[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6530-6537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 TAXES, SOCIAL SECURITY AND RETIREMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I, of course, have been here 
to hear the previous remarks.
  Let me make a point of clarification because I think it is very 
important. The previous speaker stated that the Speaker of the House 
sits idly by, or made some kind of reference in that regards, while the 
farmers out there suffer.
  I am from rural Colorado. The Speaker is from rural Illinois. If the 
previous speakers would have read the newspaper recently, they would 
find out the Speaker's wife does not stay in Washington but remains at 
home in rural Illinois.
  The Speaker cares about farmers. I do not know anybody in here who 
does not care about farmers, and I think it is grossly unfair for a 
speaker to stand up here, any speaker, and look out here, whether 
Republican or Democrat, and make the kind of audacious claim that for 
some reason because you are Republican or Democrat you do not care 
about farmers in America.
  Frankly, I have not found anybody in America that does not care about 
farmers. Now, sure, there are disagreements on what can be done to help 
save the farming community and so on, but I think you stoop a little 
too low when you stand up here at this microphone, a speaker, any 
speaker, and would say or infer that any Republican or Democrat in this 
body does not care about farmers. Of course, we do.
  Now let me go on now. This evening I am going to speak about taxes 
and a number of other issues.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I will not yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio. The 
previous speaker had an hour and now I would like to have an 
opportunity to have an hour.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, can I be recognized since the gentleman 
acknowledged that we had spoken?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Colorado

[[Page 6531]]

has the time. The gentlewoman will suspend.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio will state her 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is, did the gentleman not 
reference a prior speaker and therefore under the rules am I not 
allowed to respond?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's remarks are not grounds for 
recognition.
  The gentleman from Colorado may proceed.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, some of the things that we want to talk 
about this evening, I want to talk about taxes. Of course, tomorrow, 
April 15, that is the tax day. Before I begin these remarks in-depth, I 
want to make a couple of thank yous. First of all, I want to thank all 
of the American taxpayers. I want to thank those taxpayers who are 
honest. I want to thank those taxpayers who go out every day of the 
week and they work hard to earn money, and they pay their proportionate 
share of taxes so that this country can remain great. I want to thank 
those taxpayers who make sure that they file their tax returns on time.
  I want to assure the taxpayers of this country that there are a 
number of us on both sides of the aisle, there are a number of us who 
are devoted to making government more efficient and making government 
work for you. The concept of this government is not the taxpayers 
working for the government but the government working for the 
taxpayers.
  I am employed and all of my colleagues here on the floor, we are 
employed by the taxpayers of this country. It is the taxpayers to whom 
we respond. It is the taxpayers to whom we owe a fiduciary duty to run 
this government in the most efficient way that we can possibly do it. I 
can say despite all the rhetoric that we have heard about tax cuts, can 
you or can you not have them, if we could just on a uniform basis cut 
the government waste that we see in day to day operation within this 
government, we could cut the taxes across the board, a permanent tax 
cut.
  Of course, every time we cut waste back here in Washington we are 
getting into somebody's pocket because that money is not just put into 
a hole in the ground; it goes to somebody's benefit.
  What they tend to do in Washington, D.C. is build a wall to protect 
that benefit, even though it is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
  I want to say another thank you. That is thank you for the services 
that are being rendered, as we speak, by our men and women in uniform, 
not only in Kosovo and in the region over in the Balkans but throughout 
the entire world.
  When we take a look at what our military people make for pay, we will 
see why tax day is a tough day on them. It is a tough day on a lot of 
Americans that make that kind of salary, but these people are dedicated 
and they are showing their strength and the dedication and the 
patriotism toward this country not only in Kosovo in the military 
mission that we are engaged there, but in Korea, in Somalia, throughout 
the United States and Canada. We have troops throughout the world, and 
I want to say thank you to them tonight as well.
  Along with the thank you to our service people, I also want to come 
back to the taxpayer and thank you for helping us finance these 
soldiers, for helping us get them the best and most technologically 
advanced equipment in the world. Taxpayers, you have a lot to be proud 
of this evening, and it is now our duty, our continuing duty, and a 
number have tried to do this but it is our continuing duty, in 
appreciation to the sacrifices you make by sending this government 
money to fund it, it is our duty to make sure this government in turn 
gives you a bang for the buck. You deserve it. It is your money.
  You will hear some people say, well, the government spends its money. 
That is government money back in Washington, D.C.
  It is not government money. It is your money. It comes out of your 
workday every day of the week. It comes every time you go to the cash 
register, you pay taxes. We will go into a little more of that.
  Let us start with the taxpayer and the American worker. We all get a 
paycheck. I thought we could just kind of break down a typical 
paycheck. I asked someone in my office if we could use their paycheck 
stub. We have taken the name off, as can be seen, but let me just point 
out a couple of things here.
  This particular individual has a gross income of $1,958.33. Deducted 
from that is a retirement amount for the retirement account of $195.83. 
This particular taxpayer is a very responsible taxpayer because they 
are helping fund their future retirement.
  It is a mistake for the workers of this country, for all of us in 
this country, and most of us are workers in this country, for us to 
figure out or to depend on the government to provide our retirement for 
us. I think it is fair for us to depend on the government to provide a 
partial retirement through Social Security because we fund Social 
Security, as does this taxpayer, and we will look at Social Security 
here in a little more depth, but we also have a responsibility. We have 
personal responsibility to plan for those years in which we will not be 
employed, the golden years of our life, when we will not be in the 
workforce, it may be by choice, and where we are going to have a 
retirement.
  Do not expect the government to do it. We have personal 
responsibility. Most people I talk to accept that personal 
responsibility. So does this taxpayer. They put $195 a month aside for 
their retirement, and some evening I am going to come over here and 
visit a little about why I think the government retirement system works 
pretty efficiently for all government employees and what I think we can 
do with Social Security to track along the same kind of system that we 
have for retirement for two or three million Federal employees, and I 
think we will see the benefits and why that system works.
  This evening we are going to continue to stay focused on the taxes. 
So then go to the adjusted gross. The key down here that I want to take 
a look at is Social Security, $149.82. Now I want to talk briefly about 
Social Security and the kind of challenges that we face in the future 
about Social Security.
  Now why is Social Security in trouble? We have often heard that 
Social Security is in trouble because the government has borrowed from 
the Social Security funds to use that money in its general funds. Well, 
that is true, but let us not focus on that this evening because if the 
government paid back every penny of every dollar that they borrowed 
from the Social Security funds, and by the way the government is going 
to have to, I mean the government on the bottom line is obligated to do 
this, they are going to have to produce that, but even that said, if 
they paid it all back, Social Security still faces challenges, 
financial challenges, in the future.
  What brought on these financial challenges? Well, first of all, some 
good news. The good news is because of the medical technology in the 
greatest country in the world, our country, the United States of 
America, people now can expect to live to a later age. When Social 
Security first came in in 1940, when people retired at age 65 they 
could expect to live 12\1/2\ more years; 12\1/2\ more years. That is 
77\1/2\. That was the average expectation. Today we can expect to live 
another 17\1/2\ years beyond that point in time, by the year 2030. So I 
think it is very reasonable to expect that my children and my 
grandchildren, although I do not have my grandchildren but my expected 
grandchildren at some point, will live well up into their hundreds and 
probably beyond their hundreds.
  So we have good news. Life expectancy has gone up, but Social 
Security premiums have never really been adjusted to allocate for that. 
At some point we will have no choice but to raise the retirement age, 
which by the

[[Page 6532]]

way can be done pretty harmlessly over a long period of time, to 
allocate for this or raise the premiums.
  I think, of course, the fairer way to do it is do it kind of on an 
almost hold harmless, over a period of time raising the age limit.
  Let me go on and talk about the other issue that we have got here 
with Social Security, and that is that Social Security has kind of 
become a pay-as-you-go. Today, the average couple on Social Security 
draws out about $118,000 out of the system more than they have put into 
the system. We cannot have a system that operates like that for a very 
long period of time. So we have to figure out what benefits are going 
out, what money is coming in, what kind of adjustment we need to make 
for the extended life span.
  The other problem, of course, that we have is that when Social 
Security first came around, I am trying to remember the exact number 
but I think the ratio of recipients was something like 13 or 15 to 1. 
In other words, when Social Security came, there were 15 people working 
for every person retired.

                              {time}  2045

  Today that has changed. Today it is 3.4. We have 3\1/2\ workers out 
there for every person retired. In the not too distant future, we are 
going to have two people working for every person retired. We have to 
stand up and face the social security.
  We have done that in part. The Republicans specifically have put in 
place a lockbox to lock money for the future of social security. That 
all said, and talking about the problems of social security, let me say 
what has gone right about social security. Number one, the checks go 
out every month.
  I cannot believe some of the propaganda that has been going out there 
to the general public saying, oh, your social security is going to be 
cut off. You can tell it is political season when we hear statements 
like that.
  I can tell Members today without exception, without condition, that 
everybody on social security today faces no threat of losing that 
social security check. Their check will continue to come. In fact, the 
people in my generation, which is the generation behind the retired 
folks today, that generation as well, there is money in there to fund 
that generation. The generation we have to worry about are my children. 
Those people that are, say, under 20 years old today or under 25 years, 
that is the generation that we have an obligation to plan for at that 
point in the future.
  However, up to that point in time, do not let politicians or do not 
let other people try and propagandize that we are going to lose our 
social security checks. My gosh, our seniors have enough to worry about 
when they reach that age.
  To get that fear, we sell a lot by fear. Take a look at the Y2K 
program. If people are like me, they get mail every day trying through 
fear to get us to buy their product, trying to get around Y2K. They do 
the same thing with social security.
  We should not let them throw that fear factor into us. When we see 
them throwing that fear into senior citizens, saying, you are going to 
lose your social security, the Republicans do this to social security, 
it is not going to happen. The money is there today for social security 
recipients. It is there tomorrow. It is 25 years from now that we have 
to plan for.
  We, frankly, on the Republican side, and I am proud of this, I am not 
trying to be partisan here, I am trying to say it is a priority. In our 
Republican conferences, it is good to see us talking about the future, 
instead of just trying to handle the problems that come in today. We 
are trying to plan for the future 25 years out, 25 years out.
  That is what a lot of people, in fact, the person who has this check 
is trying to plan their future 25 years out. With this retirement here, 
this $195.83, that is positive. Social security is positive. The 
lockbox is positive.
  I think the person with this check right now, with the three-legged 
approach, one, the retirement that they have, that they put aside with 
their employment; two, the retirement or investments they plan on their 
own; and three, social security, I think people will be able to 
comfortably retire in this country for some time to come.
  We are always going to find the exceptions, but in general, I think 
people can feel pretty good about social security. But that does not 
mean, that does not mean that we do not need to plan for the financial 
woes that will occur if we do not adequately address them today about 
25 years from now.
  Let us go on to the Federal tax, what this person pays in Federal 
tax, $231.25. Their health insurance, again, good planning by an 
employee. Let me step back. It is amazing how many people in this 
country are offered health insurance by their employer but they opt not 
to take it.
  This particular employee is taking the health insurance. That is a 
wise investment. That is a smart investment. Regardless of what people 
think, whether we should have nationalized health, which I strongly 
oppose, by the way, but regardless of where we think we should be with 
health care, until that is resolved I think it is pretty smart to take 
out a health insurance policy. That is what is occurring here.
  Here is the Federal tax, $231.25. I want us all to consider, we have 
a pretty healthy economy today. When things seem to be going well, 
people tend to downplay the burden that we, the taxpayers, are actually 
carrying here. Once again, I think we owe taxpayers appreciation. They 
are funding the government. The government is not running as 
efficiently as it should for them, but I think they are doing more than 
their share, the honest taxpayers out there, by sending the money this 
way, by funding this government. So we owe this accountability.
  Let us take a look at the tax burden on Americans. I have been 
reading a lot of editorials, especially this week. April 15th, 
tomorrow, is taxpayer day. That is the day we have to drive to the 
postal system and drop it in the mailbox. I have heard a lot of people 
say, hey, the taxes are not so bad. It is because times are good, but 
we should not let it sneak up on us.
  In World War II was when we had our highest tax, in 1944, pretty 
understandable in a war, 20.9 percent. Then, in 1945, it actually 
dropped to 20.4 percent. But compared to what it is today, in the year 
2000, under the Clinton budget it would be 20.7 percent. So it goes 
right in since 1944, it would be the second highest tax rate, total tax 
rate, that we would have. I do not think the taxpayer should be paying 
that much in taxes. I think we have a lot of efficiencies out there in 
government that can be realized.
  Let me say, I think that philosophy is shared, by the way, by Members 
on both sides of the aisle. Unlike some people who come to this podium 
just to attack, attack the other party, I think there are people in 
both parties trying to get some accountability, trying to get a more 
efficient government.
  But I am not a keen supporter, I can tell the Members right now, of 
this budget right here that would put us in at about 20.7 percent. 
After we pay those taxes that we showed in the previous poster, we need 
to take a look at what else we pay taxes on.
  First, as we saw, this particular taxpayer had the deduction taken 
out of their check, so that is what goes to the Federal Government. 
They also had, and I did not show it on the tax stub, they also had in 
there a deduction for State income tax.
  Let us take a look at the average day. When we wake up in the 
morning, generally we sleep in an apartment or a house and we have 
property taxes we pay for, so so far we have Federal taxes, State 
taxes, now we have property taxes.
  If we turn on the lights in the house when we get up in the morning 
we have utility taxes, so now we have Federal taxes, State taxes, 
property taxes, and utility taxes. Then we go to get something to eat, 
we pull a bowl out of the cabinet, we pull a coffee cup out of the 
cabinet, and we have sales taxes. We have paid sales taxes.
  It is interesting, I have a lot of young people that come to my 
office. I take great delight, and by the way, this generation, this new 
generation we have, these kids are terrific. They are bright,

[[Page 6533]]

they are capable. When I talk to them in my office, I say, do you pay 
taxes? It is surprising, a lot of them say, no, not yet, not like our 
parents. But we probably will when we go to work. I say, no, you pay 
taxes every time you go to the store. No matter how old you are, you 
pay a sales tax.
  So now what we have, we have Federal income tax, we have State income 
tax, we have property tax, we have utility tax, and now we have sales 
tax.
  On top of the sales tax, of course, then we drive our cars to work. 
Take a look at our gasoline tax. I know in Colorado, in Colorado I 
think it is 22 cents; not think, I know, the State is 22 cents and the 
Federal Government charges 18 cents. That is 40 cents per gallon.
  It was not very long ago, it was not very long ago, that gasoline in 
Glenwood Springs or in Colorado was about, I don't know, a dollar a 
gallon. I called my friend today, Al Stroobants over on the western 
slope, and I called Bill Vollbraught, my friend in Denver, and asked 
him, what is the price of gas? It has gone up a little.
  For the sake of easy calculations, let's talk about a dollar per 
gallon. When we stop at the gas station, for every dollar we pay the 
attendant, here is a dollar for my gas bill, we get 60 cents worth of 
gas. We pay 40 cents in taxes. Take that out. For every $10 we pay the 
gas attendant for the $10 bill on the gas pump, for that $10 we get $6 
of gasoline and $4 of taxes.
  So where are we so far? We have Federal taxes, State taxes, property 
taxes, utility taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes. Then what we do, we 
go and have a friend, let's say, that comes to visit us, or take a 
flight from the airport, go out to the airport. Then there are 
passenger taxes and other fees. We have fees to do this, fees for a 
rent-a-car, taxes to get on the airplane.
  Then, if you decide when you fly to your destination you want to stay 
in your hotel, you have a hotel tax that is put on top of that. Then 
finally if you get a little depressed about the whole thing and you 
decide to, without driving, by the way, without driving, you decide to 
have a beer, you are going to pay a tax on alcohol, and take a look at 
what the percentage of that is.
  Then, if you are unfortunate and you happen to pass away with too 
much property, then the government is going to put a death tax on you. 
No matter what level of property that you have, they still tax certain 
items in funeral preparations and other things like that involved with 
your death.
  There are lots and lots of taxes in our society. That is where we get 
to that overall tax burden, which is among the highest in our country's 
history. Do not let it creep up on you. Do not let these increased 
taxes creep up on you when the economy is good. That is when people 
seem to pay the least amount of attention to their taxes. That is when 
the economy is good. It creeps up on them.
  Take a look at special districts. Special districts have a special 
use in our country. We need them, especially in rural America, but a 
lot of people never see what their special district taxes are because 
those are paid by the mortgage banker. You send one check in a month, 
just like my wife and I do, we send our check in once a month to the 
mortgage company, and the mortgage company then turns around and pays 
the school tax, the cemetery district tax, the library district tax, 
the recreation district tax, et cetera, et cetera, so those are even 
more taxes.
  I am not up here bashing the fact we pay taxes. We cannot have a 
government if we do not pay taxes. What I am saying, as this tax level 
begins to creep up and up, you as the taxpayers, you are our employers. 
We work for you. You have every right to demand efficiency and 
productivity from your government because you are paying those taxes. 
You are paying them at every level.
  When we go to the airport and pay a passenger tax, we are entitled to 
have an airport that is efficient. When we go and drive on a State 
highway or Federal highway, we have a right to expect a highway that is 
safe, a highway that is well-engineered, and a highway that is built 
with construction dollars that are done in such a way that it is 
competitive.
  As I mentioned earlier, I think we can be very, very pleased about 
the efficiency and the dollars that are being spent on our soldiers 
over in Kosovo. I think they are doing a darned good job, not just 
because of the fact that they are putting their lives on the line, 
which of course is the most critical issue that we have facing us 
today, but by gosh, we are getting good delivery. We have got very 
efficient forces over there.
  In fact, I know a family, I will intercede this here, Steve and Janet 
Westhof, I want to say hello if I get an opportunity to in the next 
couple of days, but they have six kids, six kids, and five of them are 
in our military. We can be assured that our taxpayer dollars, we are 
getting our worth out of those five Westhof kids that are serving out 
of Colorado in the military.
  Let us go on and talk a little more about some of the tax breaks and 
things that I think are important. How we calculate taxes, it is just 
like when we are paying for some kind of service. If you are paying for 
lawn service, you are starting your lawn service this summer and you 
are paying for somebody to come mow your lawn, you adjust that every 
year. One year you may decide to have bushes trimmed in addition to the 
lawn mowed, so it is going to adjust what you pay. The next year if you 
decide to trim the bushes yourself, then you should expect you are 
going to pay less to mow the lawn. If you do not pay less but you are 
getting less services, something is wrong with that formula. You need 
to calculate what is going on.
  Right now in our government there are some efficiencies that we have 
realized. There are some tax credits that are very significant. Once 
again as a Republican I take a great deal of pride in the fact, one, we 
are going to have a budget tomorrow; number two, we have delivered 
significant tax cuts in the last couple of years.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues out here, and I assume most 
of them, own their homes, but take a look at this, and again, I am 
proud of it. I am proud to be a Republican. I think we have done some 
very positive things, not partisan, positive things for the taxpayer 
out there.
  What have we done? The house. If any Members have sold a house this 
last year, they need to go see their tax accountant, make sure they 
have given that information to their tax accountant before those taxes 
are filed tomorrow, because they may be entitled to one of the largest 
tax breaks they have received during their entire working career.
  What do I mean by that? First of all, let us talk about the old rule, 
if you sold your house for a net profit. Now remember, on a house, if 
you bought a house for $100 and if you were to sell the house, it is 
only worth $100, but you have been paying on it for several years, so 
you now only owe $50 on it. So you sell the house for $100 but you have 
been paying $50, you only owe $50 on it, you have $50 in your pocket 
after you sell the house. That is not net income, that is net equity. 
Net income would be if you bought the house for $100, you paid down 
$50, so you now have $50 that you owe on it, but you sell the house for 
$150. You have $50 of equity and $50 of net income.
  In the past the government has gone to that $50 of net income and 
they have taxed you on that. There was one exception to it. If you were 
62 years of age or older, you got a once-in-a-lifetime tax exemption 
that one time of up to $120,000.
  The Republicans changed that last year. It was a Republican-led plus. 
This had bipartisan support, some Democrats voted for it, but it is an 
important one. What does it do? Let us take a look at before this tax 
bill, before the Republican tax bill. Let us take a look at what an 
individual, and now, most homes are owned by couples, so let us look at 
the couple column, which is right here where the red light is.

                              {time}  2100

  You buy the House, this is before we changed the tax law, you bought 
the House for $200,000. You sold the House for $700,000. So you have 
obviously recognized a large net profit. Your profit

[[Page 6534]]

is $500,000. The income that would be taxed under the old law for a 
couple would be $500,000. What did we do? We gave you an exemption that 
is good every 2 years, not when you are 62, but you get it renewed 
every 2 years on your primary residence.
  Here is what the status is with the same house after the tax credit 
bill that we put in place last year. A couple again, they buy the house 
for $200,000. They sell the house for $700,000. Again just like over 
here, before the tax break, they make $500,000. So they make $500,000 
under either circumstance.
  But look what the difference is. Here is the column. The income that 
will be taxed is zero. Zero. Here the income that would be taxed was 
$500,000. That is significant.
  It will apply to every homeowner in this country whether you live in 
Missouri or New York or Colorado or California or Alaska. Every 
homeowner in this country that sells their home for a net profit will 
get a tax benefit, thanks to the hard work of the Congress.
  The hard work, again I want to come back, the hardest work is by the 
taxpayer, which funds the Congress. But we are the managers of that 
money. Through the management of that money, we have determined that 
those of you who own homes, and that is most of America, deserve a 
break today when you sell your home for a net profit. That is 
significant.
  Here is another tax break that I think is worthy of us looking at, 
because this means millions of families across this country will have 
more dollars to spend, more dollars coming back to you.
  Let us go again through the system of how the taxes work. The money 
the government has is not created in Washington, D.C. It is created by 
your hard work, by your contribution to capital, by your sweat, by 
working and showing up and working those 8 or 10 or 12 or 14 hours 
every day. That is how money gets to government.
  As you know, it comes up through several different layers of 
government. It means there are a lot of middlemen in the government 
that take a little here, take a little there. We need to make sure that 
we are operating in an efficient manner. If we have excess cash, we 
ought to give it back to you.
  Now excess cash is excess cash after we have planned for Social 
Security, after we have planned for Medicare and after we have planned 
to reduce the national debt.
  Remember, it was not very many years ago we used to be mocked. The 
Republicans were laughed at when we stood up and told the American 
people, we were not laughed at by the American people, some maybe, but 
we were laughed at by some of our political opponents who said we will 
never get rid of the annual deficit. This government is always going to 
operate with a deficit. We thought we could accomplish it by 2004. We 
actually accomplished it in 1999. That is pretty significant.
  Now we have got to take on the national debt. But in doing that, we 
have got to be fair to the people that pay the bill; and that is you, 
the taxpayers.
  Here is one of the things that we have done. It is tough today, 
economically, to bring up a family, even a family of four, with the 
kind of needs that you have. My gosh, it is wonderful in America that 
we have the kind of opportunities that we do. America is a darn good 
place to live. I am proud to not only be a citizen of the United 
States, to be here in America, but I am proud to be a representative of 
the citizens of America.
  But our families, we want to allow our families to have as many 
things as they can have. Frankly, even some of the families in worst 
shape, are in the lower end of our standard of living here, are still 
better off than a lot of the other countries in the world.
  But the point is, how do we get to the average family? How do we get 
some dollars back to the average family so they have a little better 
opportunity at educating their young children, at making sure their 
young children have the best or at least some good opportunities or 
good clothes, good food, good transportation, a good home with good 
heat, with good air conditioning, those kinds of things? What are some 
of the things that we could do?
  We took a look at the tax credit that we gave for the sale of a home. 
The beauty of that tax credit is most people use that to buy another 
home.
  Here we have what we call the child care credit. A family of four 
under this tax credit, if they have two children under age 17, they 
have $45,000 a year annual income; and, by the way, there are a lot of 
people out there, especially if both husband and the wife work outside 
the home, $45,000 between the two of them is not unusual. In 1998, we 
allowed a $400 per child credit that is a direct credit, $400 per child 
in 1999. That will increase to $500 per child, $500 per child.
  The tax credit here before the Republican tax credit went into place, 
this couple that earned $45,000, family of four, two children under 17 
could expect on that income to pay approximately $5,134. After that tax 
credit, they now pay $4,334, or $800 less.
  To some people $800 is not a lot of money. To me it is. To most 
American families it is a lot of money. One of the problems in 
government is if the people that work for you in government begin to 
become somewhat callous towards the value of money.
  I have talked to people in government who say, well, what is $800 out 
there? Hey, get out there and try and earn 800 bucks. That is a lot of 
money. It means a lot to a family, and it means a lot to a family of 
four, and it means a lot to a family with young children or to a family 
that is retired. Eight hundred dollars are big bucks, and that is why 
these tax credits mean something.
  I know in campaign season they always say, well, the Republicans, 
they give tax breaks to the rich. Rich? Is that what you call rich, 
those people? Not all homeowners in this country are rich.
  Most families in this country are rich with love, family love. We 
have lots of love. We need more. I am not getting into the social issue 
here. But the fact is most of the families that own homes in this 
country are not rich, and that is who that tax credit goes to help. 
Most people in this country are not rich by those standards, certainly 
by $45,000 a year standards. That tax credit of $800 goes to help them.
  These are not insignificant numbers. The taxpayer is entitled, if the 
circumstances warrant, and which by the way, a good economy has allowed 
that to occur, a break today. Let us give them a break today.
  Let us go to our employers and say, what you have been paying me is 
great, but we think we have found some management efficiencies 
whereunder we can manage Social Security and make sure everybody 
continues to get their check and we are confident we can.
  Medicare will be secure. We have a lock box. We lock the money away. 
We will be able to take down the national debt. We are still going to 
have a little left for you, a little left for you, the very person that 
goes out there and works every day of the week or 5 days a week or 
whatever your work pattern is to make it possible so we have the money 
to run this government, by the way, run this government on your behalf.
  Let me once again mention Kosovo and the situation we have got over 
there. We have to come back to the American taxpayer. We are not going 
to have to raise your taxes, by the way, to fund Kosovo. But this is a 
very, very expensive operation.
  I do not know one Democrat and I do not know one Republican that 
wants to cut our soldiers or our people in uniform, regardless of where 
they are, or our manufacturers that are supplying these products as 
long as they supply them on a fair value. I do not know anybody on 
either side of the aisle that wants to short our military.
  We may have disagreements on Kosovo, and I think they are significant 
disagreements on Kosovo and the policy in the Balkans and so on, but 
policy is separate than the issue of support for our soldiers.
  We will afford, we will pay for, and we can pay for every weapon that 
our military soldiers need, every meal, every uniform, every paycheck. 
We can meet the needs of the American military.

[[Page 6535]]

  But that money means that we have to do some more financial planning 
back here in Washington, D.C. It means that we will not be able to 
reduce the national debt at the same rate that we thought we could 
reduce it just a month ago. It means that we have an emergency spending 
number in front of us.
  What we have to consider is how far into the future that emergency 
spending dollar goes. I am one of those people that happens to think 
that this operation will not stop today at $3 billion.
  I am one of those people that thinks that this operation costs us 
about $100 million a day and that we have many, many, many more days 
into the future to fund this operation. This will be a significant cost 
item for you the taxpayer. Let us not clown around.
  It is like having a meeting with your bosses. We need to report it up 
front. We have a very expensive item on the radar. It is on the agenda 
right now. It is Kosovo. It may not end when the bombing stops, by the 
way, because the United States, one, we have a strong sense of 
humanitarian belief to take care of the sick people, to go in and 
assist where we can. That is expensive.
  Number two, if we maintain a peacekeeping force through the auspices 
of NATO, by the way the United States carries the biggest burden there, 
and the United States usually carries the big burden. I am proud of 
that on one hand, and on the other hand, it is kind of like going 
camping and having everybody gather firewood. If you have got people 
that is capable or closest capable to you that is gathering firewood, 
they ought to be out there gathering firewood if they want to sit by 
the fire. But we have to constantly make sure everybody carries their 
fair burden.
  But this Kosovo situation can get expensive. It is expensive right 
now. We will fund it. We have got the money to fund it. But you need to 
be patient. We all need to be patient and understand that our reduction 
of the national debt, which is critical for the Republican Party and I 
think critical for many of my colleagues on the Democratic Party, that 
the preservation of Social Security, which is critical for all of us, 
that the preservation of Medicare, which is critical for all of us, 
that we are going to have to make some adjustments.
  It does not mean they are going to be in trouble or that we are not 
going to be able to do what we had originally committed to do. We are. 
But it does mean we have an emergency expenditure out there, and it is 
called Kosovo.
  Let me talk about another tax that I think is very unfair, the 
marriage penalty. Let me talk about a couple other taxes that are very 
unfair. They are inherently unfair. To me, there is no justification 
for these types of taxes. These are taxes that the taxpayer should not 
be paying because it is unfair to the taxpayer. Not that it is a heavy 
burden on the taxpayer, it is, but that it is an unjustified tax. It is 
not right to tax people like we are going to tax them, like the 
government has been taxing them.
  One of them is the marriage penalty. My gosh, folks, this is the 
United States of America. This is a country where we think family is of 
the highest priority. We encourage marriage in this country. We 
encourage people to stay married in this country. We know, the 
statistics prove, I do not care whether you are a conservative clear to 
the right or whether you are a liberal clear to the left, the fact is, 
the bottom line is we know that a married couple has a lot better 
chance of success at raising their young than does a single person. It 
is just reality out there.
  But yet the government, despite the fact that we encourage marriage, 
despite the fact that we know that married couples have much better 
odds of raising children and much less dropout rate, et cetera, et 
cetera, et cetera, despite the fact that we know all of this, the 
government still continues to impose a marriage penalty when it comes 
time to pay your taxes tomorrow.
  So those of you who pay your taxes tomorrow, which most of the people 
that we are talking about, most of my colleagues here, if you are 
married, you pay an additional tax penalty because of the simple fact 
that you are married. That does not make any sense. It does not make 
sense to me, and it does not make sense to you. But we have a lot of 
people out there who are not even aware of the fact that we have a 
marriage tax penalty.
  One of the big priorities of the Republican conference this year is 
get rid of that marriage tax penalty. We may be delayed if we spend a 
lot of money in emergency dollars. Those emergency dollars are 
justified, and I want to make sure we get a good bargain on them. But 
we know that a lot of those dollars are justified. So it may delay it.
  But as soon as we can afford to do it, we need to get rid of that 
tax. We need to get rid of the tax not just when we can afford it but 
because it is an unfair tax. It goes contrary to the type of society we 
want to pursue. We want a type of society where marriage is encouraged, 
not where marriage is penalized.

                              {time}  2115

  It does not make sense.
  What is the other tax that is unfair? It is the death tax. The death 
tax. We are taxed when we die. Now, granted, there are exceptions to 
that. We do not have to pay taxes if we have an estate up to $650,000, 
and that is moving up. But take a look first of all at those people who 
do.
  I do not care whether an individual is rich, I do not care whether an 
individual is poor, I do not care whether an individual is middle 
class, no one should ever have to pay a tax that is unfair. And if 
someone is paying a tax that is unfair, even if it just affects the 
poor people, the middle class and the wealthy people ought to be just 
as aggressive at getting rid of that tax that unfairly taxes the poor 
people with a lower standard of living.
  And, likewise, the poorer income should be just as aggressive about 
taking away a tax that is unfair to the middle income and so on up the 
line. If it is an unfair tax, it is an unfair tax whether an individual 
makes minimum wage or whether an individual a million a year. It is an 
unfair tax, and that is what the death tax is all about.
  Now, with the death tax, are we taxing property that somehow has 
escaped taxation during the life of the person who earned that? No, not 
at all. In fact, we are taxing once again property that on many 
occasions has been taxed not only once, not only twice but sometimes 
three and four times.
  So what creates the death tax is simply the fact that a person has 
died. And the reason it creates it is the government says, ``Hey, old 
Scott's gone, so let's just go ahead and go after it.'' That is a good 
legitimate reason to take money from our citizens; they are dead, they 
are not going to complain any more. But, my gosh, realize what the 
ramifications are of this death tax.
  Take a look at the State that I am from. I am from the State of 
Colorado. My district is the Third Congressional District. Most 
Americans have been in my district. If you have ever skied, you have 
been in the Third Congressional District. If you love beautiful 
mountains, you have been in the Third Congressional District. It is a 
beautiful area. But it has a very heavy dependency on two things. Well, 
on several things but two I want to talk about. One, small business 
and, two, agriculture.
  Now, what do I mean by small business and agriculture? With the 
values today, as rapidly as they have increased in our healthy economy, 
we find out that the best way to lose a small business is to die. We 
cannot pass it on to the next generation because of the punitive taxes 
that they put on us, despite the fact that we may have bought our 
business and grew our business with after-tax dollars. In other words, 
we have already paid the taxes at least once, twice or three times.
  We have a country that we should encourage people to be married, we 
should not penalize them for being married. We have a country that we 
should encourage one generation to pass on the small business to the 
next generation. We should not discourage them. We should not tax them 
out of it. The government is not getting cheated. The government is not 
getting cheated because people get married.

[[Page 6536]]

They are not getting cheated out of any taxes. And the government is 
not getting cheated because somebody dies, on property that the dead 
person, when they were alive, owned. They are not getting cheated. It 
is just another opportunity to grab more money out of our pockets.
  What is the impact? Well, first of all, as I mentioned, you cannot 
pass a business from generation to generation. It is very difficult to 
do it. Now, if you have a lot of money, maybe you can buy the life 
insurance that is necessary to pay off the government. Pay them off and 
get the government off your back steps. That is what it is, it is a 
payoff to the government, but a lot of small business people simply 
cannot afford that.
  The other thing that Colorado is heavily dependent on is agriculture. 
We are very selfish with our land, so to speak, in Colorado. We want to 
preserve the land. Open space has become more and more critical to the 
citizens of Colorado. It is important for us to preserve our beauty.
  We have to work a lot more in balance than perhaps was worked 20 or 
30 years ago. What we find ourselves in is a predicament. Land values 
have gone up in Colorado. They have gone up significantly. Well, if you 
have a small family farm or a ranch, and your land values have gone up, 
it is highly likely, highly probable that your ranch, upon your death, 
will not be able to be passed on to your son or your daughter but will 
have to be sold at the auction block to pay Uncle Sam.
  I will give you an example. I know a family, I will not tell you the 
exact location, but it is in the Third Congressional District of the 
State of Colorado. This fellow was a very hard-working man. He came to 
Colorado when he was about 18 years old. He started as a bookkeeper in 
a construction company. He worked his way up. Pretty soon he worked 
from being a bookkeeper into helping supervise construction. He dug 
ditches, but he soon was driving a truck and he had the books. Pretty 
soon he built that construction, he and a partner, into a successful 
construction company in a small town in Colorado.
  Along the way, this man and his partner found out that they were 
having trouble getting financing for their construction company. So 
they decided, well, let us start a little bank. A small bank. This is 
not Nation's First or some other big bank. Let us start a little bank 
in our little community. So they started this little bank in their 
community.
  Well, that was probably 50 years ago. About 8 years ago my friend 
decided to sell the bank. And by then, of course, the bank had become a 
very strong small business. It had grown. They put a lot of sweat, a 
lot of their own human capital into it and it has prospered.
  So they decided to sell the bank, and they sold the bank. 
Unfortunately, within a very short period of time, literally weeks 
after the bank was sold, my good friend discovered he had terminal 
cancer. Then, unfortunately, he lost his wife. Three or four months 
later, my friend passed away from terminal cancer.
  What happened? Well, he still had the stock in the construction 
company. They sold the bank and they hit him with a capital gains 
taxation. Do you know what the effective rate of taxation was on that 
estate? When you put capital gains tax, which is complicated, but a lot 
of you out there understand what I am speaking about, and you put the 
death tax on top of it, they went into this family, to that man who had 
worked over 50 years with sweat and toil and put human capital into 
this investment, the government went in there, and the property that 
had already been taxed at least once, probably twice or three times, 
and imposed a 72 percent tax on the property.
  Now, when I spoke with the family, I asked them, I said, ``So all you 
had left in the estate was 28 percent because the government took 72 
percent?'' No, they said, we did not get 28 percent because the 
government came to us and said here is the tax, 72 percent, and, by the 
way, it is due within this period of time.
  The only way that the family could come up with that money to pay off 
the government on property that had already been taxed but was now 
being taxed simply because their father had died, the only way they 
could pay that off was to sell at a fire sale their assets, their 
property, selling it as quickly as they could. Otherwise, they were 
going to be penalized by the government.
  So the 28 percent did not really work out to 28 percent because they 
had to sell it under panic prices. They told me they estimated they 
cleared about 13 percent of that estate. Thirteen percent of what that 
man had worked for. That man and wife, by the way. The mother was a 
homemaker, but she deserves as much credit here. The money that couple 
had worked for for over 50 some years, the little company they had 
built up, the little bank they had built up, the farmland that they had 
was all taken in one sweep by the government.
  Is that fair? It is not a fair tax. The death tax is not a fair tax. 
And the death tax, while it may apply to people that only have assets 
of $600,000 or more, it impacts all of society. And you cannot under 
any circumstances, in my opinion, justify going to a family that has 
already paid their taxes and force them to pay a punitive tax on top of 
that.
  Now, has it impacted Colorado? Sure. What happens to the ranches? If 
you have a ranch that has to be sold, what is the highest and best use 
for ranch land in Colorado? Well, unfortunately, for a lot of land in 
Colorado, especially in my district, the Third Congressional District, 
the beauty of it, if it is no longer a ranch or a farm, you can put 
condominiums on it, build huge homes on it, put it into five-acre 
estates. That is where the highest value of that land is. Move the 
water off the land. I could talk 2 hours on water. Move the water off 
the land. Change the historical nature of that property.
  And I think in most cases it changes for the worst. It takes away our 
open space. It threatens our open space. It threatens generations of 
families being able to stay and raise their young in the mountains of 
Colorado, because of a tax imposed by the government that is unfair to 
start with.
  Well, I think Americans right now are paying a lot of taxes, and I 
think that tomorrow, on April 15, there are a few things we should 
consider, and let me summarize.
  Number one, everybody that works in the government ought to be 
thanking every taxpayer out there for funding it. Mr. Taxpayer, Mrs. 
Taxpayer, young taxpayer, old taxpayer, you hear it right now. Thank 
you. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for being willing to be, 
one, honest on your taxes; two, to pay your taxes; and, three, to allow 
your government to work for you.
  The second point I want to make to you, we have an obligation back to 
you, working as the government. We have an obligation as elected 
officials, as appointed people working for the government, as employees 
of the government, no matter how you classify it, we work for you and 
we have an obligation to deliver the most efficient product we can on 
behalf of the government that works for you.
  Number three, we have an obligation, and the Republicans are taking 
charge, this is a priority for them, to eliminate unfair taxation, and 
we should start with the marriage penalty. The marriage penalty, no 
matter how we cut it, no matter whether we are a Democrat or a 
Republican, no matter what level we are, the marriage penalty is an 
unfair tax and it has costs in society, costs that are negative. It is 
not a positive thing to look at. Marriage penalty taxes are unfair and 
they should be eliminated.
  Number four, do not just let people dismiss death taxes as taxes for 
the rich. It has an impact. It has a ripple impact all the way down. 
Take a look at the open space in Colorado and then take a look at the 
very premise for that kind of tax.
  Is it fair? Is it on property that has not been taxed? The answer to 
that is no. The death tax is a tax on property that has been taxed 
once, twice or three times. That tax should be eliminated. It is not 
fair. The death tax

[[Page 6537]]

should not go straight to the government. It is not right.
  Finally, let me wrap it up with a few words once again thanking our 
soldiers who are serving us tonight, wherever you are in the world. To 
me, the servicemen and women we have right now on the DMZ, in North 
Korea, South Korea, right on the DMZ between South Korea and North 
Korea, those are some pretty brave people up there, men and women, 
serving that duty. Throughout the world they are serving us.
  I want you to know that with bipartisan support, unified support, I 
do not think there is a ``no'' vote in the body, this body has voted to 
give a tax break. We will vote tomorrow unanimously, not one ``no'' 
vote from Democrat or Republican. We will vote unanimously to recognize 
the service of these soldiers and give them a tax break. They deserve 
it. They are delivering for us. You are getting a good product. You are 
getting good and efficient service from our military today.
  You may disagree with the policy. I have got problems with the 
policy, for example, in the Balkans. That is what I am referring to 
specifically. You may disagree with that. But the fact of what those 
military people are doing will be observed tomorrow on April 15 with 
this bill that will give them some tax relief. So I want to thank those 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now ready to wrap up. Tomorrow is April 15. Folks, 
take a look at what you are paying in taxes. We should pay taxes for 
the right kind of product. But just remember, as I conclude tonight, 
that you have every right, it is a fundamental right to look at the 
people that work for you, that is the government, the government works 
for you, and demand from that government efficiency and a good product.
  If you are not getting efficiency, if you are not getting a good 
product, then you should demand that you get your money back. And if 
you are paying too much money for the product you are getting, you are 
entitled to get your money back, just the same as if you went to the 
grocery store and you overpaid there.
  America to me is a very positive thing. I am positive about our 
economy, I am positive about our soldiers, I am positive about the 
American people. We have a lot to look forward to. And in this country 
there is a lot more that goes right than there is that goes wrong. But 
in order for it to work, we have to be sure that we balance that 
payment from the taxpayer to the government.

                          ____________________