THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   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]  GPO's PDF

   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: 21:15]

   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]  GPO's PDF

   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.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents