[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11374-H11380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is recognized for 
45 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take advantage of this 
momentous occasion to talk with some of my distinguished colleagues a 
little further on what we did on this floor today.
  This vote earlier today on the Seven Year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1995, as far as I am concerned, is not only the 
defining moment for the 104th Congress, but clearly it is one of the 
most historic votes in modern memory.
  I had the opportunity to preside for a short period of time today in 
the Speaker's chair over the debate, and, as I was sitting up there, 
Mr. Speaker, where you are sitting now, I was really struck. I found 
myself thinking back 

[[Page H11375]]

on my first stint in Congress, since some of my friends and families 
like to teasingly call me a ``retread.'' But I have served in Congress 
once before, took a time out, I guess a forced vacation or sabbatical, 
going through a near-death experience politically, and then 
won election again to Congress, and had, obviously, the good fortune to 
come back to Washington as part of our new majority.

  As I was sitting up there today I thought back on the debate we had 
in the 102d Congress, when a group of us, led by the gentleman from 
Ohio, John Kasich, who is now the chairman of the House Committee on 
the Budget and the primary architect and sponsor of this Seven Year 
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, attempted to force a debate on this 
floor on balancing the Federal budget.

                              {time}  2015

  As I thought back on that debate, I realized that the terms of the 
debate back here in Washington have fundamentally changed, and for the 
better, in my view. I think there is no going back to that time and 
that tenor in previous Congresses. The debate has changed again because 
now the debate is framed in terms of what we will do, even if it 
entails sacrifice on the part of ourselves and our fellow Americans to 
preserve the American dream for our children, and, frankly, to create a 
better opportunity, a better future rather for better opportunities for 
all Americans, particularly for our kids and grandkids.
  So back then the debate was cast in terms of why we cannot and will 
not balance the Federal budget, and today, concluding with this 
historic vote on final passage for the 7-year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act, we saw that the debate in the 104th Congress and, 
as far as I am concerned from here on out, will be cast in terms of how 
we can and we will and we must balance the Federal budget.
  So, Mr. Speaker, things have very much changed. Back then, in that 
102d Congress, and what made me think of this is now that the junior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, one of our former colleagues, Senator 
Santorum came over to join us tonight on this floor for the conclusion 
of the debate and the vote on final passage. Back than I recalled doing 
special order with him into the wee hours of the night. Now we are a 
little more civilized, we have a certain time restraint on special 
orders to allow our hard working staff to get home. But I remember that 
on that occasion we both took from our wallets, as I am right now, 
photographs of our families. We both have young children. As I look at 
mine, mine are much older than then and certainly have grown much 
bigger, but I really think what we did today is all about our kids and 
America's children.
  Again I am struck by how much the debate has changed back in 
Washington, and I look forward to talking about these fundamental 
changes with my colleagues on the House floor tonight during the 
remaining time for our special order.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I want to yield to the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] who can, I think, set the stage for the debate 
to follow, and then we will go to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Norwood], and my colleague and very good friend the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], who I think has made some 
major contributions to the budget reconciliation package.

  So I will yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs], and I want to set the framework for the rest of our discussion 
by giving to the audience here in the House Chamber and elsewhere what 
the marching orders have been for Congress, and they are expressed on 
this chart here.
  This is something that has been driven by the American people. We 
have had a lot of polling data that has been given to the Congress and 
it says there are some things they want to see happen over the course 
of the remainder of this year. Well, top on the list here is balancing 
the budget in 7 years.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of voting for a reconciliation 
package that does balance the budget in 7 years and it passed on a vote 
of 227 to 203.
  We also received from the American public the request to save 
Medicare from bankruptcy this year. I want to make a comment that there 
has been some confusion between tax breaks, which we will talk about in 
a minute, and saving Medicare. The allegation has been that we are 
taking cuts in Medicare and giving it to our rich friends, but it is 
really not true. In fact, it is an outright lie. We are increasing. 
What is going to happen in Medicare, right now the average recipient 
gets $4,800. By 2002 the average recipient will get $6,700, an increase 
of $1,900, 43 percent.
  There is a provision called a lockbox in the bill that says that any 
savings go right back towards health care. They do not go towards any 
kind of tax breaks. So that has been a big misnomer the American public 
has had to swim through to get to the truth.
  Also, as a request from the American public, we are going to reform 
welfare. That is an important thing to do because we have a system now 
that is obviously broke. It is anti-family and anti-work. Just since 
October 1st, in Wichita, Kansas, we had a toddler that was shot in a 
gang feud. A two-year-old child was sitting in a car seat out in front 
of a Quick Trip, which is a convenience store; in a gang-related 
killing this little child was shot. This is evidence of the breakdown 
of the American family. It is time that we change this system that has 
been around since the 1960s because it really is broken.
  By any yardstick that we use to measure our social climate, whether 
it be violence or drug abuse or illegitimacy, they have all gotten 
worse in the last 30 years, and I think their roots are in the current 
welfare system.
  The last thing I want to talk about is providing that tax relief for 
families and for job creation that is important, and we will expand 
more on that later, but one more chart I want to talk about before I 
yield back. This is from Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, and it goes back to the very first point we were talking 
about, balancing the budget.
  We need to look at what are the effects of balancing the budget. 
Congress has been trying to do it for 25 years. They have been 
unsuccessful until this year. This year we are successful in getting on 
a glide path to balance the budget by 2002. But what will be the 
results, according to the chairman of the Federal Reserve? His vision 
says that children will have a higher standard of living than their 
parents.
  Mr. Speaker, about a year ago there was a poll where about two-thirds 
of Americans had lost faith in the system. They did not think that 
their children would have the same or better opportunities than they 
had. We are going to restore faith in the system. We are going to 
provide the opportunity for may children and the children in the fourth 
district of Kansas and across America to have a higher standard of 
living than their parents.
  Improve the purchasing power of incomes. We have seen a real 
degradation of purchasing power over the last 40 years. We want to 
reverse that trend by balancing the budget.
  A rise in productivity. If we are going to compete on an 
international basis we must have a rise in productivity.
  A reduction in inflation. We have not seen the inflation like we had 
during the Carter years, but we are right on the verge with a lot of 
short-term debt that needs refinancing and long-term debt. We have a 
very big increase in the money supply. We must check that inflation so 
we have a reduction in inflation.
  We are going to strengthen financial markets. Acceleration long-term 
economic growth and a significant drop in long-term interest rates. 
According to Alan Greenspan, a balanced budget would reduce the 
interest rates 2 percent. And in the average house in Wichita, KS, that 
would cut the payment about $100 a month, over a 30-year mortgage about 
$36,000 to $38,000. A significant reduction by simply balancing the 
budget.
  So I think we have had a real challenge from the American public. We 
have seen a significant step tonight with putting the seven-year 
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act in place, passed through the House. 
And as I yield back, I want to say I was very proud to be a part of 
that and hope that America will see this significant 

[[Page H11376]]

achievement and have hope for the future, because I see that hope.
  Mr. Riggs. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his 
participation in this special order. He makes, I think, some very 
significant points, not the least of which, to paraphrase that 
wonderful and venerable saying, we do not inherit the world from our 
parents, we borrow it from our children. I think what we are all about 
tonight, and as a majority party in the Congress, is making a better 
world for out children.
  I really believe, Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of 
excuses. As the gentleman from Kansas points out, it has been more than 
a quarter of a century since Washington last produced a balanced 
budget. Twenty-five years. And the American people's patience with the 
excuses, with the Washington gimmicks, has actually worn out.
  Last November, and I do not think there is any mistaking the message 
of last year's election, they demanded an end to ever bigger 
government, ever increasing taxes and endless deficits as far as the 
eye can see. They voted for smaller government, lower taxes, and a 
balanced budget, and that is the clear message to the Republican 
Congress.
  After 10 months, Mr. Speaker, of frankly fighting the entrenched 
opposition of the defenders of the status quo, for the most part the 
Democratic minority, which has refused to acknowledge at least what the 
leader of their party, President Clinton, has recently acknowledged, 
and that is we must get on with task of balancing the budget. Despite 
all the obstacles we have encountered, we are able to report to the 
American people tonight mission accomplished.
  So as the gentleman points out, for the discussion that will follow, 
we have produced today in this historic legislation the first balanced 
budget in 25 years, which includes a plan passed last week on the House 
floor as a separate freestanding bill and then incorporated into the 
legislation on the floor today, a plan to preserve, protect and 
strengthen Medicare which still allows Medicare spending.

  As the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] finally admitted a 
little earlier this evening in his special order, we still allow 
Medicare spending to increase for every senior every year. As the 
gentleman from Kansas points out, we have a genuine welfare reform 
proposal that emphasizes work, families and hope for the future. And, 
last, but certainly not least, in terms of importance, tax cuts to 
counter, and let us be honest about this, the huge Clinton Democratic 
tax increase in the last Congress, but tax cuts to strengthen families 
and to stimulate economic growth and job creation in the private 
sector, which gives us most of our new living wage jobs.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. I thank my friend from California for yielding, and let 
me say to the gentlemen, Mr. Hutchinson from Arkansas, and Mr. Tiahrt 
from Kansas, that I am very pleased to share this hour with them. I 
think it is fortunate that we represent the whole southern end of the 
United States so that people can know that this is not just a Georgia 
thing and this is not just an Arkansas thing, this is a movement that 
we see in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate for us to recognize how 
fortunate we are to have such a wonderful speaker pro tempore tonight, 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham]. We are privileged to be here with 
you, sir.
  I also want to point out that I would rather be watching the Braves 
game, the Atlanta Braves are going to finish that series tonight, and I 
am sorry I will not be there, but today is such an historic day that I 
wanted us to have a little time tonight to talk about the truth again, 
because, generally, we have to come in an hour early to hear the 
misrepresentations and the half truths so we know really what to say to 
the American people in order to correct their misinformation.
  It was interesting to me tonight, Mr. Riggs, to watch the minority 
leader, Mr. Gephardt, and the fact that he was actually stunned that 
this body was going to balance the budget. He seemed in disbelief that 
after 25 years we were actually going to balance the budget. I think 
for me tonight I was a little stunned, too. I cannot imagine this body 
having an hour debate where the debate is what is the best way to 
balance the budget.
  Do Members know we actually did that tonight? We had another group 
that thought we should do it a little different way, but the idea was 
that we have to balance our budget for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a little bit to why we are dealing 
with the problem.What really caused this reconciliation package for a 
balanced budget over 7 years. We in this country, maybe not us, maybe 
our children and maybe our grandchildren, are in debt $5 trillion. That 
is a fact. My 2-year-old grandson owes $187,000 on his portion of the 
interest on the debt. If we continue to follow the lead of Mr. 
Gephardt, we would borrow another trillion over the next 4 years, get 
into the 21st century and start borrowing a trillion every 3 years, and 
next year we would pay more for the interest on the debt than we 
actually spend on defense and where would it end?
  I think it is pretty clear if we continue to follow the Gephardt plan 
that we are going to end up bankrupt. We are going to end up a mess in 
this country with a standard of living that none of us want for our 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another option. We can follow the lead of the 
great South American economies and we can start printing a lot of 
money. Well, we all know what happens there. Our economy goes to ruin. 
A third option for us might have been to follow the President's lead 
and continue to do what we are doing and spend whatever we want to 
spend with no prioritizing, just spend it if we like it, and we could 
get into the 21st century and our children would be paying 85 cents out 
of every dollar they earn just for taxes, just to keep this country 
afloat.

                              {time}  2030

  Now, it is my personal opinion, my children are doing enough. My 
father paid $1 out of every $50 he earned in Federal taxes. My son is 
paying $1 out of every $4 he earns. They are doing enough.
  Our only alternative, then, was to do what the people I know in the 
10th District of Georgia said do. They said for us to balance this 
budget by cutting spending. And in addition to that, they said, we do 
not like the 103d Congress' and Mr. Clinton's $260 billion tax 
increase. And if my colleagues do not believe they did not like it, 
look around this body sometime and look at all the new faces. The 
American people said we do not want the tax increase.
  Now, what I think we are trying to do is exactly what my people at 
home said do. First, give them their money back. I do not think of this 
as a tax cut; I think of this as a tax return. We are giving $245 
billion back out of the $260 billion.
  Now, we start doing what they told me to do. Start by cutting the 
spending. That is precisely what this reconciliation has done. As we 
talk about more details of our tax return and details of this great 
Medicare Program, Mr. Tiahrt and I talked about it the other night. I 
cannot wait for us to get home and start talking to our seniors and 
give them the details.
  Mr. RIGGS, I will yield back in hopes that we will come back and talk 
more about Medicare.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is very 
distinguished in his professional life. I guess he could call it his 
``real life.'' His professional career. He is one of a handful of 
medical doctors who joined the 104th Congress. He is a dentist by 
profession and obviously very knowledgeable about the issue of health 
care.
  I know that he has worked hard on the Medicare Preservation Act 
portion of the budget reconciliation bill. So, I would like the 
gentleman from Georgia to review for us, briefly if he could, what we 
were able to accomplish last week when we passed the Medicare 
Preservation Act on this House floor, and why it was included in the 
budget reconciliation.
  Mr. NORWOOD. First of all, I do not think any American would disagree 
with us on the point that Medicare part A was going bankrupt. If my 
mother-in-law was to have Medicare in the year 2002, we had to act. We 
could not hide behind a rock; we could not wait until the next 
election; we needed to deal with the problem today. That is 

[[Page H11377]]


exactly what we have done, and I am very, very pleased with the 
outcome.
  I think we have managed to do some very good things for the patients, 
if you will. That is how I tend to think about people. But the patients 
in Medicare are going to be much better off.
  First thing, we are going to increase the spending greatly. I know, 
40 percent; I get new numbers saying up to 50 percent. But the spending 
over 7 years is going to increase greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, I will use the same tired numbers. We are now spending 
$4,800 per recipient. In the year 2002, we are going to be spending 
$6,700 per recipient. I know in Washington that is a cut, but in the 
10th District of Georgia, that is a $1,900 increase.
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman would yield for me to interject, those 
figures are actually higher in high-growth States like California. The 
increase in California is roughly from $5,000 per Medicare beneficiary 
today to $8,000 per Medicare beneficiary in the year 2002.
  Our Medicare Preservation Act anticipates that we will spend an 
aggregate of $50,000 per Medicare beneficiary in California over the 
next 7 years.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. NORWOOD. If I could, I want to hurry and bring this up. My 
mother-in-law may be watching. One of the things that is so great about 
the Medicare plan is the options. The patients are going to have the 
same options that we have as Congressmen. They are not going to have to 
have one-size-fits-all. They are going to look at a number of 
alternatives and they are going to pick the option that is best for 
that family. A 65-year-old is going to take a different option than an 
85-year-old, but the point is, they will have options.
  Quickly, let me say, Medicare recipients do not have to do anything. 
If they want to stay in Medicare exactly as it is today, all they have 
to do is stay there. They do not even have to make a phone call. If 
they like part A and part B and Medigap and that suits them and they 
are happy with their doc, they can stay put,
  There is no increase in the copayments; there is no increase in the 
deductibles. It is exactly like it is. We are not changing anything for 
anybody.
  Now, having said that, Mother-in-law, I want to look at some of the 
other great options, because there are new ways to have health care. We 
are going to have provider service networks. Listen, I have been in 
health care. That is going to be great. The doctors are going to come 
together. The hospitals are going to come together. They are going to 
have efficiencies. They are going to work at getting the costs down and 
not have to worry about the Federal Trade Commission putting them in 
jail.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what has been holding the price up, partly, in 
health care. The Federal Trade Commission would not dare let two of our 
hospitals come together and share a CAT scan. Lord knows, that is 
cheating.
  Mr. RIGGS. And that is the antitrust reforms we made.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Antitrust reforms are very important in that bill.
  Another option for patients will be to try managed care. That is 
going to be the right thing for certain people. It might not be right 
for everybody, but recipients can get into these programs for the first 
2 years and if they do not like it in 30 days, go back. Try them all. 
Try even one of them. See what is best for your family.
  Medical savings accounts will be terrific. Not for every patient. Not 
for every person. But they are going to be very good for many families 
to choose the medical savings account where they simply get a cash 
rebate from the Government. Rather than them paying a recipient's 
Medicare bills, the recipient will put that money in the bank and draw 
interest on it and no tax on it. They will have a catastrophic 
insurance plan and they even choose the amount of their deductible; 
$3,000, $5,000. It is a terrific bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments of the 
gentleman from Georgia who is one of the leading architects of the 
Medicare reforms that are contained in the bill.
  Now, if the gentleman would not mind, I want to turn to the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson]. We are also joined by the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] is one of the principal 
movers and shakers in the House of Representatives for real reform of 
the American welfare system; one of the chief architects of the welfare 
reform provisions contained in the Seven-year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act.

  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] is the leading proponent 
of the section in the budget reconciliation bill which effectively will 
abolish the Department of Commerce and at least partially address the 
criticism from some of our political opponents and other skeptics and 
pundits across the land who believe that we are not willing to tackle 
in an earnest fashion the whole issue of corporate subsidies.
  Let me turn first to the gentleman from Arkansas and then next to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity 
to join my friend and colleague on a truly historic and monumental 
night. I have admired the gentleman's contribution for many years back 
when he was in the gang of seven in his first round in Congress, and I 
think he had a great deal to do with bringing this day and making it a 
reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I first got into public life and ran for public office 
back in 1984. We had a business and I have been involved in education. 
People asked me, ``Why would you get into politics and go into the 
State legislature?'' I served 8 years in the Arkansas State Legislature 
with Bill Clinton as the Governor.
  My answer was very simple. I had one motivation. I had three boys who 
at that time were pretty young. I had twins who were 12-years-old at 
the time and I had an 8-year-old. I looked at where our country was 
headed and even then 12 years ago at the kind of debt that we were 
accumulating in this country and the burden that we were placing upon 
them. I wanted to be able to look them in their eyes and say, ``You 
guys, the Nation that I am leaving you, the heritage that I am leaving 
you may not be what I wanted it to be, but I did what I could to 
reverse that.''
  Mr. Speaker, here a dozen years later it is so gratifying to know 
that all across this country there were people who were feeling that 
same way and who took the step to get into public life and who have 
made this day a reality.
  For the first time in 25 years, we passed a reconciliation bill that 
leads us to a balanced budget in the year 2002. I suppose if it had 
been easier, there would have been a Congress that would have done it 
before. It has taken courage and there were some choppy waters out 
there, but today we cast the right vote.

  In the midst of all the debate and statistics and rhetoric today, I 
am afraid it could be easy to forget that the real winners in this vote 
today, the real winner is the American family. And that is the purpose 
of this, and I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for 
organizing this special order to remind us that the real victors today 
were the families.
  The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] a moment ago had the chart up, 
the marching orders for Congress: Balanced budget, tax relief, welfare 
reform, and Medicare reform. When we really look at those issues, they 
come right back to the American family. There is nothing more that we 
could do for the American family than balance the budget.
  My district director has a 2-year-old little girl, Abby Deatherage, 
and we have all fallen in love with her. When Abby was born 2 years 
ago, she inherited $18,000 worth of debt and she is going to pay 
$187,000 over her lifetime just to pay her part of the interest on the 
national debt, and it has gotten worse every day.
  Mr. Speaker, we finally have started to change that with this 
historic vote today.
  Mr. RIGGS. If I may interject for a moment, that will be taxes that 
she will pay over the course of her lifetime as a wage earner and 
taxpayer just in interest on the national debt for no productive 
purpose. This is money that otherwise could have gone perhaps for 
college education, home purchase, health care, but instead it will go 
just to pay interest on the national debt at the present rate.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is her paying for our luxuries and what we 
wanted to consume during our generation.

[[Page H11378]]

  Let me illustrate it a different way. It is not a partisan issue. 
There was a bipartisan commission on entitlements. It was chaired by 
Democrat Senator Kerry, and it made this observation. In just 17 years, 
the year 2012, Federal mandatory spending, that is entitlements, plus 
interest, that is mandatory spending, entitlements plus interest, will 
consume all of the total amount of revenues collected.
  Not a penny for roads; not a penny for courts; not a penny for Head 
Start; not a penny for drug enforcement; not a penny for the FBI, 
national defense, and on and on we go. All of it consumed on 
entitlements and on interest.

  Mr. RIGGS. And that is the course we were on until today.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Until today.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Let me ask a question about that. Had we not changed 
things, I can expect that the likely solution would well have been to 
raise taxes until we get up to the President's number of 85 cents out 
of every dollar, leaving our children to live on 15 cents of every 
dollar.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. My colleague is exactly right. The liberal solution 
has always been raise taxes. But the interesting thing is that the 
Joint Economic Committee that produced a report in 1992 demonstrated 
that during the last 40 years, every time Congress raised taxes $1, 
they increased spending $1.59, which I think is the clearest evidence 
that raising taxes is not the solution to deficit spending. Rather, it 
is to control spending and that is what this Congress took a big step 
toward today.
  Ronald Reagan said, ``Never give a big spender a bigger allowance.'' 
That is what we have been doing for too long.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about tax relief. Back in my 
district, there are some awfully patriotic people. They say, We would 
like to have a tax cut, but why cut taxes if this is the time to 
balance the budget?
  I think the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] said it well. He 
explained the situation that we face appropriately. They deserve a 
dividend out of the savings that we are generating. The tough choices 
that we have made, they deserve to get a dividend on that.
  There is nothing I have worked harder on than this $500-per-child tax 
credit. My Senate colleague from Minnesota, Rod Grams, and I worked 
very hard to get it into the Republican budget 2 years ago when the 
Republican budget did not seem anything more than a symbolic gesture. 
It became part of the Contract With America, and now it is passed 
today.
  In 1948, the average family paid 3 percent of its income to Uncle Sam 
and today that same family pays 24.5 percent. When we combine it with 
State taxes, local taxes, the cost of government regulation, the 
average family pays 52 percent of its income to the Federal Government.

  Mr. Speaker, that is more than they pay for clothing; more than they 
pay for food; more than they pay for recreation; more than they pay for 
health care. All of those things combined, they are paying more to the 
Federal Government in taxes.
  Then they say, ``You are cutting Medicare so that you can give breaks 
to the wealthy.'' Who are we really giving relief to? That $500-per-
child tax credit will benefit most the middle-class working person who 
has seen his lifestyle squeezed over the years. If he makes $30,000 and 
they have two children, that couple is going to see their Federal taxes 
cut in half.

                              {time}  2145

  If they make $25,000 a year, two children, that $500 per child tax 
credit will mean that they owe nothing.
  Mr. NORWOOD. They do not pay any taxes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Those are not rich people. They will not owe anything 
at that wage level.
  Mr. NORWOOD. It depends on who defines rich. I notice some on the 
other side say anybody who has a job is rich. A family of four making 
$25,000 a year is not rich. You mean to tell me they will not have to 
pay any? All of their tax liability goes away?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That will be the effect.
  Mr. NORWOOD. What a great move.
  Mr. RIGGS. That family of four effectively gets a $1,000 tax break 
each and every year until those two children turn 18, and I believe the 
estimate was that the $500 per child tax credit will completely 
eliminate the Federal tax liability for something like 4.7 million 
American families with incomes below $25,000 a year.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. They are suddenly going to discover, when this 
becomes a reality next year, that they are the rich people that people 
said we were cutting taxes for.
  I might point out, I want to commend the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] for his efforts on insuring that the earned income tax 
credit for even lower-income working Americans, those making $12,000 to 
$20,000, to insure that this budget reconciliation will make them a 
winner as well, that there will be no working Americans with children 
who will be net losers because of this budget reconciliation bill. I 
think that is very important. We want to reward working Americans and 
working American families. That is what this budget reconciliation can 
do. The issue is who can spend it better.
  For years, for a generation now, we have confiscated the taxes, the 
wages of hard-working Americans, brought that money to Washington; we 
in our wisdom in the Washington-knows-best mentality decided where it 
should go, sent it back to them in the form of entitlements after we 
took out a huge surcharge back in Washington.
  Back in Arkansas, we kind of have the notion God made the family to 
be the primary caretaker of their children, not the government, and 
that the moms and dads of middle America will know better how to use 
that money for the benefit of their children and their families than 
bureaucrats in Washington, DC.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Just for a second, you mentioned the earned income tax 
credit, and you know and I know we have heard so much unbelievable 
rhetoric about that.
  Do you know that this 7-year reconciliation balanced budget bill 
increases that by 35 percent? ``Increase'' in Georgia, that means going 
up, you know, 35 percent more for the earned income tax credit.
  Mr. RIGGS. Likewise, we increase spending, of course, on Medicare, 
Medicaid, and the welfare program, although at a slower rate than the 
present course.
  So I thank the gentleman from Arkansas very much for his 
contribution, and I was really remiss. I introduced him as one of the 
leading architects of welfare reform in the House of Representatives. 
He is certainly that. But he is also the chief proponent of the $500 
per child tax credit going back to the last Congress in his first term 
in Congress. I want to thank the gentleman for what he has done to 
provide much-needed tax relief for American families.
  I want to turn to the gentleman from Michigan, who, as I mentioned 
earlier, was the chief proponent, or is the chief proponent, of our 
plans for reinventing the Federal Government by beginning with the 
elimination of the Commerce Department.
  I also want to signal to my colleagues that we have a little bit less 
than 15 minutes remaining on our special order.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I thank the gentleman. It is good to be here joining 
you at this moment, certainly a moment of history when this Congress 
has passed Medicare reform, welfare reform, balanced budget, certainly 
the dismantling of the Commerce Department, which is near and dear to 
my heart, but also tax cuts.
  You know, I would like to take a minute, and my colleague from 
Arkansas, you know, I think you hit it right on the head. The 
Republican Party is the party for people that work. That is really what 
we are saying here. You know, when you talk about these tax cuts, the 
only people that say that they do not want a tax cut are people that 
can afford it. But people that work, they are the ones that really want 
it. You know what this thing is all about, and the Democrats know what 
this is all about, they are railing against this tax cut.

  I mean, it was, first of all, school lunches. We heard that back in 
May, school lunches; we were eliminating the School Lunch Program, we 
were taking the food out of the children's 

[[Page H11379]]

mouths. But guess what happened in August, a school year started, and 
we have not heard one story or one comment from anyone about one child 
in this country that did not get their school lunches. Is that not 
amazing?
  I think it speaks volumes about the rhetoric we heard today, and what 
we are trying to do to balance this budget, what that really means is 
instead of spending $3 trillion more than what we are spending today 
over the next 7 years, we are going to spend $2 trillion more than what 
we are spending today over the next 7 years. The Democrats know that. 
They know we are increasing spending. The only way to get to a balanced 
budget in 7 years is to increase the growth of revenue, and the only 
way to increase the growth of revenue is to have these tax cuts.
  You know, it is not money the Federal Government has that we are 
going to say we are going to give you some money back. It is money that 
we are saying to people out there, keep it, do not send it in, you will 
make a better decision about spending it. The Democrats know it. They 
know that we need those tax cuts. All of us in this country need those 
tax cuts in order to get this balanced budget, and we need to make 
sure, as we did tonight, as the Senate will do tomorrow, that there 
will be $245 billion worth of tax cuts in this.
  There also is certainly a provision in this thing that says we have 
to have the spending cuts first, and they have to be certified before 
the tax cuts kick in. I think it is important for the American people 
to know that.
  Mr. RIGGS. Is that the lockbox language?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I was going to say, set up the lockbox provision, that 
says that when we eliminate a program, those savings go to eliminating 
the debt which is other than the deficit. So we have set up a number of 
things.
  Mr. RIGGS. Just on that one point, to make sure I clearly understand 
what the gentleman is saying, the gentleman is saying our 7-year 
balanced budget plan has to be certified as getting us to a balanced 
budget, and perhaps even generating a budget surplus, an unheard-of 
idea in this town, but a budget surplus, a balanced budget and a budget 
surplus by the year 2002 before any tax cuts can take effect.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. That is exactly right. Now, the American people need to 
know that, because there is a lot of demagoguery going on about this, 
and it is amazing to me, the American people need to know that this is 
not the Government's money. This is their money. All of us. We are the 
taxpayers. We are the government, in fact, and most Americans, it is a 
strange phenomenon, but most Americans think the money withheld from 
their paycheck is not even their money, and, you know, it is the single 
largest expenditure they make, as the gentleman said, higher than the 
car that they buy, higher the clothes and the food they put on their 
tables, the clothes they put on their backs. This is a tremendous 
expenditure on the part of the American taxpayers. It is their money. 
It is not government. We are not cutting taxes. We are just letting 
people keep more of what they earn and save, and we need a little less 
government. We need lower taxes. We need to let people make their own 
decisions about how they spend their money and not government, because 
we need to preserve the opportunity, certainly that all of us have had 
in our lifetimes, for our kids because when it is their turn, they 
deserve the same opportunity that we have had.
  That is what this is all about.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Very eloquent. The 
gentleman made a crucial point. The gentleman actually made the point 
that by allowing people to keep more of what they make, more of their 
hard-earned money, we actually create an incentive for average 
Americans to plan and save for their own retirement, which helps reduce 
the strain on the entitlement programs. I think that is a crucial 
point.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. When we let people keep more of what they earn and 
save, we let them make their own decisions how they spend it, they are 
always going to make the better decisions. They are going to go out and 
buy something. When they buy something, somebody has to build that 
something. When somebody builds something, they are earning a wage and 
paying taxes. That is how you create revenue for the government.
  Mrs. MYRICK. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman from Michigan 
makes a very good point, you know, when you talk about government 
funds, and it is really our money and the taxpayers' money. Have we 
ever considered the fact that why do we not just talk about, instead of 
saying government funds, taxpayers' funds or taxpayers' money every 
time that we mention it? Because really and truly there is a mentality 
up here that says, ``Oh, it is the government's money,'' and so the 
American people really do not have the benefit of the thinking to 
realize that we are here to say, hey, wait a minute, this is your 
money, and we want to give it back to you. Just a thought.

  Mr. CHRYSLER. It is a very good thought. Certainly, you know, we all 
need to understand that we have got to talk in language the American 
people understand. We talk about Medicaid and Medicare. The average 
American out there does not understand the difference. This Medi Grant 
Program is much clearer than Medicaid, and certainly things like Most 
Favored Nation status for China should be called normalizing trade 
relations. Community Reinvestment Act should be called high-risk 
lending because that is exactly what it is. When the American citizens, 
the American taxpayers, can understand what we are talking about in 
clear and concise language, then they will feel more a part of the 
government and there will be more respect for it.
  Mr. RIGGS. I look forward to doing further special orders with my 
colleagues. I know, with the frantic pace we have been keeping in this 
Congress, we will be on next week on to other matters. Really I think 
we hopefully will at least periodically pause and reflect on what we 
have done here today. We ;still have a ways to go. Obviously, we will 
have to work out any differences between the House and Senate versions 
of this balanced budget reconciliation bill. Then we have to see what 
the President does, the one remaining obstacle to the critical reforms 
we discussed here tonight. I am committed to coming back here and 
reinforcing our actions and making sure we convey our message to the 
American people because again this is by far and away the most 
momentous and historic vote in any Congress in modern times.
  I want to go very quickly to may colleagues to give them an 
opportunity to make some closing remarks.
  Mr. TIAHRT. As we close, I want to say the 7-year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act is for Gene and Kathy Ewert, who have Tia, Trevor, 
and Katie. It is a $500 tax break for each one of those. That will 
cover several months; rent. For David and Kay Walker, who have three 
sons, Caton, Daniel, and Body, that will be $500 for each of those 
boys, and that will cover several months of house payments, and it is 
very important to David because he is on strike right now.
  So this tax package that we have in the 7-year Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act is for families, and I am excited about that, and I 
am happy that we can still balance the budget, get the workings of 
government going and take care of families here in America.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman for his comments and participation.
  Mr. NORWOOD. In closing, I will make three quick little points. No. 
1, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] 
on behalf of my 29-year-old son and two of the most beautiful children 
you have ever seen for the $500 tax credit. I know that it is going to 
the right place for the right people.
  I think it is very important that we say to the American people, 
because I know it drives me crazy when they talk about tax cuts for the 
wealthy, when 90 percent of these tax returns that we are going to give 
people back are for families with incomes of $75,000 or less, and 75 
percent of the capital gains that we are going to return to people go 
to families with $50,000 or less.
  In conclusion, I want to talk about a lady back in my district. I 
will not talk about her name, but I think it points out what this tax 
cut, tax return bill does as much as anything. She is a single parent 
with two children, and she makes $17,500 a year. Under our present 

[[Page H11380]]

system, she gets back each year $939, under the current tax rate, and 
the earned income tax credit. Under our plan that we passed today, that 
family will get back $2,214. That is $1,275 more for a low-income 
working single mom than she would get under the current law.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank all of my colleagues again. I thank the gentleman 
from Arkansas and the gentleman from Michigan.