my friend, the gentleman from Texas, was relating not only the
recent history but also the facts and figures amidst the flowery
rhetoric that is so often part of what transpires in Washington, I
could not help but note the successes that we have had as a commonsense
conservative majority, and point out, Mr. Speaker, to the American
people that it is very interesting the way Washington has worked
heretofore.
We have had some success here, and indeed, we have rolled back taxes,
as we were able to enact in the 105th Congress the $500 per child tax
credit; as we were able to work to make sure that there was a higher
level of tax fairness; when in fact just this past week we were able to
procure at long last the signature of the President of the United
States on legislation to end the unfair penalty confronting senior
citizens who chose to work beyond their assigned retirement age;
seniors who, if they were making in excess of $17,000 a year, were
taxed to the tune of $1 out of every $3 of their social security
benefit, lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, that was finally changed.
But I would note for the record that piece of legislation was first
introduced well nigh in excess of two decades ago by the current
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer); that our current speaker, when he first arrived here in
1987, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), introduced the self-
same legislation.
While we welcome epiphanies, whether they come in election years or
at other times, we are so pleased that at long last those who resisted
that fundamental act of fairness finally saw the wisdom in letting
seniors hang onto more of their own hard-earned money. Because I think,
Mr. Speaker, that truly defines compassion.
The reason I mention it is because it took so long. The anachronistic
policies of the mid 1930s that accompanied what at that point was a
labor shortage, it took all the way to the dawn of a new century, 70
years, to make that change, the modest but important tax relief we
offered in 1997, which came a decade and a half after the tax relief
offered in the Reagan years.
So it is extremely difficult here to get this institution, to get
those denizens of Washington and those folks in the bureaucracy,
focused on actually letting people hang onto more of their own money.
We have made some progress, as I have just documented.
One of the reasons is institutionally it has been so easy to raise
taxes: A simple majority vote; a chief executive who is of a mind to do
that because of previous Congresses and free-spending ways.
Again, this is not a partisan argument. Our friend, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall), was talking about the days of former Speaker
Rayburn and the balanced budgets that were formulated with a Republican
president, Dwight Eisenhower, and a previous majority in Congress of
the other party. But following that time, whether the days of Speaker
Martin or the days of Speaker Rayburn, that was then and what followed
later was a complete role reversal.
[[Page H2007]]
Always, always, always, Mr. Speaker, the notion was, we just need to
raise taxes a little bit more. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to think of
what that says to the family in Payson, Arizona, in my district where
the husband and wife are doing all they can to establish a fledgling
printing business. They are working hard to make that business work,
they are creating jobs in their small communities, they are providing a
service, and more importantly, they are providing for their children.
I think, Mr. Speaker, one of the key problems we have faced as a
people is as follows. For years folks came to this Chamber and asked or
told the American people, you have to sacrifice so Washington can
supposedly do more. That premise, we understand, in the fullness of
time is exactly turned around: Washington bureaucrats should sacrifice,
Mr. Speaker, so that American families can have more.
This tax limitation amendment is the right thing to do because it
changes constitutionally and institutionally the bias toward always
picking the pockets of hard-working Americans. It raises the standard
even as we, in a signal both to Wall Street and to Main Street, in a
new commonsense conservative Congress have at long last instituted
policies of fiscal sanity.
The risky scheme, Mr. Speaker, is to always dip into the pockets of
hard-working citizens. The real test of trust and responsibility is to
make government more responsive, to make governmental decisions more
rational, to reduce the debt and empower everyday hard-working
Americans to keep more of what they earn and send less here.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Wonderful points.
We believe, I believe, that the thing that Congress should focus on is
to make sure that we are not putting more debt not only on people who
work today, but also for our children and our grandchildren.
This chart so accurately describes this, really, and it goes back to
1941. But as we see, the numbers are small until we head to about 1976.
The numbers are astronomical. They go up to $350 billion in debts. This
is what happened when Republicans and Independents and people who are
from other parties, including Ross Perot, began talking about how
America's greatest days are not behind her, America's greatest days are
ahead; but that it would require responsibility, it would require, as
the gentleman from Arizona said, sanity, the ability to balance and to
comprehend what was happening to America.
So what happened is that a different vision was given. That was, we
should not spend more than what we make. We should take the power that
comes with the money to Washington, D.C. and put it back home. That is
exactly what happened.
We now see where there has been a debt reduction directly as a result
of what we have now accomplished. This did not happen overnight. It was
based on a set of principles which we believe, as Republicans, are
critical to the country. They include that we are going to protect 100
percent of social security. We have now done that.
Lo and behold, 30 years after spending not just some of social
security but all of the surplus from social security, Republicans said
that not only will we not do that, but we are going to make sure that
we lock it away into a lockbox.
Strengthen Medicare with prescription drug coverage, that is what
this marvelous House will be debating in a few short weeks. Forty
billion dollars has been set aside, that is the Republican plan, $40
billion to make sure that citizens, not just like the people in the
Fifth District of Texas, but like people that the gentleman has in
Arizona, who live better lives today because of technology, because of
investment that has been made by the private sector.
Yes, we have great doctors, but we have great drugs. Here is one
thing we know. We understand and know that for every $1 that is spent
on drugs, prescription drugs, we save $4 in hospital stay. It makes
sense. It is the right thing to do.
We made sure that we are going to retire the debt by 2013; not add to
it, not just let it stay out there, but we are going to pay it off a
little at a time. It did not happen overnight, it took 40 years of
Democrat-controlled Congresses to do that. We will get it done by 2013.
We are going to support and strengthen education, technology,
research. We are going to make sure that education and science work
together. That is why we are trying to double, and sticking to it, a
commitment that was made by former Speaker Newt Gingrich that we would
send double funding to NIH, the National Institutes of Health. Because
we understood, and we still get it today, that if we invest in research
and development, if we do the things by letting scientists and others
who can make breakthroughs in not only prescription drugs and
techniques, that what we can do is we can save lives and make life
better.
We will promote fairness for families, farmers, and seniors. Half of
the Fifth District of Texas is rural. Half of the Fifth District of
Texas went through, in an agricultural setting, a terrible drought the
last few years. We need to pay attention to rural America.
Restoring America's defenses. We have been able to accomplish so much
because we were able to put on a sheet of paper the things that are
important to America and Americans. People in the Fifth District of
Texas, like the people in the Sixth District of Arizona, represent the
topsoil of America. It is not the dirt, it is the people. They are the
topsoil of our country. We are paying attention to people. We are going
to get it right, and we are going to balance out the things that are
important in America.
I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from
Texas, for yielding to me.
In listening to the people of Arizona, as the gentleman so eloquently
stated some of the goals there, we look at prescription coverage for
seniors as we try to strengthen Medicare.
I think it is important to make this distinction. Almost two-thirds
of the senior community currently enjoys some prescription drug benefit
through current insurance plans. But I think of the lady in Apache
Junction, Arizona, who works not by choice but out of necessity at a
fast food restaurant because she and her husband are not in a financial
circumstance that enables them to have a complete insurance plan.
So what we say is for the truly needy seniors, for those one-third of
the senior community that have somehow eluded this opportunity at
prescription drug benefits, we want to provide them. But we are being
very careful, because as another one of my constituents reminded me,
she came up one day, Mr. Speaker, and said, J.D., I don't want to end
up seeing my Medicare premiums rise so that I have the honor and
opportunity to pay the prescription bills of Ross Perot.
{time} 2100
I think that is a valid point. We want reasonable, rational reforms
that strengthen Medicare and help those truly needy seniors.
Mr. SESSIONS. It sounds like that part of this debate is now into the
two plans, essentially the two plans that are floating in Washington;
one which would tax all seniors, and as I described in the Fifth
District of Texas where all the seniors in the room would please take
$20 out of their pocket, place them on the table, and then those people
who placed the money, everybody placed the money, then if they did not
need it, based upon their poverty level, if they did not qualify for
prescription drug coverage, just please get up and walk outside the
room. It is about 75 to 80 percent of senior citizens who would be
paying $20 more out of their own pocket.
I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), here is a
$20; $20 out of their own pocket every month for about 15 percent of
the seniors who could not afford it. Why did we not come up with a
plan, oh but there is one, the Republican plan, that will say, senior
citizens, all senior citizens, put that money back in their pocket, put
it back in their pocket; we have a budget surplus in Washington, D.C.
We will take care of those people who need it most. We are not going to
tax every senior citizen to help 15 percent of them. Sounds like a
better idea to me.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), for again very eloquently
[[Page H2008]]
and practically pointing out the difference.
There is something else we should note. Even as we turn to the
subjects of Medicare and Social Security, the institutional bias that
always asks for tax increases, even as we celebrate in bipartisan
fashion the fact that the President signed into law the end of the
earnings penalty on seniors who chose to work past retirement age and
we restored fairness that had been 70 years in the making, or should I
say 70 years in the waiting, it is worth noting, the gentleman spoke
about the largest tax increase in American history, it
disproportionately affected seniors. It jacked up Social Security
taxes. It hit Americans all across the board but it nailed seniors, and
while we have taken this first step to restore tax fairness, it was
born of another important step that was taken as the President of the
United States was kind enough to come down a couple of years ago and
stand at the podium behind my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), and he said something that was a wonderful rhetorical
flourish, but once we took away the bells and the whistles and the
theatrics it was a shot across the bow and a warning to all American
seniors, and my colleague from Texas I think he has more on that topic
right here as we look at this chart.
Mr. SESSIONS. We do, and I thank the gentleman for mentioning that.
The President of the United States, just a few short years ago, said
Social Security first, Social Security first.
It took the Republican Party and a plan to get that done. We ended
the raid of Social Security because it was the right thing to do. 1998
was the last year that the Congress of the United States will allow the
surplus in Social Security, the hard-earned money that people have put
into it, to then be spent for general budgetary items.
There, as always, are at least two different views. Let us role back
the tape. Let us remember just a year ago, when we talked about the
year 2000, the Republican plan said 100 percent of Social Security,
meaning that if people gave that money for Social Security, it should
only be used for Social Security. It should not be used for something
else. That is what savings plans are about. That is what the government
took it for. The government took the money, it is required by law, and
we believe that 100 percent of it, that is the way it should go.
There was another side. There is another story. The other story in
Washington, D.C. is, the President has his own plan. We understand
that. We are willing to debate it, even on the floor. Of all of the
surplus, the President said 62 percent of the surplus goes to Social
Security, but 38 percent of Social Security goes to new government
spending. How much money are we talking about? We are talking about, in
fact, a lot of money. The surplus in the year 2000, $137 billion. That
is $137 billion that instead of going to general revenue will be put
directly into Social Security.
Now, one would say that is exactly what the gentleman from Arizona
said, and I say, yes, that is close, except that the Democrats are
still holding back our lockbox. They will not allow us to designate it.
So the best we can say is, no money should be spent. The President
still has $85 billion of the $137 billion.
In fact, the gentleman from Arizona and I are getting very good at
this. If I can find my penny, every single penny that is given by an
American for Social Security should only be used for Social Security,
and that is what this is all about.
Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman has heard it in his district. One of the
first things I heard, when I was honored and entrusted with this
responsibility of service in the Congress of the United States, at
innumerable townhall meetings across the width and breadth of my
district, was a concern that funds were commingled. There was a fancy
Washington term for it, of course there always is; the bureaucrats
spoke of a unified budget. Well, that is a nice word, but what we
really should have called it, Mr. Speaker, was a commingled budget,
where Social Security money was not set aside and preserved for Social
Security and to the point even now would we have those who lead the
executive branch always talk about these plans for spending and
trusting government more, it is very interesting that they forget about
the basics.
Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, that a common sense Congress reminds
Washington's bureaucrats and big spenders, no, we need to restore that
firewall. It has been our intent since day one and now we have done it
in our budgetary plans, not a single dime, not a single cent of Social
Security money spent on any other program; all of it, all of it, going
to save and strengthen Social Security. That is the difference, is it
not, Mr. Speaker? Because as I mentioned at the outset, we are
entrusted with this constitutional responsibility. We take an oath of
office and we are given a responsibility, a role, a mandate, an oath,
not to deceive the American people, either by pandering to foreign
governments to solicit campaign donations in what is a cynical, sad and
macabre twist on the notion of having political opponents, and somehow
confusing political opponents with enemies to the point where in a free
society those in the highest offices in our land, who took, presumably
the same oaths of office, entrusted with those responsibilities, would
live up to them. In the same sort of rhetoric here on this House floor,
in a speech two years ago, it was said, let us set aside 62 percent of
the Social Security surplus for Social Security. What was left unsaid,
when we do the math as my colleague pointed out, 38 percent of that
money is set aside for Social Security to go to new government
programs.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said of those who head up the other branch
of government by columnists from their own State, do not listen so much
to what they say; watch what they do.
We best secure America's future by restoring trust, by resurrecting
that firewall, by putting Social Security funds in a lockbox to be used
exclusively for Social Security, by making it more difficult to raise
taxes. Rather than having Washington succumb always to the siren song
of picking the pockets of hard working Americans, we reaffirm the truth
that the money, when all is said and done, does not belong to the
Federal Government or the Washington bureaucrats. It belongs to hard
working Americans and they ought to hang on to more of it and send less
of it here.
Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman has led directly to the point that I
believe is the essence of the tax limitation amendment, and that is in
the era of surpluses, when the government has effectively, as a result
of the Republican Congress, made sure that Social Security and Medicare
will not be spent, it was given for a reason. It will be used for that
reason. Then lo and behold, we have extra money called a surplus, that
came about, the very essence of it came about because we cut taxes. We
encouraged America not only to go work harder but to work smarter. We
encouraged America to invest in America.
Just a few short years ago, we were worried about all the jobs in
America going offshore. Ten years ago we were told America's greatest
days are behind her. The best education is somewhere else; the best of
technology is somewhere else; the best of future is somewhere else. We
today and every Member of this body tries to take credit for it and
that is okay, of the things that have happened in the last 5 years. It
is the right thing to do for us to understand that we had to balance
the budget; we had to take Social Security off budget; we had to make
sure that we created a surplus.
Now tonight we are talking about making it more difficult to raise
taxes, a simple thing. We want to make it more difficult for Washington
to take your money. H.J. Res. 94, the tax limitation amendment, will be
voted on on Wednesday, will be voted on because it is the right thing
for America today. What is going to happen with more of the money, the
money that is today a surplus? Here is what we are going to do: We are
going to make sure that it goes back to the people who gave it to
Washington. I am not sure they gave it because they wanted to
necessarily, but they gave it and they expect us to do wise things with
it.
Responsibility, here is what we are doing: We want to end the
marriage penalty. Just a few short months ago in January, President
Clinton stood right behind me and he stated he would be more doing away
with the marriage penalty.
We are now talking about repealing the senior earnings limit. The
President of the United States signed that
[[Page H2009]]
last Friday in the White House garden. It was beautiful. We are now
going to have senior citizens who are no longer penalized with an
unfair tax. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) worked on that for 30
years.
We want to reduce, eliminate the death taxes. We want to expand
education savings accounts. Lo and behold, in my home I have a 6-year-
old Down's Syndrome little boy who could use the money. We could also,
by spending it efficiently on all sorts of not only educational tools
for our baby, our son, our child, but also to help nurture him to where
he will be able to be self sufficient.
We have a 10-year-old at home, a 10-year-old who every single day
reads every book and takes everything that we can get our hands on,
gobbles it in, understands that his future is the same as our country's
future. We are going to spend more money on education. My son
understands and so does my wife.
We are going to increase health care deductibility. We want every
single working American, and especially those today who are not allowed
to, by law, to be able to deduct their health care. We want every
single person to have health care. Every single person deserves a right
to have their own doctor, not just show up at some clinic, not just to
have a doctor available but their doctor who they know and understand.
We want to provide tax breaks for communities that do not have as
much money as others, and we want to strengthen private pension plans
to where people have an opportunity to save for their future.
What we are talking about is the tax limitation amendment that will
be the crowning jewel on responsibility, it is the crown jewel of
responsibility, to make it more difficult for the Members of Congress
to vote for tax increases. We have enough money. We should do the right
thing and yet we recognize, I recognize, that in this town we have not
flipped everybody.
{time} 2115
The real spenders are still out there, people who will take money.
This is why we have to have a tax limitation amendment, a two-thirds
majority.
Oh, the debate will happen here on the floor, trust me, the debate
where people will stand up and talk about we have got to spend more and
more and more and more and raise taxes more and more.
I would say that discipline and responsibility is what will make the
difference, and the responsibility comes down to what my party stands
for. My party deeply believes that, if we want to have America's
greatest days ahead of her, then we will empower people back home, men
and women, children, small businesses, large businesses, people to
invest in America because they know they can do so because the risk is
not there to say, when one becomes successful, the government in
Washington, D.C. wants their share, too. I think that they would
understand fair share is okay. But in Washington, if one is successful,
that means Washington wants more and more and more and more.
That is why we offer the tax limitation amendment. That is why this
is bipartisan. It is bipartisan. It makes sense, because we want to
create wealth and opportunity for generations to come. We want to get
away from where Washington, D.C. all of a sudden sees where, oh, there
is now an Internet out there, we ought to tax that. There is something
else out there, we have got to raise taxes on that.
We still have been paying, for 70 years, a telephone tax that was
done, ah, to raise money for the war. By the way, that was World War
II.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is even more profound than that. In
doing our research, we have crafted, again, bipartisan legislation to
end this. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the American people will note
with interest that a luxury tax was imposed on the telephone really
before the advent of the 20th Century. It came in the Spanish American
War.
So, Mr. Speaker, Teddy Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill, and
patrons of this new technology of the telephone, I guess at that time
it was fairly called a luxury, we are paying a luxury tax. Telephone
users since that time up until the present day at the advent of the
Internet is still paying a luxury tax on telephones instituted in the
Spanish American War.
We are taking steps to roll that back. Perhaps that is the most
graphic example of the institutional bias in Washington, D.C. toward
taxes.
Let us not forget that, in fact, what paved the way for the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution that allowed for the direct taxation of
personal income was a Supreme Court opinion that said direct taxation
of personal income would be constitutional provided it was a temporary
measure. That leads to what will transpire in our Committee on Ways and
Means this week, hearings on changing our tax system, on offering real
reform.
But, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for
shouldering the burden of responsibility and leadership and bringing to
the floor the tax limitation amendment. Because real reform starts with
this institutional change where we say, if raising taxes is so
important to us as a people, let us at least raise the standard, make
it difficult, make it more difficult, require a two-thirds majority, a
supermajority, as we do on questions of constitutional amendments, as
we do on questions of impeachment, of constitutional issues.
If we are willing to take these steps, there should be a standard of
accountability and a lack of institutional bias that always favors the
bureaucrat. There should be a leveling of responsibility and a higher
standard to protect the taxpayer. That is the key, the measure that
will be offered by the gentleman from Texas on this floor in the days
ahead. It is an important first step.
Mr. Speaker, as I think about Americans who may be within the sound
of my voice electronically, who may be there pouring over that Form
1040, maybe succumbing to the EZ Form because the hour grows late or
the deadline of April 15, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that those
Americans would take time to write, call, and fax their Members of
Congress to let them know where they stand, to let them say to their
advocates on Capitol Hill, you should advocate the notion that we
should raise the standard and eliminate the institutional bias toward
more and more and more taxation and higher and higher spending.
Just one final amendment to the amendment offered, in a friendly
rhetorical fashion, to the gentleman from Texas. There is really a
better word to use for surplus. Really what we have right now that is
widely referred to as a surplus is, in fact, an overcharge of the
American people who are now taxed at the highest level in our history
parallel only by a period of grave crisis in World War II.
There is no excuse in a time of relative peace, to be assured there
are challenges that confront us internationally, and we must provide
for the common defense, and we are willing to take those steps to
rebuild and restore our national defense, but having said that, there
is no excuse for the American people to be taxed at the same level at
which they found themselves taxed in World War II.
So with this tremendous overcharge, after setting aside a massive
portion for what it was designated for to begin with, strengthening
Social Security, strengthening Medicare, we owe it to the people who
have placed their trust in us to give that overcharge back.
When one pays for something at a store, if one gives a greater amount
of money in that retail exchange, one expects a return, one expects
cash back. With this overcharge, we are saying it is time to give that
money back to the people to whom it belongs.
That is why I applaud the gentleman from Texas, and that is why I
hope Americans, Mr. Speaker, within the sound of my voice will call,
write, fax, e-mail, phone their Congressional Representatives and ask
them to support this tax limitation amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, from
the 6th District. Tonight we have had my colleagues hear a wonderful
debate about the tax limitation amendment from the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall), a Democrat from the 4th District of Texas, and the
gentleman from the 6th District of Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). They had the
opportunity to talk about, not only their districts,
[[Page H2010]]
but their vision of what America is all about, and it should be more
difficult to raise taxes.
We heard the story about the senior earnings limit, the earnings
limit put on seniors years ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer),
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, this was the very first
bill that he presented upon being a Member of Congress 30 years ago.
After years of working on this effort, he finally succeeded in giving
the President of the United States, the House, and the Senate, the
other body, the opportunity to agree to this bill, what turned out to
be unanimous. What 5 years before was impossible, because the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) sat in the chair as the majority party
representative to the Committee on Ways and Means, it got signed into
law.
The tax limitation amendment, H.J. Res. 94, will be debated on
Wednesday. I hope my colleagues will join us to support this.
____________________