Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is we have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. But on this side of the aisle, there are some of us who remember 1989 and the first budget of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). He had 29 Members who supported him. But he never gave up. He never gave up. He did it in such a fresh way. This is the last budget of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). What a legacy he has left us. What a legacy he has left his wife and his daughters, Emma and Reese. The gentleman from Ohio dealt with a lot of numbers, but numbers were never important to him. It was people, the friends he has here, the people he cares about in this country. I know the gentleman from Ohio has a dream to transfer the power and the money and the influence out of Washington back home to local communities. I think he set us on our way. We love the gentleman from Ohio a lot.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we are evaluating all of the budgets based on six basic principles. One is to protect Social Security surpluses. Another is to provide for prescription drugs. Another is to retire debt. Another is to promote tax fairness. Another is to restore America's defense and strengthen education, science and health care. That is why we oppose the budget that is coming before us. With regards to tax cuts, we want to provide an end to the marriage penalty tax, repeal Social Security earnings limits, reduce the death tax, expand educational savings accounts, increase health care deductibility, provide tax breaks for poor communities, and strengthen private pensions. The President regretfully came in with a gross tax increase of $96 billion. Republicans have no tax increase. This tax increase results in the fact that next year the President would increase taxes $10 billion; we would cut taxes $10 billion. Finally, over 5 years, the President has a net tax cut of $5 billion. We have over $200 billion of tax relief. The reason we have that is we want a marriage penalty tax elimination. We want to eliminate and phase out the death tax. We have educational savings accounts. We would have health care deductibility. We had community renewal and we want pension reform. The bottom line for us is that we need to get our country's financial house in order. A tax cut is part of it. We are cutting down and reducing debt. We are saving Social Security. We are providing $200 billion in the next 5 years for a tax cut. It is only 2 percent of all revenues that are going to come in, $10 trillion, and we are asking this Congress to accept the fact that the taxpayers deserve a break of $200 billion in the next 5 years.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, when I sent out my legislative questionnaire, my constituents wanted me to protect Social Security and not spend the surplus. My constituents wanted prescription drug assistance. They wanted us to pay down the debt, and they wanted tax fairness. They wanted a tax cut. That is what our budget does. That is why we see absolutely no reason at all to have any other budget but the one we have. What have we done? In the year 1999, the last year, we do not spend Social Security. We are not spending it in this year's budget, and we are not spending it in next year's budget. That is in our budget plan. When we were elected in 1994 and took office in 1995, we were looking at public debt going up $34 billion, $48 billion, $67 billion. That is what we were looking at. Our plan changed that so it goes down rather than up. Public debt is going down. In fact, what happened is, not only is it going down, it would have continued to go up but we are actually reducing public debt significantly. What have we paid back? We paid back $51 billion in 1998, $88 billion in 1999, $163 billion in the year we are in now, for $332 billion of debt payment down, and in our budget another $170 billion in the budget to come. That has left us as well the opportunity, out of $10 trillion, to have a $200 billion tax cut. I am absolutely amazed that we cannot cut 2 percent of our revenue in the next 5 years. We get $10 trillion, and we cannot cut $200 billion? We can, and we do. We have a marriage penalty tax elimination. We reduce the death tax. We have educational savings account. We have health care deductibility, community renewal, and pension reform. Not a tax cut for the wealthy, as my colleagues would imply, but a tax cut for the middle class. Then we make sure that, if we get additional surplus, we do not allow Democrats, frankly, to spend it. We set it aside for further debt reduction and more tax cuts. This is a sensible budget. We do not need another one.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. So these are their own words?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the Budget, so that he can respond to what was just said.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that, in our defense budget, we are going to be adding $17.4 billion more to our defense. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) a member of the House Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Science and the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a member of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), a member of the Committee on the Budget and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), a distinguished member of the House Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, our budget protects 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, 100 percent. It does it in the next year's budget just as it is doing in this year's budget just as we did not spend any Social Security money last year. It strengthens Medicare with prescription drugs. We set aside $40 billion in the next 5 years. It retires debt, $1 trillion in the next 5 years. We have already retired $302 billion. It promotes tax fairness for families, farmers, and seniors. The GOP tax plan ends the marriage penalty, repeals Social Security earnings limit, reduces the death tax, expands educational savings accounts, increases health care deductibility, promotes tax breaks for poor communities, and strengthens private pension plans. We set aside $200 billion in the next 5 years, just 2 percent of the budget in the next 5 years. The Clinton plan came in with $96 billion of gross increases in taxes. The Republicans had zero. We do not have any taxes. The Clinton plan increases taxes $10 billion in the next year. We provide tax relief of $10 billion in the year. The Republican tax relief plan, over the next 5 years, $200 billion for the marriage penalty, the death tax, the educational savings account, health care deductibility, the community renewal, and pension reform. We set aside $50 billion in potential update. We want to make sure it is locked up for paying down debt or tax relief. We do not want it spent by the Democrats on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the vice chairman of the Committee on Budget.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am curious how much time the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) yielded to himself. How much did he consume?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The minority leader's speech today was a speech taken out from something he said 5 or 6 years ago, and the speech I just heard from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget reminds me of straining out gnats and swallowing camels. We set aside $200 billion for tax cuts. Now, we are told it is irresponsible. We are told it is outrageous. We are told it is something we cannot afford. The fact is, in the next 5 years we are going to raise $10 trillion in revenues, and we are going to return to the American people $200 billion. The tax cut ends the marriage penalty. A good number of Democrats voted for that. The tax cut repeals Social Security earnings limit. All Democrats voted for that. The next tax cut, which a good number of Democrats voted for, reduces the death penalty. We are expanding educational savings accounts. We are increasing health care deductibility. We are providing tax breaks for poor communities, and we are strengthening private pension plans. Mr. Speaker, $200 billion out of $10 trillion, a 2 percent tax cut. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not even want to return 2 percent. Mr. Speaker, we protect Social Security. Last year was the first year since 1960 that a Congress did not spend Social Security reserves. We protect it in this budget we are in, and we protect it in the budget we are now voting on. We are strengthening Medicare. We are setting aside $40 billion for prescription drugs, $40 billion. That is what we are setting aside, and yet the minority leader said we were cutting Medicare. We retire the public debt. Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion of public debt in the next 5 years, $1 trillion. It never happened under Democrat rule. We are doing it now, and it is in this bill. We are providing that tax fairness for families. It is not just returning revenue to the American people, but dealing with fairness. Couples should not have to pay taxes when they get married; seniors should not have to lose Social Security when they work. And we are restoring Americans defense; we are putting more money in education, science, and health. We are doing exactly what we should do. Now, we are going to have 5 amendments come up and we are going to oppose 4 of them. We are going to oppose them because they do not meet these tests. We are going to protect Social Security; and if it does not do that, we will oppose that. We want Medicare prescriptions, $40 billion. If it is not there, we are going to oppose it. We want to retire debt. We have already retired $302 billion of debt. We are going to promote tax fairness, which on the other side of the aisle they seem to be opposed to. We are going to restore America's defense, and we are going to strengthen and support education and science. That is what we are going to do in our budget, and we are determined to succeed.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), a member of the Committee on the Budget as well as the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make a lot of comments because we have other Members who are going to go into specific detail, but I would like to make some general comments before that happens to say that when we started in 1995 to get our country's financial house in order, as the majority party, we were looking at deficits that were actually going to increase every year. In 1997, we began to develop a budget that ultimately turned our deficits into surpluses. We tried earlier but the President kept vetoing it. We finally had an agreement. We were moving closer towards eliminating those deficits but by 1998 that budget, for the first time since 1968, we had more money coming into the Federal Government than going out. Last year, in 1999, for the first year since 1960, we were not spending the Social Security reserves. In the next 10 years, we estimate there is going to be $4 trillion of surplus revenues, $4 trillion. Two trillion of those dollars are being walled off for Social Security because that is what they are. We are going to set them off, and I know my colleague is going to talk about that. The exciting thing is that is going to be there for debt reduction. So we have $2 trillion left. Basically, the President and too many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to take that $2 trillion that is left and spend it. What we know is we need to do more debt reduction and we know that we need to have a tax cut. People are going to be saying, well, a tax cut is only going to the wealthy. No, it is going to the people who pay taxes. The people who pay taxes are going to benefit from the tax cut. Two years ago we attempted to have a tax cut that would be comprehensive and something that we clearly could afford, and it included a number of items. This year we separated them. The first tax cut that we moved forward with was the marriage penalty tax, and the logic behind the marriage penalty tax was why should a couple that then gets married pay $1,400 more? That passed this Chamber by a fairly overwhelming majority, with a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle joining us. The second tax cut that we moved forward with was the penalty tax on Social Security. Why should someone who has earned Social Security, who makes more than $17,000, for every three dollars lose a dollar in Social Security? Obviously they should not, and we brought forward this legislation that passed with a wide margin on both sides of the aisle after our colleagues on the other side of the aisle had criticized this proposal for years, and it passed by all the members of the Senate just recently. So I would just like to conclude by saying over the last 6 years we have gotten our country's financial house in order. We have balanced the Federal budget. We are having surpluses. Now we are managing those surpluses. We are not spending any of the Social Security trust fund money. We have walled it off. We are paying back debt. We are going to have significant but meaningful tax cuts, and we are going to set aside in the next 5 years $200 billion for tax cuts. They will be targeted tax cuts that deal with fairness, enabling people to buy health insurance; enabling people to have retirement funds and set aside more money for their retirement; enabling people to not pay the penalty on the marriage when they get married; and enabling Social Security workers to continue to work. With the details of many of our proposals, I would like to acknowledge the presence of my colleague from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), who has really been a leader in so much of this and really was there in the beginning when we started this process.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. And if we are talking about the concept of fairness, why should a married couple pay more than a couple that is not married in taxes? Why should someone who has earned Social Security and if they go back to working and paying taxes pay an additional penalty due to the Social Security earnings limitation? For every $3 above that $17,000, $1 is taken out of Social Security. That was a matter of fairness. And the third tax cut that we move forward with, why should a corporation be able to deduct health care and a private individual working, self- employed individual, not have that same deduction? In fact, the tax cut that the President vetoed just 2 years ago allowed all Americans to deduct for health care. So I am just struck by the fact that we have made tremendous progress, we are talking about fairness in taxes, but we are also talking about something else. We are talking about what taxes will help the economy grow. In 1990, I voted for a tax increase. The one tax increase I voted for, and I learned a big lesson. I voted to increase the luxury tax. And it was interesting, I voted to increase the luxury tax and the government got less money. They got less money because people, who can all make rational decisions, they decided that if the tax was higher, they would buy less, and we got less revenue. Conversely, when we dealt with capital gains, we cut taxes and we got so much more revenue. So what two better examples. We can raise some taxes and get less revenue; we can cut some taxes and get more, and we can have the economic engine, that balanced budget agreement of 1997, which has made a world of difference. It has balanced our budget. We are in surpluses. We are no longer spending Social Security. We are able to cut taxes, and we are seeing the economy grow and grow and grow.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, this hits home pretty hard, because they were not poor people. They were middle-income and upper-middle income people who were making boats, having great jobs. It was one of the true indigenous industries in the United States; where we did not have many exports. We were making the product and selling it in the United States. And it, unfortunately, did a lot of damage. A lot of companies went out of business.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I would just say that this has been a wonderful team effort. We had new players come on the scene and they have made all the difference. Now, I cannot call the gentleman from Minnesota a new player, because the gentleman is in his 6th year. But just think, 6 years ago we saw massive deficits as far as the eye could see and now we are seeing significant surpluses, and our challenge now is to convince our colleagues not to spend all the surplus and make government bigger. It is not to say we are not spending more money, we are simply targeting it. We are going to spend $2.2 billion more in elementary and secondary education, a phenomenal increase. We are going to be spending $6 billion more for farmers, who truly need it. And even someone like myself, coming from an area where we do not have a lot of farmers in the traditional sense, we have some dairy farmers, but we know that is necessary not just for them but for us. As my colleague was talking about selling the farm, I was thinking that we are also going right after that death tax. And the most compelling reason for our leaving $200 billion for tax cuts over the next 5 years is to go squarely at the death tax that forces people to sell their businesses in Bridgeport, Connecticut, or in Norwalk or Stanford, Connecticut, when their parents die, to pay the inheritance tax. The businesses then, in a lot of cases, disappear. And it was a viable business. They cannot keep it because they have to pay a 55 percent inheritance tax. Now, we did increase the exemption to $1 million for farmers and businesses, but most businesses are far in excess of that. I was at a community meeting just recently and I had someone, after I talked about it, come up with a real life example. He literally had a property that his parents had that he was still living in with his two other siblings. It was sold for $3 million. A lot of money. And his parents had equity in the market of about another million. So they had $4 million. And he said by the time they paid the inheritance tax and the lawyers, and the probate court got done, he and his two siblings will get $400,000 each. They will get 30 percent of the total value of their property. It was property that was earned; it was property where taxes were paid. They owned this property, and basically the government took over 55 percent of that. So it just tells me that when we talk in kind of a theoretical way about taxes, we have to be mindful that we are really talking about that young individual, and we are talking about what his parents were able to leave and keep in the family. They had to sell the house and they will get a minimal amount. They will get 30 percent out of the total of the value of their property.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota did not have to say ``even.'' Especially in Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. In the next 5 years.