Kenny Hulshof

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation's youth head back to school, our attention is obviously focused on education. I would like to focus the national spotlight on one university in Missouri's Ninth Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor of representing 16 colleges and universities. Each of these institutions of higher learning in central and northeastern Missouri deserves accolades. Tonight, however, I am happy to single out and congratulate one of those exceptional universities, Truman State, nestled in the heart of Kirksville, MO. Truman State University has received numerous awards in recent college rankings. According to the September 1 issue of U.S. News & World Report, Truman State is the top public university in the entire Midwest. In addition, Mr. Speaker, for the fifth consecutive year, Truman State University is ranked among Money magazine's top 10 best college buys in the country. Frank Lalli, the managing editor for Money magazine says, ``There is always this myth in America that only a name college, only a Harvard, only a Yale provides a great education. It's just not true.'' Ranking 8th in the entire Nation, Truman State University consistently reaffirms its reputation as an excellent and affordable liberal arts university. Truman is the only Missouri public institution to make Money's top 100 list. Truman also was ranked as the best value in the Midwest. Money magazine based its selection on graduation rates, social climates, as well as student accessibility to professors. With a student-faculty ratio of 16 to 1, Truman State students can develop close relationships with their professors. I have had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to meet many students and professors who personally validate these recent rankings. John Burns, a Truman State junior, joined my Washington, DC, staff for part of the summer and did exceptional work. But perhaps no one exemplifies the spirit of this great institution better than my good friend, Jack Magruder. As President, Dr. Magruder is a tireless ambassador for Truman State. When looking for someone responsible for Truman State University's ascendance to the top of the Nation's colleges, the buck stops at Jack's door. Mr. Speaker, we in Missouri's Ninth Congressional District are extremely proud that one of our institutions of higher learning is considered among the Nation's elite. The administration, the faculty and the student body at Truman State University deserve kudos for their hard work, their dedication to excellence and their commitment to a superior liberal arts education.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, continuing the tradition that we have tried to begin as newly elected Republican Members focusing on positive success stories across the district, as you know just as our Nation's children are returning to schools all across this great land, we lawmakers are returning here to Washington and I think probably sharing some of the mixed emotions that our schoolchildren have as far as returning here to this establishment. What we do here, of course, is very important with the bills and the debates and our struggles here. But I think what we do pales in comparison to the real life struggles that our constituents, the American people, are facing each and every day. We talk about this 4-week period of time here in August, or just as August past, as a recess or a vacation. And I know many of the newly elected Members did not consider it as a vacation, as a recess. It was a very good time to get back home to really probe the minds and listen. And I think if anything that we have been able to accomplish that has been the most fruitful is that we stop shouting long enough in this body to listen to what the American people have to say. And when we began to listen to those men and women that have been struggling to keep a roof overhead and keep food on the table, what we heard them tell us is that they were working longer and harder and yet had less to show for it at the end of the month and wondering where their tax monies had gone. Basically what I was hearing, in a series of town hall meetings, was that the people back home in Missouri's Ninth Congressional District wanted us to change our ways here in Washington so that they would not have to change their ways back home. I know certainly that there has been a wide difference of opinion on the budget agreement that we put together. Certainly future political candidates, I was flipping around the channels and watching C-SPAN and some of the speeches where future politicians or those seeking higher office have talked about what we did in a negative way. Yet I did not sense that at all. A series of town meetings in the Ninth Congressional District of Missouri were overwhelmingly positive. The folks that came out recognized that we were on the path to a smaller, smarter government. They were appreciative of the fact that the centerpiece of our budget agreement, the tax relief package, was a child credit that will benefit the parents of 41 million children across this country, and the fact that nearly 2 million households will not have a Federal income tax liability just because of this $500 child credit. They were appreciative of the child health initiative that we have commenced, that we put together in this budget plan to help the Nation's most vulnerable that are uninsured. And I tried to explain and made clear that this was not a new Federal entitlement that we had imposed but a way to reach out with local innovative solutions to this national problem of uninsured children. They were certainly appreciative, as education is very much on the minds of the folks in the Ninth Congressional District, that we have education tuition credits that we are putting in place so that children that dream of college can actually get there, and those that have been laboring under the weight of a student loan might have a little bit of his or her burden eased by allowing the deduction of interest on that student loan. Certainly we recognize that a strong economy is vital because as we help educate and invest in our children, the future of this country, we have to make sure that there are jobs available. And clearly people recognize that we do not create jobs here in Washington; it is the American people, it is the business people, it is small business across this country that creates the jobs. And so clearly we want to make sure that every investor, every inventor, every small business person, every farmer has some relief from this very burdensome tax on savings and investment that we have come to call capital gains, and they were very appreciative that we have at least taken a step in the right direction regarding a reduction on that burdensome tax. Many of the women that came to town hall meetings were astounded to learn that women in this country are starting businesses at twice the rate of men in this country. But oftentimes women have that very difficult choice, do I stay home with family or do I rejoin the work force? So we have reached out to them and all small business people that want to work from their homes by restoring the flexibility through the home office deduction; and the American people, at least those in the Ninth Congressional District, see that and applaud that as a step in the right direction. Finally, as we have talked about many times in this Chamber, I personally believe it is immoral that the Federal Government can take up to 55 percent of a family farm or family business at death. Death should not be a taxable event. Certainly we will be having future discussions about death tax relief, but we have made some positive strides by raising the exemption so that family farms and family businesses and those that labor can pass the fruits of their labors on to future generations. I know one of the polls that somebody showed me as we were leaving town 4 weeks ago indicated that Congress' approval rating was at a high level, at least the highest level since the early 1970's, and sadly our approval rating in this body was above our disapproval for the first time in several decades. And of course that is a sad event, but we need to continue to focus on our agenda that we will be bringing to the floor in the weeks and months ahead before we take our final recess for the end of the year. We have got a lot of work yet to do. But I think we need to focus a little bit on some of the success stories and some of the things that we have listened to the people across this country in our respective districts. I see I have various colleagues that are here to join me. I think first I would yield to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune]. It is interesting that each of us has our own respective districts and I know our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Moran], I think was one of the most ambitious and he embarked on a 60-plus county tour and made sure that he blanketed his district. But certainly we do not have quite the expanse of territory to cover as the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill], who is not with us, or the gentleman from South Dakota who has the entire State. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate the gentleman. I see that our colleague from out West in Colorado is here and appears to have some visual aid along with him. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I think the word that the gentleman used, ``optimism,'' I think that is probably what I heard most often from the folks that I had a chance to visit with. All the polls and surveys that these consultants and political pundits seem to find so important, I think truly when you get out of this place and you go back home and you listen to people in town hall meetings, you just open it up for discussion and you say, what is on your minds, I think some of the themes that you have mentioned are exactly what are the prevailing thoughts of most Americans, they do want less of Washington. I certainly trust the folks on Ducelle Avenue in Columbia, MO, my hometown. I trust them to make the decisions with their tax money a lot better than I trust the 435 of us that assemble here to decide how that money should be spent. They clearly, the folks back home, are appreciative of the fact that we were letting them keep money, their own money. This is not some sort of a rebate, that we are giving them back their money. It is allowing them to keep the money they have earned. I heard some of the same themes that the gentleman mentioned. I know the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Pease] also was quite busy. In fact, his staff, as I understand it, had him crisscrossing the district. He saw himself coming and going, as I understand.

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate the gentleman's report and certainly the good work that he has done, especially many of the themes that he has talked about as far as volunteerism and helping our young people. I had the opportunity to visit briefly with a group called Kids in Motion in Hannibal, MO, which is interesting because this was actually started, I think, 2 years ago, or last summer, that took at-risk youth in the Hannibal communities. This was not a government program. This was largely the efforts of two women, two businesswomen who chose to try to make a difference. And so they reached out to the business community to have jobs that would pay young people to try to help provide some positive role models, a little bit of institutional setting in the sense of teaching them how to get up on time and to get themselves ready for work. It was just an extraordinary experience when you realize that there is this sort of spirit in a small town where you recognize that there is a community problem, or a problem within your community, and rather than reach out to the government for some sort of assistance, here are two women that chose on their own accord to try to make a difference. I think this spirit pervades across the country. We need to help reinvigorate that spirit.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I was asked this question, you get a lot of different questions when you are at these town meetings and hosting these listening posts, but this one question had me stumped for a second. I was asked by a constituent if I could only pass one bill in this Chamber, what would that one bill be. And I say, well, if I could write it and could make sure that it would actually be enacted into law, it would be this: that the parents of our children would teach their children individual responsibility and right from wrong. But clearly that bill cannot be passed; that bill will never see the light of day. It is not government's place to take the place of a family. That is something that we have to encourage families to do, many of the themes that you just mentioned. But if we could pass any bill, that would be it, to help parents teach kids, their own children, responsibility and right from wrong. But again I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HULSHOF. In order to be geographically correct, I know we have heard from the Midwest and certainly from the West, but to make sure that we have all parts of this great land covered, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I was in Wentzville, MO, on the eastern side of my district at the high school, and it was pointed out to me that in a normal day, if you just consider your actions of a normal day, when you wake up and grab a first cup of coffee you are paying a sales tax, when you drive to work you pay a gas tax, when you get to work you pay an income tax, when you flip on the light you pay an electricity tax, when you flush the toilet you pay a water tax, when you get home, if you are lucky enough to have a home, you pay a property tax, and, as we have talked about, if you are fortunate enough to work hard and save and want to pass on to the next generation, your kids, your descendents, then there is the Government wanting another bite with this Federal death tax. The problem is not that people do not pay enough, the problem is that we here in Washington have been spending too much, and I think we have begun to try to get our arms wrapped around this problem of wasteful Washington spending, and, as you mentioned, it is simply a plan. We need to continue to make sure that the people in this body, certainly we want to provide for the essential services, but make sure that the people that come here from all parts of the country recognize that this is a critically important goal that we need to continue our path toward a balanced budget.

Mr. HULSHOF. If the gentleman would yield, I also wanted to ask you, you have had the opportunity I think to go into another district in Colorado, I think that of another freshman Member. Did you go into the inner city of Denver at one point? With regard to some of these themes, you talk about the minority business people. Did you talk about some of these conservative principles back in Denver?

Mr. HULSHOF. I think the gentleman is correct. I again appreciate my colleagues for joining me and participating in this special order. I think, Mr. Speaker, to those naysayers that have picked apart these past weeks' aspects of what we have done here, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Clearly we are not here to rest on past accomplishments. We have a tremendous amount of work yet to do, and we have just touched the surface. Mr. Thune talked about trying to crack down on fraud and abuse in many of these programs. I know one of the things on the agenda we will be focusing on, Mr. Pappas mentioned the Committee on Ways and Means. We are going to be focusing on how to restructure possibly the Internal Revenue Service. Everybody talks about trying to simplify the Tax Code. We need to continue to have those discussions, beyond just having Presidential candidates come forward and say this is what we ought to do. I think this is a dialog we have to get the American people on board with us, whether they favor just the Tax Code that we have and simplifying that, or whether they favor a flat income tax or a national consumption tax, a sales tax or the like. But our efforts to restructure the IRS, whether it is the highway bill, the infrastructure, investing in roads and bridges that are so needed across the country, or as another freshman Member, we are talking about education. This is the time everybody is heading back to school or colleges and universities. The fact is we have to get more money than is presently appropriated back into the classrooms, so teachers are not having to dig in their own pockets and purchase school supplies to educate the kids that are entrusted to them. There are so many things we have yet to do. But I think in our quest for progress, we have to continue to stay on the path. I think we are committed to doing that, certainly as this freshman class is on this side and many on the other side, of trying to work with politics of cooperation, rather than politics of confrontation.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, this week there is much discussion, there is much speculation about the negotiations that are ongoing between the President and congressional leaders in the House and Senate. Hanging in the balance, Mr. Speaker, are the prospects of a bipartisan balanced budget plan. Hanging in the balance are the prospects of staving off the impending bankruptcy for Medicare, our health care system for senior citizens. And hanging in the balance through these negotiations are the prospects for permanent tax relief for men and women all across this country, essentially whether or not we want to let moms and dads across this great land keep more of what they earn. With the recent debate, Mr. Speaker, about tax relief centering more and more around detailed numbers and percentages and Treasury Department calculations, perhaps I should say Treasury Department miscalculations, it is easy to lose sight of what our tax relief package is all about, what it means to working families who have not had tax relief in nearly two decades. I know that I am but a single voice crying out on behalf of hard- working men and women across this country, but I hope to include the pleas and the statements of those who came to Capitol Hill. Some working mothers in fact who came to Capitol Hill this month who quickly reminded us, gave us a reality check that tax relief is more than just abstract numbers. It is about take-home pay. It is about purchasing power. It is about freedom to make choices in raising a family. For example, it is about Debra from Dale City, VA. Debra is the divorced mother of a 17-year-old, an 11-year-old and a 10-year-old. Keeping more of her money means being able to help her three children reach their dreams. The dream of Debra's college-bound daughter is to attend college and become a doctor. For Debra's middle daughter, she aspires to be a teacher. And although Debra is determined to help bring her daughters' dreams to fulfillment, it is not going to be an easy task. Mr. Speaker, the House-passed version of the Taxpayer Relief Act a couple of weeks ago will make things a little bit easier for Debra and for her family. With the child and the education tax credits, for instance, Debra will get to keep more of what she earns, making it easier to send her kids to college and to fulfill their dreams. In fact, just with the child tax credit, the Republican version of the child tax credit, in calendar year 1998 Debra will get to keep $800 more of her own money next year and $1,000 more in the following years. She can save for her kids' education, putting money way in a dream savings account. Our House plan also allows Debra to participate in education initiatives like the education credit for college deduction which helps defray the expenses, the out-of-pocket expenses for Debra's college age or college bound kids for tuition, for books and for fees. That is what this tax relief is about. It is not about numbers; it is about real people. It is about Don and Carnetta from my home town of Columbia. Don and Carnetta are both in their senior years. Don recently retired from a career at Wal-Mart. Part of the compensation package that Don had during his career at Wal-Mart was that he was given shares of Wal-Mart stock as incentive to build for his pension, to put his nest egg away for he and Carnetta. He fervently hopes, anxiously is awaiting whether or not the President will sign our tax package into law because what it means to 2 million seniors that are in the 15- percent income tax bracket across this country is a capital gains cut from the 28-percent margin all the way down to 10 percent, if the President would enact and sign into law this much-needed relief effort. It is not about numbers. It is about people. I happened to receive a letter in the last 2 weeks that I want to paraphrase just a bit, Mr. Speaker, if I can. It says, ``Dear Mr. Hulshof, I am a star-ranked scout in Troop 50. I will be a 7th grader at St. Peter's in Fulton, MO. I am 12 years old. I am in favor of the tax cut,'' says Michael, ``because if taxes are cut, people will have more money. When they have more money, they spend or invest more. Then if they spend more,'' Michael writes, ``more needs to be produced. This increased demand means more people are needed to produce and then employment goes up. Increased employment means people are working more and paying more taxes which increases revenue to the Government, which means fewer people collect entitlements from the government resulting in less expense to Government.'' Michael goes on to write, keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, Michael is a 7th grader, 12 years old at St. Peter's in Fulton, MO. Michael says, ``Every time I hear the Democrats or certain members of the press talk about tax cuts, they say, how will the Government pay for the tax cut? But they never ask how the employed taxpayers are going to pay for the tax increases. Thank you for all the hard work you do. Thanks for considering my input.'' Signed, Michael. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes suffer ye unto the little children and out of the mouths of babes sometimes come pretty poignant points. I think Michael has somehow grasped something that we here in Washington from time to time forget. It is not our money. It is the American people's money. We are not giving it back to them. We are letting people keep it in the first place. For instance, in my congressional district, in the 9th Congressional District of Missouri, if the President will sign into law the Republican-passed tax relief package, the child credit alone, there are 84,000 children in the 9th Congressional District of Missouri whose parents will qualify for the $500 per child tax credit. What that means is nearly $39 million get to stay in the 9th District of Missouri and do not have to be collected by the Government and sent here to Washington where oftentimes we spend it very unwisely. This is just one way that this tax relief package will help all Americans. It is not about numbers. It is about people. I see my friend and colleague from Missouri, from the 7th Congressional District of Missouri, is in the well of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The fact is that even way back in the early part of this Congress, the first couple months as the negotiations were just beginning, as they were trying to hammer out this budget proposal, to establish the parameters of the balanced budget agreement, the numbers we were provided, an $85 billion net tax cut, a $125 billion gross tax relief over 5 years, with that amount of money then we were required in our committee on the Committee on Ways and Means then to fashion some sort of tax relief. This child credit is an income tax credit. I know there has been a lot of discussion about whether or not we should expand this income tax credit, that is a credit for those families that pay Federal income taxes, whether or not we should expand that income tax credit to other families who pay no income taxes. I know the gentleman from South Dakota who joins us has been very outspoken on this point. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota {Mr. Thune].

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for a second on that point. I find it somewhat ironic that the administration, through this debate and through these negotiations, this conference to balance the budget, to save Medicare and provide tax relief, they will accept the Census Bureau's numbers of adjusted gross income when it comes to the child credit, that is for phasing out the child credit for the upper income families. They will also accept the Census Bureau's numbers when it comes to those individuals that are seeking a modest reduction in capital gains. They are willing to accept and embrace that number, that very bottom line number when it comes to who is unable to qualify. But then when it comes to this distribution table, and when they start to skew the results with who is benefiting from this tax package as a whole, then suddenly they push away the adjusted gross income, the 1040 number that the gentleman and I fill out on our tax forms, and suddenly go to this family economic income model.

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And before we leave the part of the discussion about how the administration, specifically the U.S. Treasury, calculates one's income to determine whether one is well off or not, I see my friend from Colorado is here. There is some chart next to him, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Bob Schaffer].

Mr. HULSHOF. If the gentleman would leave that chart up, the one entitled ``Family Tax Burden.'' I had a question at one time during a radio town hall meeting regarding tax relief and was taking a variety of calls. I mentioned that the average family in America today pays more in taxes than they do for food and for clothing and for shelter combined. And the gentleman on the phone asked me how is it that I could make this claim. And as the gentleman mentioned, the total tax burden is nearly 40 percent, 40 cents out of every dollar goes to the government. Think about a typical day. When we wake up in the morning and grab our first cup of coffee, we pay the sales tax; when we drive to work, we pay a gas tax; when we get to work, we pay an income tax; when we flip on a light, we pay an electricity tax; when we flush the toilet, we pay a water tax; if we have cable TV, we pay a cable tax; if we drive home and we happen to have one of these homes the gentleman was talking about with imputed rent, we pay property tax. As the gentleman from South Dakota mentioned, when we die, the government is there taking up to 55 percent of the family farm or family business in death taxes. Now, that is how it is that clearly we are paying much more in taxes than we should. The problem is not that we do not tax enough. The fact is that we here in Washington spend too much, and we are trying not to give back, but letting people keep more of their money.

Mr. HULSHOF. If the gentleman would yield, because I think there is also a lot of misinformation being distributed, originating from right here in the well of this House, about the $500 per child income tax credit and whether or not that income tax credit should be applied to those individuals in our country who are working that receive an earned income credit but that pay no income tax liability. If we could take just a minute to explain the difference, because this is exceedingly important and I think the issues are being framed up, even as we speak, among the conferees. This is an extremely important debate. The income tax credit, as my colleagues know, was first enacted back in 1975; and the purpose of the earned income credit was to provide public assistance in the form of an income supplement to low-income workers, something that the Republican side has continued to support. In fact, the earned income credit I think has been modified and expanded. Back in 1993, the earned income credit was expanded even more. It has been indexed to inflation. We cannot get capital assets or estates indexed to inflation, but we indexed the earned income credit for low-income working families to inflation to make sure that their pay checks would keep pace with the rate of inflation. So we got nearly 19 million Americans that have qualified and will qualify for the earned income credit, almost $28 billion in public assistance going to individuals that will not have to pay Federal income taxes. In fact, I think the gentleman pointed out a couple weeks ago when we were discussing this issue, 20 percent of the earned income costs actually are a refund of income tax that are paid by low-income people, but 80 percent of the $28 billion, 80 percent is in the form of supplemental public assistance that goes to working low income families. Eighty percent is a cash assistance program in excess of Federal taxes paid. Now the other side talks about, well, what about the payroll taxes and what about taxes going to social security and to Medicare? And the fact is, when each of us at all ends of the income spectrum are working and paying payroll tax, that is for a future benefit. We are investing in social security, we are investing in Medicare that we are hoping to save for future generations. So the fact is that we have to decide, within the very narrow parameters that we were given by the White House and congressional leaders, where are we going to target our tax relief? And right now we are trying to focus our tax relief on middle-income families with kids that are trying to make ends meet, that this tax burden, as the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, mentioned, that are sending nearly 40 cents out of every dollar here to Washington. Those are the people that we are trying to aim and rifleshot this tax relief to.

Mr. HULSHOF. If the gentleman would yield, one additional point, and I think it is dead on with what the gentleman says. One of the subcommittees that I serve on is the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we recently had testimony from the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, about the earned income credit. Unfortunately, the earned income credit is rife with fraud and waste and abuse. In fact, the IRS even estimates that the rate of fraud and error was over 20 percent. Essentially, out of every $5 then in the earned income credit that IRS that the Federal Government was giving to these families, $1 out of every $5 should not have been paid out because this error rate is so extremely high due to in some instances to fraudulent reporting but some instances just error in reporting. The question I have is, given this high level of fraud and error rate found by the IRS, is it wise at this point to expand, to seek an expansion of this earned income practice until we can at least get a handle on or solution to the fraud and the waste and abuse in this program? I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].

Mr. HULSHOF. I think a point that needs to be made regarding the numbers on the chart that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] has before him is that these numbers, this is not sham accounting. This is not cooking the books, as the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, talked about the Treasury likes to do with this nebulous concept called family economic income. These numbers have come from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a bipartisan group that takes the effects, the true effects of any tax law and determines what is going to be the effect. These numbers are what will happen over the next 5 years if the President will sign into law the measure, the tax relief measure that we have passed here in the House by an overwhelming majority. These numbers are good numbers. They are solid numbers of the Joint Tax Committee. It might even be that those who come after us this evening, after our time is up, as it draws to a close, will talk about, well, 10 years from now these Republican tax cuts are going to explode the deficit, are suddenly going to balloon the deficit, and use these terms. I would challenge anybody that makes these spurious arguments. It is difficult enough for us to try to project a balanced budget plan for the next 5 years and to try to fashion some modest tax relief for the next 5 years. Certainly when we start looking in a crystal ball and predicting the future of what is going to happen 10 years down the road, I just think it is somewhat disingenuous to make an argument that these tax proposals in the next 10 years or in the next 15 years are going to do this or do that. I do not think this House, if we look at its track record, those that have been in control of this House, I do not think necessarily that we can go to the bank, so to speak, on the numbers of the predictions that previous Congresses have had regarding the economic forecasts.

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues joining me this evening. I appreciate very much their eloquence and the sincerity with which we have approached this debate. Again, because of the parameters of the budget agreement, we are trying to focus tax relief, income tax relief to those families who pay income taxes. Certainly we want to help those on the lower income scales, to help pull themselves up; but because of the earned income credit, and especially because of the disturbing news from the IRS about the fraudulent rate or the error rate, I should say, regarding the earned income credit, the fact that of the $28 billion that nearly $6 billion next year will be wasted and paid out to individuals that perhaps do not qualify or who fraudulently apply for the earned income credit, again my question to those on the other side is, is this the time for us to be expanding that credit? Because of the parameters of the budget agreement, should we not be looking to those individuals that are paying more in taxes than for food and for clothing and for shelter combined? Again, Mr. Speaker as our time is drawing to a close, this is more than about numbers, this is about choices. It is about people. We want men and women across this country to be able to earn more so that they can keep more, to do more. It is about improving the quality of life, as the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer] mentioned, as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] mentioned, as the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] mentioned. The fact is that many couples right now, in order to make ends meet, have no other choice than to have both spouses working in order to put food on the table and a roof overhead. We believe, the newly elected Members on the Republican side believe, that taxpayers should reap the rewards of their efforts and our efforts to shrink the size of the Federal Government. As we force Washington to balance its books, and as we hold government programs like the earned income credit accountable, and as we shape and force a smaller, smarter, more effective government, Washington does not need as much of the American people's money. The money should stay in the pockets of hard-working men and women across this country, not into this bloated bureaucracy or into any schemes to redistribute income. It is the American people's money. They have earned it, they should keep more of it. That is what this tax debate is all about. That is why it is so important.

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support the tax package that came out of our Committee on Ways and Means. I am privileged to serve on that committee. When I go back home, Mr. Speaker, I am inevitably asked the question, usually by high school students, ``What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats?'' And I try to tell them, Mr. Chairman: I believe both parties, of course, believe in democracy. I believe both on either side of this aisle believe in a better America. But I think our vision of how to get to a better America is where we find other differences. I know, certainly, that those of us on our side of the aisle believe that America is an overtaxed nation. We believe it is a matter of principle that hard-working men and women in this country stop working so hard for the Government. As a newly elected Member, I have got to tell my colleagues that I am a little bit incredulous. Why is it that when we talk about letting people keep more of their money, that that is such a novel, radical idea? Why is it that when we talk about making Washington spend less, that somehow we are talking about blowing up the deficit? I believe, as a fundamental principle, in letting the hard-working people in this country keep more of what they earn. It is their money. It is not the Government's money. Mr. Chairman, I go back home, hopefully, after today and after a hard week, and I am going to get a chance to sit on our front porch with my wife and visit with our neighbors. I think it is best to let the decisions about how their tax money should be spent, that they are better to make that decision, better than I am. For those that continue to talk about these capital gains cuts, since when did fighting and working for the American dream, when did it become a scarlet letter? When did it become appropriate for us to scold and even punish or penalize those that have tried to get ahead? Mr. Chairman, this tax package helps the economy, it helps all Americans. For those that are trying to achieve the American dream. We encourage every business owner, every investor, every inventor, every farmer, every business man, every woman, every stockholder, every homeowner to invest in America's neighborhoods and workplaces by significantly reducing this tax on savings and investment, otherwise known as capital gains. But we continue to resort to this old style politics of class warfare. I had hoped as a newly elected Member that we were beyond that. Instead of dividing America, instead of pitting one group against another, why are we not working together? Why are we not trying to forge a consensus? Why are we not celebrating this day? Next week when we are home, Mr. Chairman, we have a chance, of course, to celebrate our Nation's independence, July 4. I believe that if we support this Republican tax package, that we will be providing a symbolic victory for those folks who truly want to celebrate their independence. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. HULSHOF

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, obviously the topic of choice is the upcoming vote. I have been sitting here patiently for about an hour and a half waiting our turn for this special order and have consistently heard on the other side of the aisle about these tax breaks which we will have a chance to visit about and hopefully get the rest of the story out there, because I think unfortunately, too much rhetoric has been spewing out and we want to set the record straight. I want to start this time that we have, Mr. Speaker, and relate to my colleagues something that happens on a regular basis when I go back to the Ninth Congressional District of Missouri. Hardly a day goes by, when I make it back every weekend, when I am not stopped at the supermarket or at the church or at some function back in Missouri, and a constituent comes up and says, Mr. Hulshof, I am working longer, I am working harder than ever, and yet I barely have anything left over in my checkbook at week's end. When is Washington going to give me a break? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that if tomorrow goes as we hope, we want the American people to know that tomorrow is the day they get a break. Tomorrow is the day that we let the American people know that we have been listening to them. We have heard them loud and clear. I want to take these few minutes that we have, and some other colleagues in the Republican freshman class, and others to talk about some of the specifics. It is easy to paint pictures with a broad paintbrush. I think we need to talk about more specifics in this tax package and why it is good for middle America, why it is good for small business, why it is good for family farms. For too long, Mr. Speaker, Washington has continued to spend and waste billions of dollars of Americans' tax money. From midnight basketball to dance lessons for convicts to $500 toilet seats for the Pentagon, Washington's spending has been out of control for too long. It is time for us here in Washington to spend less and to tax less. That is right. It is time for Washington to give hardworking Americans some much-needed tax relief. Mr. Speaker, we have over a dozen colleges and universities in the Ninth District, and a lot of times, Mr. Speaker, I am invited to address or speak to some of the political science classes at the universities; in fact, some of the middle schools, elementary schools, and high schools that I have had the great opportunity to address. One simple question that I get, oftentimes, is what is the difference between the two parties? What is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? I think the answer is somewhat simple. I have been here almost 6 months, and I tell those young people, soon to be voters, that both parties believe very passionately in democracy. Both parties, I believe, honestly are trying to achieve a better America. I just think oftentimes, though, our vision on what will get us to a better America, that is what is the difference. Probably the single greatest difference between the two parties is the fact that we Republicans deeply believe that America is an overtaxed Nation. We believe it is a matter of principle that hard-working men and women in this country should be able to keep more of what they earn. We believe it is time for Americans who happen to be tuning in tonight, that they should not have to work so hard for the government to spend so much. We believe in tax relief for every stage of one's life. For instance, do the American people really understand that they pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and shelter combined? Do the American people understand that almost half of their income goes to a government tax of some kind? Think about that, just for a minute. In your normal daily activities, when you wake up in the morning, grab that quick cup of coffee on the way to work, you have paid a sales tax on that cup of coffee. When you drive to work, you pay a gas tax. When you are at work, you are paying an income tax. Flip on a light and you are paying an electricity tax. Flush the toilet, there is a water tax. Get home at night, you pay a property tax. If you turn on television, sometimes you are going to pay a cable tax. When you die, many of us are going to have to face a death tax. It is just too much, and it has to stop. If we have this vote tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will have a much-needed step in the right direction. Why is it, when anybody talks about allowing working families to keep more of their money--in fact, earlier tonight colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, when we were talking about keeping more of their money, they talk about ballooning the deficit, or wrecking the economy. Why is it that we never hear ``It just can't be done'' when it comes here in Washington to spending less of Americans' tax money? Why is it always unwise or risky if you want to keep what is rightfully yours, but it is never unwise or risky if Washington wants to spend more? That is, Mr. Speaker, what I think we have accomplished today, and what we are going to accomplish tomorrow in this much-needed tax relief package. I see that some of my colleagues are here, especially my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], who has been a champion particularly as it relates to tax relief for those who are trying to make a go of it in their homes, particularly with the home office deduction. I am not sure if that is specifically what he wants to talk about tonight, but I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the letters and support of relief from this punitive estate tax, has the gentleman received any letters urging us to continue the estate tax? Has the gentleman received any letters from his district in New Jersey urging us to put a heavier tax burden on family farmers or family businesses?

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I look forward to moving toward repeal. I know that the tax package that we have tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, does not accomplish the entire repeal of this very punitive tax. Early in this Congress, as Members know, I introduced a bill with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] to repeal the death tax. We are moving in the right direction. What I want to do, I see my friend, the gentleman from Kansas, here, but before yielding to him, I know, and I cannot recall which speaker on the other side of the aisle misspoke, and I am sure it was an inadvertent misspeak, regarding what this tax package actually does. We phase up the exemption. Right now the $600,000 exemption that precludes estates from being taxed was first instituted, I think, in 1987, and has not been indexed for inflation. What we are going to do is increase the exemption with tomorrow's tax relief package up to $1,000,000, not in 17 or 20 years, as I think the gentlewoman from Carolina mentioned, but actually over the next 10 years. We will phase it in, $650,000 in 1998 up to $750,000 in 1999, and then eventually up to $1 million by the year 2007. I know the Federal death tax is something my friend, the gentleman from Kansas, is interested in. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Moran].

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the letters that you have with you and I think probably each of us have received from our individual constituencies typical letters of that; this is America, the backbone of our economy, small business, family farms who are crying out for relief. I had a unique experience today, running out of the office for our last vote and I bumped into a very nice woman, not a constituent but from Indiana, who had come 600 miles simply because we were getting ready to vote on this tax package tomorrow. She hand-delivered to me a letter. She is hand-delivering letters to almost all the Representatives and Senators here in Washington. And she visited with me a little bit about her plight. She retired as a court reporter to take care of her mother who needed some care, retired from her business and then her mother unfortunately passed away, I think in September of 1996, and then suddenly she had to face the reality of coughing up additional moneys to pay this heavy tax burden, this very punitive tax. The letter that she gave me, and I would love to read it, but in the interest of time, I see my friend from Montana here as well, this sentence sums up everything when it comes to the Federal death tax. Quote, the time has come when death should not be a taxable event. Amen. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].