[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H377-H383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CHANGING THE DIRECTION OF GOVERNMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to have been 
elected to this great institution with an opportunity to make real 
changes this year, because I believe, like so many other colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, that the American hour is upon us, that now is 
the time for us to decide once and for all which direction we are going 
to take this Government, whether we are going to follow the same failed 
policies that have hurt this country over the past 30 years where we 
turned to Government to answer every single problem we have in our 
towns and in our counties and in our States, or whether we, instead, 
turn back to those simple, basic premises that our Founding Fathers 
laid as the foundation of this great Republic.
  James Madison wrote over 200 years ago as he was framing the 
Constitution, ``We have staked the very existence of the American 
civilization not upon the power of government but upon the capacity of 
each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and sustain 
ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.''
  And Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``Government that governs least governs 
best.''
  And what does our 10th amendment say? It says all powers not 
specifically given to the Federal government are reserved by the States 
and the citizens.
  Well, what has happened? Where have we gone in the past 40 years? We 
keep turning back to government.
  I could not help but hear one of the previous speakers talking about 
all the horrible things that would happen if we actually dared to try 
to balance our budget, like children would starve, grandparents would 
be kicked out in the streets, locusts would descend upon Washington.
  Let me tell you something, this is not the type of government that 
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and George Washington and Benjamin 
Franklin and our Founding Fathers intended for this country. It was 
about individualism. It was about the power of communities and families 
working together, not looking to Washington to try to figure out every 
single problem, but to band together as a community and as a family and 
as a State.
  But that was the whole idea of States' rights. That is what the 
Federalist Papers were all about, about the power of States to conduct 
a type of welfare reform or conduct a type of health care reform that 
they wanted to conduct instead of having one highly centralized 
government unit.
  Is that not what we were trying to get away from when we had a 
Revolution over 200 years ago, to get away from King George III, to 
allow families, individuals and communities to once again decide their 
own destiny, instead of having the Federal Government that tells us 
what doctor we want to choose, how we want to protect our family, and 
now, with these other reforms, how we want to take care of education? 
It just does not make sense.
  And you know what? A year ago I was sitting on the couch, and as a 
citizen, I got fed up, Mr. Speaker, and said enough is enough, I want 
to take part in this process; I do not care whether I win or lose, I 
want my voice to be heard, and I thought it was a unique story. I did 
not have a lot of money. I did not have a lot of traditional support. I 
just had ideas.
  And I thought they were my ideas and my ideas alone until I came here 
and found out that 85 others had similar type ideas.
  And what had happened was everybody started talking, whether it was 
on C-SPAN or on talk radio or on E-mail or through faxes; citizens in 
this country became empowered, and because of it, we were able to speak 
as one voice without lobbyists in our camp, without the traditional 
party power brokers on the local level in our camps. We were able to do 
it on ideas and ideas alone, and because of that, we have an 
unparalleled opportunity in the 104th Congress to make real changes and 
make real reforms.
  It starts by balancing the Federal budget. It starts by doing what 
middle class families have had to do for 40 years, and for what State 
legislators have had to do for 40 years, but what this Federal 
Government has failed to do since 1969.
  It is a very simple premise, and yet if you hear supply-side 
economics professors talk on one hand, it can make your head swim. If 
you hear Keynesian economics professors talk on the other side of the 
matter, you say, well, how do those numbers add up. What we are trying 
to do is have a very simple economic theory, and it goes like this: You 
only spend as much money as you take in. What is so radical about that 
concept? Why is it that when we want to act the way middle class 
Americans act we are called the enemies of children, the enemies of 
education, the enemies of farmers, the enemies of grandparents, and the 
enemies of all things that are right, noble, and just?

                              {time}  1600

  I have got a 91-year-old grandmother who gets $350 per month. I do 
not want to kick her out into the streets. I am not going to vote to 
kick her out into the streets.
  I have a 7-year-old boy in first grade, and I do not want to hurt his 
chances in higher education. But does that mean we need a Federal 
bureaucracy telling school teachers in Pensacola, FL, or in Maine or in 
Washington State how to teach our children? No, it does not. That is 
what this revolution was all about. [[Page H378]] 
  Make no mistake of it, the 1994 election was a revolution of sorts. 
Do not let them revise history in a few months, do not let them start 
convincing you that all of a sudden these mean Republicans have come 
into town, or these conservative reformers have come into town and all 
of a sudden want to do all these things that they did not promise.
  It is about a real revolution. Yet in a few weeks, inside the 
beltway, all that we have heard is what we cannot do and what we will 
not do and why we continue to do it.
  I am here with other members of the freshman class to tell you that 
it can be done and it will be done, but only with citizens' help.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Kansas to address the 
House.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, when I read the Federalist Papers, which 
Speaker Gingrich has recommended to each of us, I am challenged because 
the Federalist Papers remind each of us who have received the honor of 
representing the people that we have also received the responsibility 
of representing them.
  I am reminded how revolutionary the concept of a constitutional 
Republic was to the people of that time. They were engaged in a great 
experiment, an experiment in democracy.
  In a sense, we are undertaking a new experiment in democracy. This 
new experiment is not so much about new ideals, but about tried and 
tested truths. For too long Washington has dictated to the people that 
they should do how they should do it. This Washington-knows-best 
attitude has grown exponentially during the last 40 years. Tragically 
during the same period of time, deficits have grown and Government now 
clearly is out of control.
  However, leave it to the American to understand when it is time to 
act. The Constitution was the wise course of action for our Founding 
Fathers, and we are thankful for their wisdom.
  Today Americans realize it is time, again, to act, that our 
Government has gone mad and has to be stopped. It is time to stop, look 
and listen; stop passing programs we cannot afford, look at the States 
and their examples of balanced budgets and ingenious new programs, and, 
finally, to listen to the people.
  The answers to our problems are not found here in the beltway but in 
the hearts and the minds of the people who sent us here.
  Mr. Speaker, Madison tells us in Federalist 39 that, ``In order to 
ascertain the real character of the Government, it may be considered in 
relation to the foundation on which it is to be established.''
  What is that foundation? Mr. Speaker, it is the people.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, I must rise and take 
exception to an article I read in one of this Nation's leading weekly 
magazines where some of the mentality that has handcuffed us for the 
last 40 years continues to be propagated throughout the land. Now, one 
of the leading news magazines in this country, we talk about the 
dangers of what it phrased as hyper-democracy. The notion that somehow 
letters to the editor and appearing on talk radio and sending us faxes 
and sending us E-mail, somehow it is just too mind boggling; somehow it 
will muddy the water and somehow it will take America down the wrong 
road.
  Mr. Speaker, how on Earth can it be that a government which derives 
its powers from the consent of the governed can ever be led astray by 
the input of the governed? Mr. Speaker, to the people of America, we 
thank you for the mandate of November 8 and we ask the people of 
America to stay in tune, stay in touch, and stay on top of this 
revolution.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there is no more clear message from the 
people of the Fourth District of Kansas than that it is time to give 
government back to the people. They want to be closer to the decisions 
that are made, they do not want to be spectators in democracy, they 
want to be players on the field of ideas.
  The freshman class and the new Republican majority are asking the 
people of Kansas and all Americans to come join the team. If we are 
going to be truly revolutionary, we need their help.

  Ronald Reagan reminded us that the power comes from God to the people 
and from the people to government.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to change the country and get government off 
people's backs, all Americans must become an active part of this new 
experiment. They need to write letters to local papers, they need to 
get in touch with talk radio shows, they need to recruit, educate, and 
tell their friends and neighbors to all get involved.
  What we have been given is a sobering responsibility to once and for 
all change the way this Government does its business.
  The people must make sure that the power they gave us is used for 
their good and not for our good.
  Let us not forget the revolutionary nature of those visionary 
thinkers who established this wonderful experiment in democracy. We 
must remember that the people who sent us here are the foundation 
because all too often the people have not been the foundation but the 
target, the target in the crosshairs of big, oppressive Government. The 
reforms that we passed the first day were the good first step in the 
right direction. Now, joining together with the people, we will work 
together to end unfunded mandates, work to have a strong tax limitation 
component and a balanced budget amendment.
  I will support limiting the ability to raise taxes and will fight to 
make it a reality. This is not a time to scale back our goals. Rarely 
have the people of the Fourth District of Kansas and this country 
spoken with greater clarity.
  Kansans want their Government to be responsive to them, and they want 
each of us to rise above parochial interests and return the government 
back to the people.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman from Kansas. I could not help 
but be reminded, after hearing the gentleman from Arizona, about the 
press' criticism of this revolution of sorts that took place this year. 
I could not help but be reminded of an article that I just saw this 
past week in the Washington Post Weekend section, when they were trying 
to explain the revolution that took place from coast to coast and 
explain this hyper-democracy. To describe the American people, this 
columnist wrote, ``We are nostalgic, we are susceptible, we are poorly 
informed, we are alienated, we are fearful, we are confused.''
  Well, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the American 
people had more access to information on this campaign than they have 
ever had in the history of the Republic. Between the rise of talk radio 
and CNN and C-SPAN and other media outlets, this was a truly open 
political process. To write, as this columnist did, that this 
revolution happened because we are poorly informed, we are alienated, 
we are confused, is absolutely inexplicable.
  It reminds me of what happened in the early 1980's when this 
Government, once before, tried to cut back the size and scope of the 
Federal Government. Before the first cuts were made, there was an 
article in Newsweek that had a picture of a poor, pathetic, hungry, 
dirty young girl. What was the headline? ``Reagan's poor.''
  He had been President for a year, and already he was being saddled 
with this as being his fault because he was proposing cuts.
  And what did we see over Christmas on the front pages of weekly 
magazines? Was it stories about how we can balance the budget, how we 
can put an end to 40 years of madness, of tax and spend, tax and spend, 
tax and spend policy? No. It was a cartoon with a caption: ``The 
Gingrich that stole Christmas.''
  Really original, really cute, but it had absolutely nothing to do 
with how we were going to handle the tasks in front of us. We have been 
hearing for the past few weeks Members on the other side of the aisle 
come before the Speaker and talk about everything but specific cuts and 
on the need to balance the budget.

                              {time}  1610

  We have heard complaints about the fact that we did not spell out 
every single penny we were going to cut from the budget for the next 40 
years. We have heard references to GOPAC. We have heard references to 
the Historian and an article she wrote 10-15 years [[Page H379]] ago. 
We have heard references to Newt's mom. We have heard references to 
everything but what is germane and central to this very important 
discussion, and I yield now, to go into this further about specific 
cuts, to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address 
this body, and it is a pleasure to be able to be a new Member of this 
body. It reminds me of all the newness, that perhaps there also is 
something else new, that perhaps the new federalists, to take a phrase 
from the gentleman from Florida that was used before, that we are the 
new federalists coming into Washington with an idea of less government, 
with an idea that government is governing too much on the people, with 
the ideas that Thomas Jefferson put forward, that many of us, as quoted 
frequently and often before.
  One of my favorite Jefferson quotes is him saying that the moments 
for great innovation in society are few and far between. I think we are 
at one of those great moments where society has spoken with such great 
clarity that they want much less government, that they want a reformed 
Congress, that they want a return to the basic values that built the 
country, values of work, values of family, a recognition of a higher 
moral authority. It seems to me that that is what the people said on 
November 8. They wanted to reduce the Federal Government, reform the 
Congress, return to basic values.
  I think we were sent here to this new Congress not to make the 
Federal Government work and do more with less. We were sent here to 
make less government. Republicans did not seize the majority because 
the other party did a poor job of trying to run the country from 
Washington. We won because they tried to run the country from 
Washington, and you know this country is just too big, too diverse, and 
its people love freedom too much for that to work. In a free society 
government is the people's servant, not its master. You know today the 
U.S. Government employs more people than we do in the manufacturing 
sector all told. We have more people working for the Government than we 
do making tractors, and tires, and computers. That is just insane. The 
fact is there are more Government departments and agencies which I 
believe could be completely abolished without American citizens even 
knowing. In fact, the public would be better served if most of the 
decisions government makes were instead left up to individuals, and 
families, and communities. Government today collects more taxes, spends 
more moneys, and issues more regulations than ever before. We have 
never had so many laws, or agencies, or regulations. Even through the 
Reagan and Bush administrations not a single Cabinet-level agency was 
abolished. In fact, one was added.
  The growth of government has been slowed, but it has not been 
stopped. It now must be reversed. We must question the entire existence 
of many of the bureaucracies. Merely trimming a branch from the tree 
will not be sufficient. I think we are going to need to work to pull 
out the whole tree, roots and branches, if necessary. With this 
approach we can certainly find enough savings to balance the Federal 
budget and return money to the taxpayers, which is what we should do, 
which is what the goal of the new federalists should be.
  But the most important point in this new paradigm is that these cuts 
are not just about paying. They are about freedom. They are about 
opportunity for a new society. They are about a new relationship 
between the Federal Government and its people, and that is the vision 
that we need to deliver to the American people, that new vision, that 
new relationship, that less government dependence is more personal 
freedom and that freedom to express, to grow, is what has made America 
in the past. That is what will make America grow even greater into the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, remember always the Government actually produces 
nothing. Government cannot give until it takes away. We must never 
forget this central premise. We need to get the Federal Government off 
the back of the people and out of their pockets, and that should be a 
goal of the new federalists.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas not 
only for his comments, especially about freedom, because during my 
campaign there was actually an opponent of mine that gave one of the 
finest speeches I think I have heard, and it was about freedom. He said 
what we need to do in Washington is make cuts in spending and 
regulations, not because we want to hurt people, but because it is 
about freedom, and then he reminded us what Americans have done over 
the years to fight for freedom, that it was freedom that we were 
fighting about at Iwo Jima, and it was freedom in Khe Sanh, and it was 
freedom over these 200 years, and it is that freedom now that we have 
to fight for, like the gentleman said, talking about those trees.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. If the gentleman would yield back, my point with this 
is that so much of the time when we talk about cutting the Government 
we absolutely must do this, too. It is insane to run $200 billion 
annual deficits and put that on the backs of my children and 
grandchildren to come. That is wrong. That is morally wrong to do that. 
At this point in time in our history it is wrong.
  But instead of focusing all the time, as we do so much of it on 
saying, ``OK, this cut is going to hit here, this one is going to hit 
there, it's going to hit here,'' what about all the liberation that 
takes place with that? What about all the freedom of the people? I 
think this has been an insidious relationship between the Government 
and its people over time, that it has grown and strengthened those 
bonds and surrounding us to the point that the Government has become 
our master and not our servant, and it is time to cut those shackles 
off. It is time in many cases to pull the whole tree up instead of 
saying we are going to cut the little branch off. Here it may be time, 
and it is time, I believe, to cut the hole and pull the whole tree up 
to give that freedom back. and let us talk about the freedom and the 
opportunity that that will yield to America and to this society and the 
growth that that is going to create, the entrepreneurial spirit that 
that will create for us instead of the, well, what is it going to do 
here and this for you? What about this particular program? What about 
that? That is the narrow. The bigger picture is much prettier.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. If the gentleman would yield back, I cannot help but 
think about one particular agency in general, and I know, without 
getting into the specifics, I have wondered what has been happening 
with the Department of Education, a bureaucracy that has not been 
around for 200 years, but since its inception and since it achieved 
Cabinet-level position, look what has happened in our schools. Look 
what has happened to our young people. As our Speaker has been saying 
for so long, we live in a country where 12-year-olds are having babies, 
where 15-year-olds are shooting each other, where 17-year-olds are 
dying of AIDS, and where 18-year-olds graduate from high schools with 
diplomas they cannot even read. What has this Federal bureaucracy that 
was supposed to help our children done for us for all the money that 
has been poured into it over the years?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I think it is a legitimate question, one that we have 
not asked, one that needs to be asked, and I hope that we, as Members 
of this new 104th Congress, will be asking that very question of that 
agency and many others. What is it indeed that has occurred here, and 
should we continue it, or should it be stopped?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman from Kansas, and I now yield 
to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, on January 4 we witnessed an historical 
change here on the floor of the House of Representatives when 
Republicans took control after 40 years. On that day the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader, passed the 
gavel and eloquently called for a new era of debate to begin.

                              {time}  1620

  Well, the freshman class was eager to engage in that debate. We 
passed nine bills the first day. I was proud to introduce the first 
one. And that included the Shays Act, which makes government live under 
the same laws as all the rest of Americans. [[Page H380]] 
  We are keeping our promises to the American people. And this week the 
debate will continue. We will vote on unfunded mandates, and I believe 
they will pass, and they are necessary.
  The States need to be assured that the Federal Government does not 
balance its budget on the backs of the States, and that is what the 
unfunded mandate legislation is all about.
  Next week we will vote on the balanced budget amendment with tax 
limitations. Over 80 percent of the American people support a balanced 
budget amendment. Inside the beltway, this is a great cause of concern. 
Back home in Michigan, we call it common sense.
  In addition, many of us have sought to protect the American people 
from further tax increases by supporting the tax limitation amendment. 
The provision will ensure that Congress will not and cannot balance the 
budget on the backs of its citizens.
  Such a provision would force lawmakers to balance the budget the same 
as millions of American families do every day. Hard working Americans 
do not have the benefit of spending more than they take in, and neither 
should their Federal Government.
  We are looking pass the first 100 days, and certainly the 
distinguished gentleman from Kansas talked about the Department of 
Education. The Department of Energy would be another consideration, 
privatizing HUD and maybe the Department of Commerce. We need to 
rethink government at every single level. We will not lose our focus, 
because we work for you, the American people.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I would like to 
recognize and yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida. You know, very 
soon we have the opportunity to stand and deliver to the American 
people. Recently we talked about the Contract With America, that we 
would bring to vote the 10 items within the Contract With America. And 
one of those items within that contract was the balanced budget 
amendment, something I campaigned for for a very long time.
  But, Mr. Speaker, not just any kind of balanced budget amendment, a 
balanced budget amendment that has taxpayer protection as its 
centerpiece. The taxpayer protection I am talking about is the three-
fifths super majority.
  But what does that really mean? It means that it is going to take 290 
votes to pass any future tax increase, 290. That is very important, you 
see, because currently it only takes 218 votes to pass a tax increase, 
a simple majority.
  Now, some in this body would say don't handcuff the Federal 
Government by tying our hands so that they can't raise taxes when they 
run out of revenue and just make it very easy for them to go ahead and 
pass another tax increase. But, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we 
need the three-fifths super majority for future tax increases, so it is 
going to make it tough to raise taxes in the future, so that when they 
do run out of revenue they can't just turn to raising taxes on the 
backs of the American working man and woman. They are going to have to 
look at the other side. They are going to have to cut spending and look 
at other ideas to make the books balance.
  One of the things that I have talked about for along time is that 
this Congress should operate like a business. They should balance the 
books like every business balances the books. They should run their 
budget like a hard working man and woman working together to balance 
the books of their own family.
  You know, on November 8 the American people sent us a message. They 
said enough is enough. It is no longer big government. We are going to 
send in the conservatives. And we are here. But the protection that I 
am worried about is after we are gone. Some of us are going to move on 
to the private sector. Some of us are going to move on to other 
offices. Some of us are going to do other things. And what about the 
protection for the American taxpayer when the 104th freshman class is 
no longer here to speak for the American taxpayer? And that is why we 
need a three-fifths super majority.
  You know, I have heard for a long time that liberals in this House 
have said that you just can't handcuff us. You cannot handcuff us. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we need to do. We need not only 
to handcuff the people of this institution, but we need to throw away 
the key, so that no longer can they do it with a simple majority. 
Three-fifths is the magic number, 290 is the vote. Whether you are a 
business executive or a homemaker, we need your help more than ever. We 
need to energize the troops. We need to have you call on your 
Representatives, because we want to make it tough, because we wanted 
the books balanced, and we want a good, tough, strong balanced budget 
amendment.

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I would like to ask the gentleman from Nebraska if 
he is persuaded by the arguments that he has been hearing about the 
reasons why we need to go ahead and cave in and not support this three-
fifths majority for a tax increase in the balanced budget amendment.
  It seems to me I have heard time and time again, you cannot support 
that, because it will never pass. It will never fly on the other side. 
The Senate will not pass that bill with a three-fifths majority 
requirement.
  I say let them vote on it when it comes in front of them. I think any 
conservative, any fiscal conservative, whether he or she be a Democrat 
or a Republican, would be hard pressed to vote against a taxpayer 
protection plan like this three-fifths majority includes in it.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. If the gentleman will yield, that is exactly what 
this is all about. I am not worried about what the other body is going 
to do. We have 230 votes on here. We have to find another 60 to make it 
290.
  Once we do that, the ball is in their court. But we have stood and 
delivered to the American taxpayer. That is what we were sent here to 
do: Stand up for the little guy, stand up for the hard-working man and 
woman who are out there fighting under the taxation and regulation of 
this Federal bureaucracy, who do not know what makes this country run.
  This country was founded on free enterprise, on the principles of 
capitalism, and we need to return that power back to the people, and 
that is what they said to this Congressman from Omaha, NE, on November 
8.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I would like to ask the gentleman from Nebraska one 
final question: Were you elected in Nebraska by your constituents 
because of your ability to read the minds of the Members of the Senate 
on how they would vote on particular bills?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. If the gentleman from Florida would yield, I was 
elected from Omaha, NE, because I was going to come back here to 
Washington, DC, fight for the little guy, relieve some taxation from 
this body, so the American man and woman would have an opportunity to 
put money away on the weekend, to put money away at the end of the 
month, to put money away at the end of their years for their future 
retirement, to pay the bills, to send their kids to college, and that 
is exactly what this body is going to do. And I am proud to say I am a 
member of the conservative 104th class. And we are going to change the 
way this body does business, because we mean what we say, and we are 
looking forward to making it happen.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  (Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LONGLEY. It is interesting that 2 days ago, and I am almost 
embarrassed to bring this up, but the supreme court of the State of 
Maine heard arguments on a question of whether the Girl Scouts in the 
State would be required to pay State sales tax on their Girl Scout 
cookie sales. And in the course of the argument, the State tax assessor 
argued that learning responsibility of paying taxes was part of what it 
meant to be a Girl Scout, or, in effect that we have succumbed to the 
level in this country or at least in this State and in this country, 
where we are literally chasing 10-year-old girls around to collect 
sales tax.
  The same problem is existing on the Federal level. It think it is bad 
enough and I heard this over and over again in my campaign, that we 
have reached [[Page H381]] the point where government was stooping to 
any length to get its hands on any extra nickel that it could from the 
taxpayers.
  It is bad enough that government is taking the bite that it is 
taking, particularly out of wages. But it has reached the point where 
it is not only taking money out of our checks and taking money out of 
our lives, but trying to tell us what to do with the rest of it.
  I am very interested to see a very important document, and I carried 
this in my campaign, a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of 
Independence. Over 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson said in very simple 
words, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain 
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness. But most important, to secure these rights, government 
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent 
of the governed.
  Government was not meant to be our master. It was not even meant to 
be our partner. It was meant to be our servant. And with all the talk 
today about reinventing government, I think that the language perhaps 
has been misdirected. We need to get back to the basics. We do not need 
to reinvent anything.

                              {time}  1630

  The best wisdom that has ever been written about Government and the 
democratic system and the free enterprise system is contained right in 
words of this document. I think we need to get back to it.
  I might add that I am also honored today to be part of a group of 
freshmen that is literally launching the first days of a new American 
Revolution. A couple of years ago there was talk about a gang of 7. I 
am very proud to be part of a gang of 73. Hopefully we can turn this 
country around, get the limits that we need on the growth of the 
Federal Government by forcing a balanced budget by the year 2002, and 
by insisting on a three-fifths majority rule as it relates to any 
future tax increases to make it more difficult for government to try to 
purchase its way or mandate its way out of the system through the taxes 
on the working people of this country.
  Let us make it clear, in my campaign I campaigned on the fact that if 
I bought a pack of cigarettes, I pay three taxes. If I bought a can of 
beer, I would pay four taxes. But if I went out in this country and 
created a job, gave a working person work, I would pay or manage nine 
different taxes. Literally three times as many taxes as on the pack of 
cigarettes or twice as many taxes as on a can of beer.
  When I look at those taxes, and let us talk about the minimum wage. 
There has been some talk about, a call for an increase. Yes, I would 
love to increase the take-home wages of working people. But when we 
look at what the Government has done at a minimum wage of $4.25 an 
hour, those nine taxes, five paid or managed by the employer, four paid 
by the employee, at the minimum wage they exceed 20 cents and, in many 
cases, approach 25 cents or more per dollar of wages. That is clearly 
exorbitant.
  When you look at the totality of wages that we collect, the taxes 
that we collect in this country, the bulk of them are taken out of the 
wage base, out of the wages and pockets of working people. It is time 
that we got away from the politics of greed and envy and realized that 
we are all in this together. We have to deal with this together, and we 
have to deal with it by dealing with a government that is spending more 
than it takes in and does not show any signs of relinquishing.
  I want to end on this note: I am very proud that today our Speaker, 
the majority leader, and the majority whip have addressed a letter to 
the President of the United States, pointing out that on, this past 
Sunday, and I will quote from the letter, that the Labor Secretary said 
``the President is against simply balancing the budget.'' When there 
was another question about balancing the budget, the Labor Secretary 
said, ``your question assumes that the goal is to balance the budget.''

  In the letter we point out to the President that this contradicts his 
1992 vow to put forth a plan to balance the budget. And we are going 
on, and I am happy to endorse what our Speaker and leadership have 
said, we call on the President to be consistent with the likely 
approval of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget by 
the year 2002. We call on him to submit a budget that would reach that 
objective and that would be consistent with his 1992 campaign pledge 
and that he disavow the comments made by his own labor secretary.
  Finally, I want to address my comments to the American people. It is 
clear to me as a freshman Member of this body that the bias in 
Washington is in favor of increasing taxes. It is in favor of 
increasing control in Washington. We need to turn this government 
around. We need to reempower individuals and citizens. We need to 
reempower the private sector. We need to reempower local and State 
government. We need to put a collar on a Federal Government that is out 
of control. And it is only going to happen if the public demands it. It 
will not happen if you leave Washington to its own devices.
  Again, I want to end on this one vote: Barely 2 weeks ago I stood on 
this floor with my 6-year-old daughter Sarah and my 10-year-old son 
Matt, and it was extremely troubling to me to realize, as I am sitting 
here about to take my oath of office as a U.S. Representative from 
Maine's First District that my 2 children, a 6-year-old and a 10-year-
old, that we are literally spending money today in this country that my 
children are going to be forced to repay. And that is not only a burden 
on our own economy, it is a tremendous burden on the future and the 
opportunities that I hope that we can leave to my two children, my son 
and my daughter. I know that many parents feel the same way I do.
  Sir, I appreciate the opportunity to address this body. I am happy to 
be part of the opening day, the first salvos in an effort to get this 
Federal Government to adopt a balanced budget amendment and to put a 
restriction on its ability to increase taxes.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Like you, I carried around a copy of the 
Constitution during my campaign, and I still do it today, simply 
because this is a second American Revolution that we are embarking 
upon. People have talked about the Contract With America for the past 
several months, and it is an extremely important document, but not only 
because of what it does today but what it is going to empower this body 
to do over the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. And that is, to continue 
taking us forward into a direction that will actually help us abide by 
the original Contract With America, which was that very Constitution 
that you and I and millions of other freedom-loving Americans carry 
around every day.
  I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. LONGLEY. I just want to pick up on what you said, because this is 
the fundamental Contract With America. I think that we do not need, we 
do not have anything that we need to reinvent. We have a system of 
government that is the finest in the world, that has stood the test of 
200 years of American history. We need to get back to the basics. It 
was a government based not only on a Constitution but the 10 Bill of 
Rights, including the 10th amendment, which is something that, again, 
this Government was based on local and State government, delegating 
responsibility to the lowest level, consistent with the need to achieve 
results.

  Again, we have build up a Federal bureaucracy, a government in 
Washington that is consuming resources left and right, is drowning the 
country with not only red ink, but it is totally seizing the tax 
capacity of this country to the derogation of individuals in local and 
State government.
  I just want to end on, add one other note. It only occurs to me, as 
you raised your question.
  I am fortunate, in the early 1970's, my father, now deceased, served 
as Governor of Maine. He was an independent. And he was also one of the 
initial cochairs of the national effort to balance the budget.
  The initial committee consisted of Gov. Dolph Briscoe, a Democrat 
from the State of Texas, a Republican, former Treasury Secretary 
William Simon of New York, and my father, independent Gov. James 
Longley of [[Page H382]] Maine. That was 18 years ago, 18 years, and we 
still have not dealt with the problem.
  Again, I appreciate the opportunity to address this House.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Shadegg].
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the 
gentleman from Florida for bringing this issue forward. Indeed, on 
November 8, the American people sent the first shot, I believe, of a 
new revolution, a revolution not to change America but to restore 
America, a revolution which will remind us and our children and our 
grandparents that America was built around the premises outlined in the 
Constitution, which the gentleman from Florida raised at the outset of 
this hour.
  Those premises were that people relied upon themselves, could govern 
themselves best, that a central governmental authority like we had 
escaped in England was not the best way for men and women to govern 
themselves. But, rather, that we should have that government which 
governs least and that men and women of this country for the first time 
would be free to determine their own future, to succeed or to fail on 
their own ingenuity, their own energy, their own effort and their own 
drive and that there would be no guarantee from government other than 
that of equal opportunity.
  We have drifted so far from that that it is difficult to even 
recognize the Government that we once began. The principles which were 
at the heart of that Government have become ignored regrettably here in 
this Capital City, and it is time that we returned to them.
  You began this debate by reminding us of the words of the 10th 
amendment. I think it is worthy to reharken to those words on many 
occasions. That amendment of the Constitution says that only those 
powers delegated specifically to the Federal Government are for use and 
exercise by the Federal Government and that all other powers are 
reserved to the States and to the people respectively.

                              {time}  1640

  I submit it is time to begin to review not just some pieces of 
legislation that pass through this distinguished body, but every piece 
of legislation which passes through this distinguished body, on that 
standard. In fact, is it within the power of the Federal Government to 
legislate in the area, or is it, rather, reserved to the States or to 
the people?
  When I ran for this office, I did so on a premise that it simply was 
not true that the people who occupy this hall and the one across the 
way, and the army of bureaucrats that they control, know better how to 
run the lives and the businesses of the citizens of the State of 
Arizona than those people in my district and in the State of Arizona, 
and, indeed, across America. I simply reject the premise that 
Washington, DC, is the font of all wisdom, and that we can manage every 
business and run every life better from the floor of this House than 
those individuals can do for themselves.
  The simple truth is, that stands the premise of this country on its 
head. I trust the people of Arizona, the people of Florida, and the 
people of America to determine their own fate. Yes, we need laws. We 
need to deal with those issues which cannot be dealt with by the States 
or by individuals, but we have gone so far beyond that that it is 
hardly recognizable.
  Let me talk, briefly, about an issue that has been touched upon here, 
and that is the issue of the balanced budget amendment, Mr. Speaker. It 
is absolutely essential and an essential element of the Contract with 
America that we pass a balanced budget amendment.
  That is critical because we have discovered what Paul Harvey has 
warned us, and that is that self-government without self-discipline 
doesn't work. Regrettably, what has happened is that we have come to 
that point in America where at least all too often we have determined 
that we can vote ourselves benefits out of this body without ever 
having to pay for them.
  Like you, I listened to the gentleman before this hour started talk 
about the dire consequences which would result if we simply enacted a 
provision requiring a balanced budget: that children would go without 
education in his particular school district, that schools would not 
have the resources they need; that the cities and towns in his 
particular district would not have the funds necessary.
  That simply cannot be true, Mr. Speaker, because if that is true, 
then he is asking the people of some other part of America to subsidize 
the schools and the cities and the towns and the counties in his 
district.
  The truth is there is no free lunch in America. If in fact there is a 
subsidy going to the schools or the towns and cities and counties in 
his district, that means that they would not have sufficient resources 
to run those schools, those cities, or those towns without getting 
money from Washington, DC. Then, in fact, he is asking America to 
subsidize his community. That is dead wrong.
  The Federal Government cannot provide resources to one district that 
it does not first take from another. So the balanced budget itself is 
absolutely critical, and it is no more complicated than the principle 
you laid out at the outset, which deserves repeating, and that is that 
the American people can have and should only have the amount of 
government that they are willing to pay for.
  However, there is a critical decision which will be made on the floor 
of this House within the next 10 days. That is will we pass a simple 
balanced budget amendment or will we pass an amendment with teeth.
  I have been talking with the members of our class, and they are 
uniform in their belief that a simple balanced budget amendment is not 
sufficient; that indeed, it does not exact the degree of discipline 
which is needed in today's world, and that what we need, rather, is a 
super majority requirement to raise taxes.
  Why is that? It is true because Government has discovered that we 
have anesthetized the taxpayer. We can take money out of their pocket 
through withholding and they never know it is there. So every time 
someone in this body dreams up a new idea for a new Government program 
or to solve somebody's problem, all we have to do is raise taxes just a 
little bit to pay for that good idea.
  The burden has become excessive. It simply is not true that 
Government taxes too little. It is true that Government spends too 
much.
  Let me relate a personal experience that I have. I have never served 
in a legislative body before having the privilege of joining this one, 
but I did have the privilege of serving as a part of a group of people 
who advised the Arizona legislature.

  I sat in on countless meetings where citizens with good intentions 
came to a member of the Arizona legislature and said, ``Here is a 
serious problem. We need you to solve it.'' They played upon the 
emotions and the sympathies of those elected representatives, and of 
course their instinct was, ``yes, we should solve the problem.''
  However, there was something missing in that dynamic. What was 
missing in that dynamic is that no one was there to represent the 
taxpayers who were to be asked to pay for that purportedly essential or 
necessary service.
  It is time for structural reform as a part of this revolution. It is 
time that we placed limits on the ability of Government to casually dip 
into the pockets of an already overtaxed citizenry. The way to do that 
is with a super majority requirement.
  That is, if the citizens and taxpayers of America cannot be 
participants in that conversation where we are being asked to extend 
one more Government benefit, then make the structure of Government so 
that it is harder to raise taxes. Put them there by virtue of a 
structural change which would say ``We cannot raise taxes upon a simple 
majority. We must do it upon a super majority.''
  On this floor within the next 10 days we will have an opportunity to 
vote for a requirement that says ``No future tax increase can be 
enacted without a 60 percent majority.'' I urge the people of America 
to get on their fax machines and their phones and to use their letters 
and any other communication device they have, buttonhole their Member 
of this Congress in the next 10 days, [[Page H383]] and tell them that 
they are not undertaxed but they are overtaxed; that we need a real 
reform, and that what we do not want is a balanced budget amendment 
which will lead to a balancing of the budget by an increase in taxes, 
but that what we need essentially in America is a balanced budget 
amendment which will lead to a balanced budget balanced on the basis of 
spending reductions.
  This is a critical vote. It will occur within the next 10 days. I 
urge the American people, you are participants in this revolution.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Again, from 
hearing him talk, I was once again reminded about the dire consequences 
that this Member who spoke earlier and others have been speaking about, 
talking about what would happen if we passed a balanced budget 
amendment, what would happen if we actually lived by the words of the 
Constitution.
  I have to ask you, in your reading of the balanced budget amendment 
as it is, does it seem to be ideologically driven by conservatism or by 
liberals, or is it value-neutral and policy-neutral as far as just what 
the goal is, and that is, to spend as much money--only as much money as 
you take in?
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the language of the draft which I hope will 
appear before us states a simple principle, and that is, first, we must 
balance the Federal budget and, second, future tax increases will 
require a super majority. It is built around the premise that I think 
Paul Harvey best elocutes, and that is simply that self-government 
without self-discipline won't work.
  The sad truth is that what we are doing now is we are voting 
ourselves benefits, but passing the bill on to our children, our 
grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. However, more than that, 
because we are creating that debt, we are also creating an interest 
burden, which means we have fewer and fewer dollars to pay for today's 
services because we are paying the interest on the debt we are 
creating, because we simply refuse the discipline to say no to extra 
spending.
  The super majority or three-fifths requirement would institutionalize 
that discipline which is so critically needed, so we do not continue 
the policies of tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend, to 
the point where we are today creating an underground economy where 
people no longer are willing to pay the onerous tax burden we are 
imposing on them because they simply understand they are not getting 
their dollar's worth.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, 
and would now like to yield to the other member of the Arizona 
delegation.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I would like to 
note what a personal thrill and high honor it is to stand alongside my 
friend and colleague from Arizona. We live in neighboring districts, 
and our people share similar thoughts and values.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have to remember was echoed in a 
previous remark by my good friend, the gentleman from Maine. It is that 
we are really not actively involved here in reinventing Government as 
much as we are involved in remembering what made this Government great, 
and what made it the last, best hope of mankind.

  Though we may use the rhetoric of revolution, and indeed, after 40 
years of maintaining an old order, it may seem revolutionary, Mr. 
Speaker, what we advocate is really not radical. Instead, it is 
reasonable.
  In the remarks we have heard from the other side throughout the 104th 
Congress, there seems to be an important ingredient missing. It is this 
realization. The money talked about and the funds appropriated and the 
horror stories of alleged losses and decreases in funding that Members 
on the other side of the aisle would point to fails to understand this 
basic point. It is not the Federal Government's money. It is money that 
rightfully belongs in the wallets and the purses of the citizens of the 
United States.

                              {time}  1650

  They know best how to spend their hard-earned money. They know best 
how to care for their families. One size does not fit all.
  Mr. Speaker, the answer is not found in government, but in ourselves.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  I must echo what he says, that the answers don't lie in Washington, 
and more importantly they don't lie on one side of the aisle.
  This is a battle that is going to be taken up on both sides of the 
aisle.
  I know on December 7, 1941, when Franklin Roosevelt stood before the 
House and Senate, as they declared war on Japan, it was a bipartisan 
effort. On that day, nobody cared whether you were a conservative or a 
liberal, or whether you were a Republican or a Democrat. They only 
cared that you were Americans. I can say this, that today, and as we 
approach this vote, it does not matter whether we are conservatives or 
liberals or Democrats or Republicans. The only thing that matters is 
that we begin treating our checkbook the way middle-class Americans 
treat their checkbook, and that we only pay what we have.
  It is a very simple request that the American people have given us. I 
see the gentlewoman from Ohio, and I know that she, too, is concerned 
about this on the other side of the aisle. We have to remember that one 
party does not have all the answers. But we have got to start 
somewhere. I believe this three-fifths supermajority to raise taxes is 
a great way to start, because this year, more than any other year 
before us, we can make a difference.
  The 104th Congress can bring about true reforms if both sides of the 
aisle will work together and if conservatives all across America will 
step forward and say, ``Enough is enough.''
  I would like to end my remarks by quoting someone who said this in 
1966, and the quote is inspirational and talks about American 
individualism, and what can happen when Americans get off their couches 
and dare to make a difference.
  The quote goes like this:

       It is a revolutionary world we live in. It is young people 
     who must take the lead. We've had thrust upon us a greater 
     burden of responsibility than any other generation that has 
     ever lived.
       ``There is,'' said an Italian philosopher, ``nothing more 
     difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more 
     uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the 
     introduction of a new order of things.''
       There is the belief there is nothing one man or one woman 
     can do against the enormous array of the world's ills, 
     against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. Yet 
     many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, 
     have flowed from the work of a single man or woman.
       It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief 
     that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for 
     an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes 
     out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, 
     and crossing each other from a million different centers of 
     energy and daring those ripples build a current which can 
     sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

  That is what has happened in 1994 and 1995. Centers of energy from 
the people across this country have stood up and individuals have dared 
to get off the couch and make a difference.
  I would like to commend the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy for making 
that statement in 1966, and I think it is a fitting statement that we 
as Republicans and Democrats can take forward as we dare to make a 
difference and reform this Congress that has needed reforming for so 
long.

                          ____________________