[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10836-H10843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CONGRESS' MARCHING ORDERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, I am excited tonight to talk about what is 
truly a historic day that is going to occur tomorrow, and I have four 
of my colleagues here this evening. I have the gentleman from Spokane, 
Mr. Nethercutt, the gentleman from up north Washington State, in the 
second district, Mr. Metcalf, and what I call an honorary member of the 
Washington delegation, my good friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Fox, and also Mr. White here from Washington State as well.
  The reason we are all here tonight to talk and really have a dialog 
among ourselves, but with the American people, is about what is going 
to occur tomorrow. It is truly a historic day. It really brings to a 
close in really a grand finale of what we have said is our motto, 
``Promises made, promises kept.''
  That is what we have done. We all ran and campaigned with the 
Contract With America because we believed it was the right thing to do. 
When we got here, we started on day one and began implementing the 
Contract With America, many of those issues we believe that are 
important. Between now and the time that we conclude, some time in mid-
November, the sooner the better, to get the people's work done, there 
are four main issues we are going to accomplish, and those are embodied 
in this Reconciliation Act we are going to be working on tomorrow and 
passing.
  The four main issues, and really they are Congress' marching orders, 
first and foremost, obviously, is to balance the budget within 7 years. 
The second is saving Medicare from bankruptcy, not for just this 
generation of seniors but the next. Reforming the welfare system, to 
get people on self-dependency. Last, but definitely not least, is 
allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money.
  All of us here tonight engaged in this colloquy can bring personal 
experiences from people we talked to at home about these important 
issues. The first issue we will talk about is the whole issue of 
balancing the budget.
  I know the gentleman from the second district in Washington State has 
probably been working on this issue longer than all of us in his 
elected career. He has done a phenomenal job. I would like to ask the 
gentleman from the second district of Washington, to tell us a little 
bit about what you have heard at home, why balancing the budget is 
important and why you are looking forward to casting an aye vote 
tomorrow and what this will really mean to working people at home, not 
just using the overall numbers, but what it will mean to families.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, this is in fact more than just how it will 
impact the individuals, and it will. We have to solve this problem. I 
look at it from my point of view basically as more about my 
grandchildren. What are we leaving for them?
  Norma and I have really in a small way realized the American dream. 
We own our own home, we use our own home for our own small business, 
and we were able to gain our home and we own it free and clear. I worry 
about that for my grandchildren. I think that the debt, the huge debt, 
the payments of $1,300 per person per year, not taxpayers, $1,300 per 
man, woman, children, all over America, I believe that is destroying 
the American dream for our children and grandchildren. I think 

[[Page H10837]]
their chance to own a home is 10 percent of the chance that I had to 
own a home.

  I think that this American dream is a thing that I resent most about 
year after year of overspending, needless, wasteful overspending, by 
people who voted over and over and over for unbalanced budgets and 
raising the debt limit. I believe that they are busily destroying the 
American dream for our children, and we intend to fix that.
  Mr. TATE. The point that I have heard at least when I have been home, 
and the point that really drives it home more than anything, is the 
first point on why the Republicans are balancing the budget, and it is 
for our children. My daughter, Madeleine, and I use this number over 
and over but it drives a point home, in her lifetime she will have to 
spend $187,150 in taxes just for her share of the national debt.
  Mr. METCALF. Just for her share of paying the interest on the 
national debt.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman is correct, not for defense, not for Social 
Security, but just her share of the interest. I know the gentleman from 
Spokane was home this weekend and had a chance to talk to constituents 
through the Fifth District of Washington. Mr. Nethercutt, give us some 
of your insights of what you have heard and why you believe this issue 
is so important back home to working people back in Spokane?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for your 
leadership in trying to meet the goals of this Republican Congress, and 
that is to balance this Federal budget. That is the overriding concern 
that I think all of us have as we look at the fiscal responsibility 
that we exercise here and the fiscal responsibility that the Federal 
Government needs to exercise.
  I spoke with a constituent today who communicated with me after 
watching the debate on the reconciliation bill today. His name is Rich 
Kuling. He made a comment to me after watching this debate, he quoted 
Aristotle, and he said, ``It is not ignorance, but false knowledge that 
is the greatest impediment to human progress.''
  We are seeing a lot of that today, as we listen to the debate on this 
issue of reconciliation and the rhetoric of the critics of balancing 
the Federal budget.
  The gentleman is right. I hear from my constituents on a daily basis, 
several hundred letters a day, just like all Members do in the 
Washington delegation. They see, ``Keep going. Be true to your promises 
and your commitments that got you elected, and balance this Federal 
budget, not only for our generation, mine, but for my parents' 
generation and for my children's generation.''
  So it is just a simple fact that we need to keep in mind as we look 
at the debate and the issue-by-issue examination of the reconciliation 
bill. Is it a perfect bill? Probably not. But certainly the overriding 
purpose is perfect, and that is to balance this Federal budget.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman is correct. It is for our children. We have 
heard about that at home. It will accelerate long-term growth, we know 
that, by lowering interest rates. It will strengthen financial markets, 
when the markets know we are actually serious this year about balancing 
the budget. It is going to raise productivity, when people can keep 
more of their own money, they can spend more money on their families 
and business. It will reduce inflation, make products a little more 
affordable, and strengthen the dollar.
  I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania, though he is 3,000 miles away 
from Washington State, I know he has heard some of these same kinds of 
things from his constituents.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman has 
been a leader in our freshman class and this 104th Congress in helping 
us move ahead toward a balanced budget. Whether one is a Republican or 
Democrat, we have a historic opportunity this week to actually balance 
the budget and do some things that I think my constituents and your 
constituents in Washington State want us to achieve for the first time 
since 1969. That will be to lower housing costs.
  If we balance the budget, according to a study by the National 
Association of Realtors, the average 30-year mortgage will drop by 
almost 3 percent. Our car expenses, your car loan rates for your 
constituents and mine, will lower by at least 2 percentage points. That 
is on a $15,000 5-year car loan, at about 9.75-percent interest, that 
is an extra $900 in the family budget. We will have lower college costs 
as a result of balancing the budget. Student loan rates will drop at 
least two points. A college student who borrows $11,000 will pay $2,500 
less for the car loan, student loan, and even more when it comes to the 
mortgage. We will also, by lowering interest rates and having a 
balanced budget, will create 6.1 million in new jobs.
  Mr. TATE. If the gentleman would allow me, we are basically paying a 
deficit tax. We are paying higher interest rates because the budget is 
not balanced. Higher interest rates on a car, an average car loan, $180 
a year; on a student loan, an extra $216 a year; on an average 
mortgage, $2,162 a year, for a grand total, most people have a car 
loan, many people out there still paying their college loans, most of 
us have a home loan, on average, $2,558 more per year that we are 
paying in basically a deficit tax, higher payments to a particular 
financial institution, because interest rates are higher because of the 
Government borrowing so much money.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield further, the 
fact is our State governments have to balance their budgets, county 
budgets, school districts, townships, towns, boroughs, they all have to 
balance their budgets, and so do our families. But the Federal 
Government, from many years of not balancing the budgets, now has a $5 
trillion debt. As said by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Nethercutt] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], we are now 
having to have our children pay $187,000 over their lifetime just on 
the interest. That is going to end, or we are not going to have the 
salvation that this Congress can bring for the economic future for 
senior citizens, for working families, and for the children who are 
going to take over the positions of leadership across this United 
States.
  Mr. TATE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The gentleman has 
been a real leader as well in the freshman class. I appreciate that.
  I know the gentleman from the First District of Washington State has 
four children, and is very interested in the future of this country. 
Tell us what you have heard at home and what are the constituents of 
the First District of Washington saying and why is it important to 
balance this budget and pass this reconciliation act tomorrow?
  Mr. WHITE. I thank my friend. I also congratulate the gentleman for 
being a leader. I also say that when you really sit down and think 
about why we have to balance the budget and why we have to make some 
decisions on our spending priorities, I think the way the gentleman 
from the second district has put it several times in the past is 
probably the most telling way to talk about it. Because when he talks 
about it, he says do we need this program or do we need to spend this 
money so badly that we should borrow money from our children to pay for 
it?

  Frankly, that is the way we have to approach every single nickel of 
Federal spending. There is only one way to get our spending under 
control and I think we have all talked about this at some length, and 
that is to make sure that every nickel of spending with nothing 
sacrosanct is on the table, and that we make fair cuts across the 
board, so all of us are participating in this program and setting the 
priorities which we should set for the Federal Government.
  I think this bill we are going to vote on tomorrow takes a very good 
step in that direction. It is not perfect, and I think we have heard 
the people talk to us all day about how there is one particular thing 
in this bill that just about everybody can find not to like. But the 
fact is it takes 218 people to get anything done in this Congress, and 
we are not going to have a much better product than the bill we have 
before us tomorrow, with all the millions and billions of dollars that 
it deals with, to actually balance the budget.
  From my perspective, I think the Speaker of the House was right this 
morning when he said to all of us gathered here this morning, ``If you 
are not prepared to vote for this bill, which balances the budget for 
the first time 

[[Page H10838]]
in 30 years, why in the world are you here?''
  We gave our word to the American people last year when we ran for 
office that we were going to balance the budget, somehow, some way. We 
have worked for 10 months on a program to do that. We have had to make 
a lot of decisions, we have had to set a lot of priorities, and we have 
probably made a few mistakes.
  But the bottom line is we have a product that will balance the 
budget, and, frankly, I am going to be very proud to support it.
  Mr. TATE. Could the gentleman answer a question: When was the last 
time the budget was balanced?
  Mr. WHITE. I believe it was in 1969 was the last time the budget 
actually balanced, and I think that actually might have been a bit of a 
fluke. I do not think the budget that was passed that year actually 
anticipated it to be balanced. It happened to work out that way because 
of revenue.
  Mr. TATE. So only in Congress was the last time the budget was 
balanced was in 1969 by happenstance or mistake. Only in Congress could 
that occur.
  Mr. WHITE. By dumb luck. We have had a quote from Aristotle. I might 
mention a quote from Socrates I like to use sometimes, which is that 
democracy only works as long as the electorate does not figure out that 
they can continue to vote themselves benefits from the public treasury, 
because a majority of people, theoretically, once they figure it out, 
can decide they are going to vote to increase benefits to themselves.
  You had to kind of wonder last year whether we had found the Achilles 
heel of democracy, whether unfortunately the American electorate 
figured that out and whether democracy was really going to work. Had a 
majority figured out a way to borrow money into the future? I think 
what were are seeing in this bill we are going to pass tomorrow is the 
answer is no. We have decided to make democracy work, exercise some 
fiscal responsibility, and come up with a balanced budget.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman is exactly right. I believe the public has 
known it all along we are in a time where we need to make tough 
decisions. We were elected to do that. That is what I heard.

  People at home when I am at home, I do not care whether I am at the 
local grocery store, standing in line at the ATM machine, people come 
up to me and say, ``Randy, just keep going. My biggest fear is you will 
not go all the way, as opposed to we are going too far.'' Their biggest 
concern is they are all for the balanced budget, but are we really 
going to do it. Tomorrow we are going to do it. They are concerned, are 
we going to reform welfare? Tomorrow we are going to do it. They are 
concerned with tax relief. Tomorrow we are going to do it. Are we going 
to save Medicare? Tomorrow we are going to do it.
  I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania is dying to get a word in.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I just wanted to add to this dialog in this 
sense. As we approach the budget this year, to make it balance, there 
were two overriding concerns I think all of us had who were freshmen 
Members of this 104th Congress, and that is one, if the Government is 
involved with an activity now, could it be better handled by the 
private sector? If it could not be the private sector, is there another 
level of government that can give that service better, more 
efficiently, more effectively, less expensively and more directly to 
the people. That has been accomplished to some extent in this budget.
  But second, and I think just as important, if not more important, we 
have looked to find ways to consolidate, downsize, privatize, to 
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse that has been in this budget for many 
yeas. By doing that, we are retaining the actual services that we want 
to get back to people.
  We do not want to have $30 billion of fraud, waste, and abuse in 
Medicare. We want $30 billion of that savings to go back for health 
care for our seniors. That is exactly what we have done. It has not 
gotten through in the media as much as we wanted it to, the real facts, 
but, frankly, this group of 104th Members, both sides of the aisle, I 
think, are dedicated to their seniors, working families, and our 
children, to make sure that we provide the services, without 
overtaxing, overspending, and overregulating.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. TATE. The gentleman is exactly right, Mr. Speaker. When I am home 
talking to folks, I always hear that the government that is the closest 
to their home, their government, their city councils, their county 
councils, their State legislators, whoever, better know their needs. 
They know where Tacoma is, they know where Everett is, they know where 
Spokane is, they know where the cities are in your district. They know 
best what is needed.
  The question I always ask is, well, can this program best be done in 
the private sector? If not, what level of local government can it be 
done by? The Federal Government should be the last resort, but for the 
last 60 years it has been the first resort. We have always said, boy, 
if we just had more money at the Federal level, if we had one new 
program, but it has not worked. And we do not have to look further than 
welfare.
  The gentleman from Spokane, Mr. Nethercutt, as a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, they have scoured through thousands of 
Federal programs looking for areas to reduce, putting money into those 
programs that work, but taking away from those that do not or change 
them.
  I would yield to the gentleman from Spokane.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This 
is a huge, huge Government. As appropriators looked at the breadth and 
scope of the Federal Government, it was astounding how many programs 
and agencies within agencies within agencies we fund. I think what the 
American people have to realize is that it is not the Government's 
money that funds these programs, it is the taxpayers' money. It is 
their money, and my money and everybody else who writes a check on 
April 15th and sends it to Washington and trusts us in the Congress to 
do what is right with their money.
  So we hear discussion about, well, we do not want to give any kind of 
a tax cut. What those critics are saying, and the party on the other 
side is saying is, we want to keep all that tax money that the 
taxpayers send us because we want to spend it, and the Government wants 
to spend it and not let the American people spend it.
  The majority leaders made statements, and all of us have made 
statements over the past months saying how can the Government decided 
how best decide to spend our money? Is that not something that we can 
decide as citizens better than the Federal Government?
  That is what we are trying to do is have a recognition, and we need 
to have a recognition that it is the taxpayers' money that we are 
dealing with here. And if we feel we do not want to take more of their 
money, then I think that is to the taxpayers' best interest and we all 
have to understand that, especially the critics of this balanced budget 
concept.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right on in his message on 
that. The point is there are good people working for the Federal 
Government, and I am not here to bash Federal workers, but they do not 
know where the cities are in our State. They do not know our children. 
We know our children. We know what their needs are. We know if they 
need a vacation or a new pair of Nikes or a little money put away for 
health care or a little away for higher education. We know best.
  That is what this is about, sending programs out to the States to 
empower people, not to build bureaucracies here along the Potomac that 
are filled. A person cannot go anywhere without running into a Federal 
building. They are full of people working here. We need to send that 
power out to the States and let them make the decisions.
  I want to touch on one point. I know there is so much rhetoric from 
across the aisle about these terrible cuts we are making. I want to 
point out that over the last 7 years we have spent $9.5 trillion, if we 
add up all the spending that has occurred. Over the next 7 years, under 
our balanced budget plan, we spend $12.1 trillion. If we did nothing, 
if we did things just how we have always done, the status quo, and we 

[[Page H10839]]
would not have a balanced budget and the kind of change we really want 
to see, we would spend $13.3 trillion.
  So we are slowing the growth by about $1 trillion. Spending will 
increase but it will be spending that is directed at people and helping 
them out and empowering folks back home in our districts.
  I can tell my colleagues as we are dealing with this whole issue of 
changing the way Government works, there is probably no more volatile 
issue than the whole issue of Medicare. I think we are all aware that 
it needs to be saved, protected, preserved, and I know the gentleman 
from the second district of Washington, Mr. Metcalf, has a very special 
interest in the program. I know he is actually on Medicare, but tell us 
why and start up a dialog on why we need to save and protect Medicare.
  Mr. METCALF. Well, Mr. Speaker, as I say and said the other day, I am 
the only one in the delegation who has a particular interest because 
not only do I qualify for Medicare, my wife qualifies for Medicare, my 
brother is on Medicare and three older sisters are. So I am absolutely 
dedicated to seeing that this program is not damaged, not put in 
jeopardy, does not go bankrupt, and it is there for those people 
counting on it. Because there are millions of people across this Nation 
that are truly counting on it and it has to be there as they need it.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would allow me, I hear the 
rhetoric from across the aisle that somehow Medicare is being cut. 
Could we answer that question?
  Mr. METCALF. Well, only in the Congress could a 6-percent increase be 
considered a cut. It is the new math that they learned and it does not 
work very well.
  Mr. TATE. Exactly. I have a chart here to really illustrate. If an 
individual is on Medicare today, they will receive on average across 
this country $4,816 a year. In the year 2002, they will receive $6,734. 
Now, like we just said, when we went to school and we received more the 
next year than we had the last year, that was an increase.

  Talk about new math. Maybe it is just verbal grenades that are being 
thrown from across the aisle trying to scare senior citizens, and that 
is too bad, but the bottom line is Medicare spending will continue to 
rise.
  I know the gentleman who serves on the Committee on Commerce, Mr. 
White, I know he has been real active in this debate, really in the cat 
bird seat as we have been working on it. Tell us a little about what 
the trustees have said, why this is important and why seniors will 
actually be better off under this plan than if we just buried our heads 
like ostriches and ignored the problem.
  Mr. WHITE. Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. The 
Medicare bill came to our committee, and although I did not know a 
whole lot about it until I got involved on the committee, I have sure 
learned a heck of a lot about it in the last 2 or 3 months, and I would 
say a couple things about it.
  First, I hope people understand how significant it is what we are 
trying to accomplish today. A year ago, when I was running for office, 
there were lots of people who would tell me it is basically impossible 
as a political matter to balance the Federal budget. Why? Because 
nobody will ever dare touch Medicare, nobody will ever dare touch 
Medicaid, nobody will ever dare touch welfare. Three entitlement 
programs that basically are the biggest problems we have in the Federal 
budget.
  And everybody knows unless we get those problems under control, we 
cannot balance the budget. And a year ago people were saying it is 
politically impossible to do so.
  Well, tomorrow, and actually last week when we voted on Medicare, we 
started to prove those people wrong. I think we did so in a way that 
when people look at the changes that we have made in the Medicare 
program, for example, they will be proud, proud as I am, of the sort of 
solution that we have come up with.
  What we have done is basically say if an individual likes the current 
Medicare system the way it is, they get to keep it. That is end of it. 
If they like what they have right now, they will keep it. The same 
percentage basis of premiums, same arrangement with their doctors, same 
paybacks by the Federal Government. The whole system stays the same. 
But if they would rather have some of the other choices that most 
modern health care plans make available to other people in the current 
health care system, they will have some of those choices, too. And we 
have five or six choices: Medical savings account, managed care, 
provider service networks, and several other possibilities that people 
can choose from.
  So, really, by modernizing this program we are able to save some 
money, provide health care more efficiently, but for people who are not 
comfortable making that transition or want to keep what they have now, 
they are entitled to do that.
  Mr. TATE. So, Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is stating very clearly 
is that seniors will have more choices next year under this plan than 
they currently have today.
  Mr. WHITE. They will have the same choices everybody out in the 
economy already has.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, what I like about the plan is, if an 
individual does not want to change, they can stay on the plan. If they 
do not fill out the form, they are automatically on your current plan.
  The other frustrating thing I have seen, and I think we have all been 
attacked in some capacity back in our districts, that these are somehow 
tax cuts for the rich; that somehow we are cutting taxes for the rich 
and we are paying for it out of cuts out of Medicare.
  If the gentleman would respond. I know the other gentlemen, Mr. Fox 
and Mr. Nethercutt, will want to respond as well.
  Mr. WHITE. I will be happy to say a couple of words about that. The 
fact is this budget does not cut anything, as your charts have shown. 
It just allows things to increase a little more slowly than they 
otherwise would have.
  We have saved, is the way I like to talk about it, we have saved 
about $900 billion, almost $1 trillion over the 7-year period. And we 
are going to use that money for lots of different things. We are going 
to use it to bring down the deficit, so that we get the budget under 
control. We will use it to provide some fairly small tax cuts to a 
number of people, primarily people with children, so that they can do a 
better job of raising their own families. We will use that money for 
lots of different purposes.
  So it is a mistake to say that the Medicare savings are going to go 
for tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the Medicare bill we passed last 
week says it is illegal to use those savings to pay for a tax cut. We 
have to use them to provide for additional benefits to Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  Mr. TATE. So the attacks on the other side, as well as those attack 
ads we have seen at home in some capacity, are just blatantly false.
  Mr. WHITE. I would like to say they are, unfortunately, misguided.
  Mr. TATE. That might be a nicer way to say the same thing.
  Mr. WHITE. A subtler way of saying the same thing.
  Mr. TATE. I know the gentleman, Mr. Fox, has had a number of townhall 
meetings back in his district. The gentleman has a senior advisory 
committee that helps him on Medicare. If he would tell us what he has 
heard.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Yes, our Preservation Task Force looked at 
the problem last April. The President's trustees came out and said in 7 
years we will be out of money in this Medicare Program. So what can we 
do about it? We said, how did we get this problem? Well, health care 
goes up 4 percent a year, but Medicaid goes up 10 percent a year. What 
is the problem? We found out there is $30 billion a year in fraud, 
waste, and abuse.
  This legislation, for the first time, is going to create the Federal 
offense of health care fraud. If it is violated by a provider, they 
will not only be out of the Medicare Program as a provider, but they 
can go to jail for 10 years. This is the first time we have attacked 
that problem. And under the lockbox, which Congressman White just 
talked about, the savings we get from getting the fraud and abuse and 
waste eliminated has to go back to the Medicare Program.
  I think it is important to point out, and, Congressman Tate, we 
appreciate your bringing this issue forward, but we want to separate 
the myth from the facts. The myth is that it will not be a 

[[Page H10840]]

better program. The facts are it will be a much better than we have 
today. Besides the fact we have fee-for-service and other choices for 
medisave accounts and managed care, it will not raise Medicare 
copayments or deductibles, it will not reduce services or benefits for 
the program, it will not force anyone to join an HMO. They can stay in 
the fee-for-service that we have now. We will retain the current fee-
for-service plan. It will ensure the solvency of the program for the 
first time.
  And as the gentleman stated earlier, it will increase from $4,800 a 
year to $6,700, which is a 40-percent increase, and it will increase 
the amount of money spent in the program $659 billion over that spent 
in the prior 7 years. And with the lockbox and the savings we are going 
to get from fraud, abuse, and waste elimination, we will make sure that 
Medicare is strong for this generation of seniors and the ones that 
follow.
  Mr. TATE. And, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about. The 
gentleman has hit it on the nose. Medicare is going broke. The trustees 
said it is. The Clinton-appointed trustees. We are going to save, 
protect, and preserve it. Seniors are going to get more money next year 
and the year after and the year after, and every single year, and they 
will have more choices and less waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. WHITE. If the gentleman would yield, there is one other great 
thing about this program that we overlook sometimes. We should focus on 
what is going to happen to beneficiaries, but this program will have 
some real big benefits for our medical care system as a whole.
  Right now the Government, under the Medicare Program, writes the 
checks for 30 percent of all the health care in the United States. The 
Medicaid Program is another 20 percent. So between those two programs, 
we, right now, are buying half of the medical care that Americans get 
in the United States.
  We have been saying for the last 40 years that we think it is going 
to go up about 15 percent next year, and so that is why we have to 
raise the budget every year. It is about time for the Federal 
Government to exercise a little fiscal restraint. It becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy. If someone is selling something to someone and 
they tell them that they think they will have to pay 10 percent more 
for it next year, we can be sure they are going to have to pay 10 
percent more because they are going to charge them 10 percent more. 
That is what the Federal Government has been doing.

  So one of the things we do under this plan is to say we will not 
continue those old ways. We are going to try to exercise some 
restraint, maybe save a little money, and we are going to say it should 
rise at about 6.5 percent next year. I think that is a real step in the 
right direction.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield to the gentleman from 
Spokane.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I was going to say this is a 30-year-old system. This 
was begun about 30 years ago, and Congressman White made mention of it 
a moment ago. This is a courageous step. Without being too self-serving 
here, this is a courageous step to tackle this monster program and try 
to get our arms around it and fix it, because it is broken.
  When the private sector is only growing at about 4 percent a year, 
and have reduced actually a little over 1 percent last year, but yet 
the Federal system grows at 10\1/2\ percent a year, it is not working. 
And I think we in the Congress, this reformed Congress have stood up 
and said this can be a better system, and that is what we do have is a 
better Medicare system. It will give my mom and your parents and Jack 
and his family a greater range of choices. What is wrong with that? 
That is a good system, a good system change.

                              {time}  2115

  As the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White] says, senior citizens 
who want to stay on the existing system can do so. And that should give 
everybody in this country of senior citizen age a great satisfaction, 
that they can either keep what they have, or get something better. We 
think it is a better Medicare system.
  One other quick point. In 1993, President Clinton made mention about 
his tax increases, that they were too much. They affected directly the 
senior citizen population that the critics of Medicare reform and 
preservation are arguing so hard to protect.
  Mr. Clinton raised, and the Democrat Congress increased the tax rate 
from 50 percent to 85 percent on Social Security benefits for 
individuals with incomes in excess of $34,000 and couples in excess of 
$44,000. This reconciliation bill repeals that tax increase.
  So, I do not agree with anybody who says that we are not trying to 
protect senior citizens in this tax bill, not only through Medicare 
reform and preservation, but through the repeal of the Clinton and 
Democrat Congress tax increases.
  Mr. TATE. If my colleagues listen to the administration, someone who 
makes $34,000 a year or $40,000 a year would be under the title of 
rich. I know in my town hall meetings, the issue comes up about the tax 
cuts and I ask everyone in the room that makes under $200,000 a year, 
that has kids under 18, to raise their hand, and I tell them to keep 
their hand up. I say, you are looking at the rich. These are the people 
that are rich.
  We are trying to give more money back to working people and senior 
citizens. They are the people that helped us get through World War II 
and were the backbone of this country through some of the darkest 
times, the Depression. We should let them keep more of their money. 
They worked for it, they pay for it, they should keep it.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from the First District of 
Washington [Mr. White] has some comments on that.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that those comments 
reminded me of a great political cartoon some may remember from last 
year. There was a poor, old farmer going out to the rural route on the 
road to open his mailbox and see what he has got in his mail today. he 
is there with his wife and he is opening the rickety mailbox. He is on 
a small farm and proud of himself, but he is obviously struggling. He 
takes out of the mailbox an envelope that is marked ``Clinton Tax 
Increase,'' and his comment is, ``Oh, no, we're rich.''
  That is about the way some people are approaching this; everybody is 
rich if they have got some money to be taxed.
  Mr. TATE. The statement has always been, ``There are two certainties 
in life, death and taxes, but death does not get worse every single 
year.'' That is the point. The taxes keep going up and there is less 
and less income at the end of the month.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I just wanted to add to this dialogue that 
you are having about the overall approach. Not only are we trying to 
make sure we balance the budget for all the reasons that you stated 
earlier, Congressman Tate, to help our families, to help our jobs, to 
reduce mortgage costs and reduce college costs, but in addition the tax 
reform proposal that the majority party have presented will not only 
help seniors as far as preserving Medicare, but we are going to make 
sure that we roll back that unfair 1993 tax on Social Security. As 
well, over the next 5 years, we are going to raise the amount of money 
that seniors under 70 can earn from $11,280 to over $30,000 in the next 
5 years, without having deduction from the Social Security.

  This is going to keep seniors independent to the extent to be able to 
do what they want to do with their lives. While many of them are 
volunteers, some of them want to continue working, and we should not 
have a disincentive with our Social Security system not allowing them 
to make up to $30,000 a year.
  Our proposals that have been adopted by the House, if adopted by the 
Senate as well and signed into law by President, are two more ways that 
we are going to try to help seniors.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is right. I know the 
gentleman from Spokane is very interested in providing more money for 
working families. We talked earlier about the issue of a tax credit for 
those who want to adopt. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, in my former life as a lawyer in 
Spokane, WA, 10 months ago, I did probably 100 

[[Page H10841]]

adoptions a year. It is the greatest service that anybody can provide 
in our society for another human being, that is to adopt a child and 
give that child love and care and attention for his or her lifetime.
  This bill, this reconciliation bill that is coming in before us 
tomorrow, which we will pass, provides a tax credit as an incentive for 
people to ease the burden of adopting a child. Sometimes hard-to-place 
children, children with health problems and others are difficult to 
place in a home with the ability to provide the resources necessary to 
raise that child.
  And make no mistake about it, it does cost more money to raise 
children than to not raise children. That is why we are providing some 
tax relief to families with children. Along with that, we provide 
assistance to people to encourage adoption and encourage security for 
young people in this country for their future life in a loving family.
  That is admirable in this tax bill and this reconciliation package 
that we are putting together. This is a good thing for families. It is 
a good thing for children. So do not let anyone tell us that we are not 
sensitive about the children of this country. We are, and we will be as 
we pass this bill tomorrow.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman is correct. That is why we are providing the 
tax relief for families, the $500 tax relief. I know the gentleman from 
the First District is real interested and I know his constituents have 
talked to him about that issue, I am sure.
  Mr. WHITE. They absolutely have, and I wanted to make a comment to my 
friend from Spokane. The gentleman mentioned that he was a lawyer and 
the fact is, I try not to emphasize it too much, but I was a lawyer too 
about 10 months ago. Unlike my friend, I was a bankruptcy lawyer.
  As I told people when I was running for Congress last year, frankly, 
that is pretty darn good training for coming to Congress. Over my legal 
career, I probably dealt with 100 or 200 companies that had financial 
problems and I had to figure out how to solve their problems, how to 
cut their budgets, how to get them to live within their means and find 
out what programs were working and what programs were not working.
  If there is any institution in the world that is a financially 
troubled institution, it is this Congress. I have frankly found that 
that has been pretty good experience to come to this body and find out: 
What programs do we need to have? We are not going to shut down the 
whole Federal Government. There are some things that the Federal 
Government needs to do. But there are also some things that are lower 
on the priority list.
  Mr. Speaker, I always say, and what we have done in the 
reconciliation bill tomorrow is to say: What should the Federal 
Government do? Let us make sure we do those things well. Let us not do 
everything in a mediocre way. Figure out what we should do and do those 
things well.
  But the things that we should not do, things for example that maybe 
the Commerce Department was doing, or in my view some of the education 
programs, which I think are better done at the State level, things that 
really can be better done by people in their families or by State and 
local governments, let us not do those at the Federal level. Let us not 
do those at the Federal level, and concentrate on what we should be 
doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this budget is a good first step in that 
direction. It does not take us all the way there. We have plenty of 
work to do, but I do think it does take us part of the way down the 
road.
  Mr. TATE. The message I heard at home from people was that they 
elected us because they did not want more of the same, but they did not 
also just want less of the same. They wanted things to be done 
differently than it has been done for the last 40 years, and definitely 
since 1969, when the budget was last balanced.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Spokane to talk to us a 
little bit more about what the tax cuts really entail. The capital 
gains tax cut, the family tax cut, what will that mean to folks at 
home?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. It is going to mean more money in their pockets and a 
better economy for this country, especially for eastern Washington.
  Mr. TATE. So it is not just for the rich?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Certainly not. It deals with agriculture too. 
Agriculture is a very important part of my district in the eastern part 
of the State of Washington. It is going to help farmers and 
storekeepers and small businesspeople. It is going to help single moms 
and single dads raise children, recognizing that that is the most 
important thing we can do in this country, is raise a good child to be 
a good citizen.
  We are encouraging that as we devolve this, transfer this Federal 
authority to State authority and local and county authority. That is 
all in the best interest of local citizens; people in Spokane and Walla 
Walla and Colville and Colfax and every other city in my district.
  It affects the broad range of people in this country; not only by a 
balanced budget, but by the tax relief we are trying to provide to 
people and leave more money in their pockets so they can spend it as 
they deem appropriate.
  Mr. TATE. I hear quite often, ``Tax cuts for the rich. Oh, it's tax 
cuts for the rich.'' We are really talking about working people. The 
capital gains tax cut, who does that help? Small business owners. 
Someone who owns a family farm, they sell their house. It affects all 
of us. The people we know next door or people we work with or people at 
church. It is just everyday folks.
  I know that Mr. Metcalf would like to make a few comments on this as 
well.
  Mr. METCALF. My comments are related more back to the children, and 
that is something that I would just like to comment briefly on, as far 
as this irresponsible spending over decades. That is what has racked up 
this $5 trillion debt. But in actual fact, it is worse than that.

  There is $5 trillion national debt, over $3 trillion of unfunded 
liability for pensions and retired military Federal employees, hundreds 
of billions that we have borrowed from the Social Security funds. It is 
far more serious than just the deficit. We have to solve them all and 
we do not have a lot of years. That is why our start now, and the vote 
we will take tomorrow, is one of the major steps along the way.
  I worry more. There was a previous speaker that said, ``The most 
important three things, the three most important responsibilities are 
our children, our children and our children.'' What we have done, what 
we have allowed as people to have happen is to extend this huge debt, 
load this huge debt on the backs of our children. As I mentioned 
before, we are destroying the American dream for our children.
  It is more than that, even. The continued inability of Congress to 
balance the budget has become a national disgrace that threatens to 
permanently destroy public trust in our government. More than that, 
more than just public trust, if we cannot stop it, it will destroy the 
government itself.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to borrow more money. I just want to 
harp on this a little bit more and sort of close with this. What we are 
doing is selling our children into debt slavery. This is something we 
have got to consider. The $187,000 that a child born in 1995 will pay 
in interest on the debt would buy a pretty respectable house for 
$187,000.
  That is what has been taken from them, probably, by the previous 
Congresses that have racked this huge debt that takes these terrible 
interest payments.
  When it comes to interest, I guess I will close on this by saying the 
people of England are still paying interest on the money that they 
borrowed to fight Napoleon. They paid that money over 13 times as much 
as they borrowed, but they still owe it. That is the kind of debt 
slavery we are promising for our children, instead of the American 
dream, if we do not fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Member of a Congress that plans to 
fix it, because we owe this to the future.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman is exactly right and I appreciate the 
gentleman coming out.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one last issue that I want to talk about in 
closing and then we will wrap up for the evening. It is the whole issue 
of welfare reform. It is an issue I have been involved in in trying to 
reform at the 

[[Page H10842]]
State level. It is really, to me, not about balancing the budget. We 
can talk about the $5 trillion we have spent since the 1960's on 
welfare programs. We spend somewhere around $300 billion a year, if we 
add up all the programs that are really related to welfare, whether it 
be health care, direct payments, or AFDC.
  That is three times what it would take just to pay people to get 
above the poverty level, if we could give direct payments. What we have 
done in the process by these programs, to me it is worse than anything 
we could do to people. It takes away their self-esteem. It takes away 
their dignity and destroys families and promotes illegitimacy and 
irresponsibility, because once they get on the system, they are 
punished. If they get a job, we cut them off. If they have more 
children, we give them more money.
  It has been said as long as I can remember, we tax more of what we 
want less of; we subsidize what we want more of. We have subsidized a 
system that really breeds dependence.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are several provisions in this particular 
bill. We all have our interests: Time limits; work requirements, and so 
forth; sending it back to the States. I know our State in the 
legislature this year, there was a comprehensive bill that passed the 
State House. It did not pass the Senate. We should turn it back to the 
States.
  I know the gentleman from the First District would like to comment on 
that as well. I know the gentleman is interested in welfare reform.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I am interested in welfare reform and I agree 
with my good friend's comment that this has really very little to do 
with balancing the budget. Sure, we want to make this program as 
efficient as possible. But the fact is we have spent $5 trillion on 
this program since 1965 and the problems we are trying to solve are a 
little bit worse than they were in 1965.
  If we assume there are 50 million people in poverty in the United 
States, that is 20 percent of the population. That is probably far too 
much. The fact is, if we have spent $5 trillion on 50 million, that is 
about a million per person over this 20-year period. Frankly, if we 
gave these people a million dollars, that would probably do more to get 
them out of poverty than anything else we could do.
  So, really, this is not about the budget; it is a moral imperative. 
At some point, we can try things for a long period of time and then we 
have to admit that, by golly, it has not worked. And if it has not 
worked, then we need to try something else.
  That is what we are trying to do in this bill.
  Mr. TATE. Exactly. The gentleman from Spokane?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Even here in the State of Virginia and I think in New 
Jersey there is an experiment of giving the States the ability to 
experiment with welfare reform and have more flexibility from the 
Federal system.
  In those two States I mentioned, they have had people who have been 
on welfare and also have had an incentive to work while continuing to 
receive some welfare benefits. That is work. They are now filling out 
tax returns and actually getting into the habit of working, instead of 
just receiving welfare money or welfare assistance and having a 
disincentive to work.

                              {time}  2130

  I think our plan is very clearly designed to provide an incentive for 
people to ease themselves off welfare. Two years will be an ample time.
  While America, I believe all of us would agree, needs to take care of 
people who need our help, we do not need to take care of people who 
just want our help. That is what this bill is intended to do, is to 
create incentives for people to be off the system and to make our 
entire national system of free enterprise and capitalism work better, 
and it will.
  Mr. TATE. The gentleman is right. I could not have said it better 
myself, even if I had attempted to. The point is well taken. There is 
no better feeling. It is a human feeling, that you are doing something, 
that you are getting up and going to work, getting up and contributing 
to society. We need to do everything we can to encourage them to go out 
there and work.
  Doggone it, a 2- or 3-year time limit, there has got to be an end. 
Eventually you have got to say, if you are able-bodied, maybe I should 
get out there and get a job, give a little something back. That is what 
this welfare reform is all about.
  I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been an active participant 
in this particular issue.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think it is very clear.
  First, I appreciate your bringing this dialog forward because, 
without having welfare reform, we are not going to attack one of the 
biggest issues in the country; and Republicans and Democrats alike, as 
well as the Congress and the President, know that this welfare system 
is not working. Everybody has said so.
  What are we going to do about it? The President recommended in the 
food program and WIC that we have a 3.1-percent increase. The other 
side of the aisle said 3.6. We adopted a 4.5-percent Republican 
majority position for an increase in those food programs. But, more 
importantly, we said we are going to block grant those programs to the 
States but with a 15-percent administrative cost we used to spend in 
administering at the Federal level. We said to the Governors, you can 
only spend 5 percent. But with the additional 10 percent we are giving 
you, you must feed more children more meals.
  Going back to the States, back to the individual local levels, we are 
going to give them more money, going right to services. That is what 
the welfare reform bill is all about. The fact is there are able-bodied 
people who will be given the opportunity under this legislation to have 
job training, job placement, job counseling, and day care, if 
necessary.
  So those are very important points. It is a compassionate bill that 
gets service to those who need it, but those that do not deserve to be 
on welfare and are not really qualifying should be removed from those 
rolls.
  Mr. TATE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  I know the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] is here. I appreciate 
you taking the time to come out this evening.
  Mr. WELLER. I welcome the opportunity to join with you. I see my 
colleagues here from Washington State and Pennsylvania. Of course, I 
come from the heartland, the State of Illinois, the land of Lincoln. 
Let me tell you, I have heard so much frustration coming from the 
taxpayers that I represent regarding our welfare system.
  Today, we have a welfare system in which, over the last 30 years, the 
taxpayers have invested $5 trillion. That is T, as in trillion dollars. 
What have we gotten as a result? Higher rates of juvenile crime, more 
children living in poverty today than ever before and higher rates of 
teenage illegitimacy. That is the result of our current welfare state.
  It has failed. We have got to change it. Like you, I am committed to 
changing our welfare system. I am proud to say that our welfare plan 
that passed the House this year emphasizes family and responsibility 
and emphasizes work and goes after those deadbeat parents that are not 
meeting their obligation to their own flesh and blood, their own 
children. I am proud to say that we passed a good welfare reform.
  But, at the same time, if we are going to say, okay, folks, it is 
time to get off welfare, it is time to go to work, we have to make sure 
that there are jobs there for them to go to work at.
  Under our program, our balanced budget, there are so many benefits 
for people who want to work. In the last few days, I have met with 
building tradesmen, members of a local labor union in my district, with 
the African-American leadership in my district, with the farmers, the 
small businesspeople and the students; and they all say, jobs are 
important. If we are going to move people off welfare and put them to 
work, we have got to make sure there are jobs there for them.
  It was interesting, there has been some what you would call 
independent statistics that really show why our economic plan is so 
important and why it is so important to balance the budget. These are 
not plans that come from the Democrats or the Republicans or 
information that comes from the Office of Management and Budget 
appointed 

[[Page H10843]]
by the President so it has got political leanings. You understand that. 
They say, if we balance the budget, we will lower taxes, lower interest 
rates and also have a stronger economy as a result.
  McGraw Hill, a respected think tank, an independent organization, 
released a study that they did for the National Association of Realtors 
which concluded that a balanced budget would result in a 2.7 percent 
drop in mortgage interest rates. What that means for a family in 
Illinois, in my home State, is that a family with a 30-year $50,000 
mortgage at just a little over 8 percent interest would save $32,000 
over the life of the loan. That is over $1,000 annually. That is an 
even bigger tax cut just by lowering interest rates.
  A college student, student loans, giving young people the opportunity 
to go to school, a college student borrowing $11,000 at 8 percent 
interest, a lower rate than they currently would get at their local 
bank or through the direct lending program, would save $2,100 over the 
life of the loan.
  Lower taxes, lower interest rates will create a stronger economy and 
create jobs.
  In fact, the Joint Economic Committee estimates that by lowering 
interest rates, brought about by a balanced budget because the Federal 
Government is no longer competing with our small businesses, those who 
want to go to school or our local families by lowering interest rates 
over 2 percent it would create 6.1 million new jobs over the next 10 
years just because interest rates are lower.
  That is the best kind of tax cut. Lower interest rates, lower taxes, 
better-paying jobs. That is why I stand in support of balancing the 
budget for the first time in 26 long years, and I am proud to say I 
will be casting a vote tomorrow to balance the budget and live within 
our means just like every American family.

  Mr. TATE. I thank the gentleman. I know the hour is late. The 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] would like to make some 
closing remarks as we finish up our evening colloquy.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I just want to say as new Members of Congress, all of 
us have cast some very serious votes in this 104th Congress. It is a 
historic Congress. Tomorrow's vote probably will be bigger than any of 
the votes we will have made thus far, the last of which was on our 
Medicare vote.
  This is an important vote. It means the future of the country for the 
next 7 years. It means we will balance the Federal budget in 7 years 
and this is the starting point as we go each year and meet our 
financial obligations for the country.
  I think this is a proud moment for all of us as freshmen. It is a 
difficult moment as we all have said. This is not a perfect bill, but 
it has got so much good in it and so little bad, I think as you really 
balance it out. But I think we have no choice but to vote for the 
future of the country and vote in favor of this reconciliation bill.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and certainly the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. White], the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox], the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] for all the work we have done as 
freshmen. I know there is a lot more work to do, but we will meet the 
task.
  Mr. TATE. A few closing remarks by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
White] as your reflect on tomorrow's vote.
  Mr. WHITE. I cannot resist the opportunity to make a few closing 
remarks.
  No. 1, I would like to thank the gentleman for putting together this 
program allowing us to have this time. I would like to tell you and the 
other Members that have spoken tonight how proud I am to be a part of 
this class. We are all freshmen, all kind of learning our job, but 
frankly I think by and large we make good decisions and I think we are 
committed to doing what needs to be done.
  Finally, I would like to say we are going to take an important vote 
tomorrow. I think we will vote to balance the budget, but let us not 
forget, that that is really only the beginning of our job. Because 
every day for the next 7 years after this bill tomorrow, we are going 
to have the opportunity to bust the budget again. This is not an 
amendment to the Constitution and every day Congress can undo what it 
did the day before.
  So tomorrow is very important. It is essential that we take this vote 
and I know that we will but let us not forget the long term. Because we 
are going to have to keep the faith, keep our fiscal restraint, keep 
the discipline every day for 7 years if we are actually going to get 
this job done. I am committed to that, I think a majority of the 
Members of the House are committed to it. I just look forward to 
getting through that process and actually getting to a balanced budget 
in the year 2002.
  Mr. TATE. I thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White]. This 
bill will be binding by our vigilance and how hard we work on it. I 
thank you for your courage and involvement in this as a leader in the 
freshman class.
  A few last comments by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] as 
we close out this evening, before our vote tomorrow.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I just want to say I appreciate, as the 
others do, that you have taken a central role here in the 104th 
Congress in bringing forth I think the vision that you had in 
Washington State here to Washington, DC. That is, to get our fiscal 
house in order, to be accountable to people back home, and to also make 
sure that the services that the people truly need from their Federal 
Government, they will get. But they will get them without the waste, 
without the fraud, without the abuse, without overregulating, without 
overspending. We can make a difference by working with both sides of 
the aisle, working with the President and in the end I think we are 
going to have a bill that starts with tomorrow's vote but will end 
sometime before the holidays, which I think will bring about a 
bipartisan effort which will be better for all of America.

  I appreciate the fact that I know you will be at the table there 
making sure that your vision and that which the 104th Congress has to 
make the country stronger, fiscally more responsible will in fact be 
the reality.
  Mr. TATE. I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Weller], the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. White] for taking the time to come out tonight. The fact remains 
seniors next year will have more Medicare than they had this year. 
Welfare recipients are going to get back to work. There are going to be 
more college loans next year than there were this year. And school 
lunches are still going to be there. All this kind of Chicken Little, 
the sky is going to fall, the threats of fiscal Armageddon if these 
things do not pass, we have been blamed for everything but the war in 
Bosnia. The bottom line is we are interested in making sure our kids 
have a brighter future. It is about providing more jobs. It has been 
mentioned several times in different ways, we want to lower interest 
rates, not just because it feels good and it is a great accounting 
thing. It affects people's real lives. It provides more jobs, more 
opportunities and that is what it is all about, the things that we are 
going to cover tomorrow.
  We are going to balance the budget for the first time in 7 years, we 
are going to save Medicare not only for seniors on it today but for our 
children tomorrow. We are going to reform welfare, to give people 
dignity again, to get them off the system that really abuses them and 
to provide tax relief not only for families but for economic 
opportunities, allow people to spend more of their money. That is what 
it is all about. It is about opportunity. The question really tomorrow 
is do we borrow or do we balance? Opportunity or fear? That is what it 
is all about. This Congress is going to balance. We are no longer going 
to continue the ways of just borrowing ourselves into oblivion. I thank 
the gentlemen for taking the time. I look forward to casting this 
historic vote tomorrow.

                          ____________________