[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11814-H11820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            STAY THE COURSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, before I introduce those that are joining me 
tonight, I am pleased to share with those that might be viewing that 
tomorrow will be one year since the new Republican Majority was 
elected. Tonight, I am pleased to have at least five or six of my 
colleagues, freshmen colleagues from throughout the United States of 
America. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] 
the second gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stockman]. Possibly, before we finish the 1 hour, the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, we all are freshmen that were elected last year to help 
change America. To build a better America, if you will.

                              {time}  1945

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield my time so that the 
gentleman from Arizona can kind of be the floor leader to keep this 
dialog for 1 hour going and that we can help to inform the American 
people that might be watching.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from North 
Carolina, and I am pleased to join with him and our friend from 
California and my neighbor from Arizona as well as my good friend from 
Texas this evening.
  History demands that we recall the historic moment that occurred 364 
days ago, the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November 
1994. An election that literally shook the foundations of this 
institution, when for the first time in four decades the old order that 
talked about more and more government spending and more and more debt 
on our children and more and more authority resting in a massive 
centralized bureaucracy with little accountability to the people, that 
philosophy was rejected.
  Now as America prepares to confront a new century with leadership 
truly passed to a new generation, those of us here and assembled on 
this floor tonight and, Mr. Speaker, I daresay, those who join us via 
the technology of television, deserve a status report on what has 
transpired. Forty weeks of governing in the wake of 40 years of liberal 
rule, and the people need a status report. Though it is not my intent 

[[Page H 11815]]
to go in alphabetical order, Mr. Speaker, I do see my good friend from 
my neighboring district in Arizona, Mr. Salmon. Mr. Speaker, what is he 
hearing at home?
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, we just had a townhall this weekend. I think 
it was our 30th since I was elected to serve in the 104th Congress.
  The folks back home are a lot smarter than I think the media gives 
them credit for. The answer that they gave to me resoundingly was stay 
the course, stick to your guns. You have started a revolution, but it 
is just the tip of the iceberg. We expect you to see through to the 
many promises that you made in the campaign.
  No. 1, that you would balance the Federal budget and quit financing 
failed social programs of yesterday on the backs of our children and 
our grandchildren. It is immoral, stop it. Get the job done. That is 
what we sent you there for.

  The other thing that I heard, I hear all this rhetoric from folks 
back here about folks back home not wanting to have tax cuts. As I 
talked to folks back home, especially those that feel the pinch, those 
that are trying to raise children in today's society and those that 
feel that maybe they just know a little bit better than the Federal 
bureaucrats here what might be best for their family and how their 
dollars might be spent, I heard again very clearly from them. We are 
sick and tired of money going back to Washington and going down a 
rathole. It costs $1.50 to produce 50 cents worth of services at the 
Federal level, and it has got to stop. We think we are a little bit 
better qualified to address our family's priorities than some nameless, 
faceless bureaucrat in Washington, DC.
  That is what I heard resoundingly, stick to your guns, stay the 
course and do what we sent you there to do. If you are going to be like 
Congresses of old and buckle and put a Band-Aid on problems like 
Medicare and not really save the program for future generations but put 
a Band-Aid on so you can get through the next election, if those are 
the things that you intend to do, you are no different than the 
Congresses we sent there in the past and we do not want you back.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I see that one of our friends from Florida 
has joined us who was also a part of that historic night but even more 
importantly is part of this new history-making majority in the House of 
Representatives. As we yield to our friend from Florida, I would 
imagine that, even though the gentleman from Arizona and I reside in 
neighboring districts and hear much the same message, I have to believe 
that the gentleman from Florida hears similar things from his 
constituents.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely amazing. As I 
campaigned last year, I was an unknown. I had never been involved in 
any political process. Most of my friends here were never involved in 
the political process until last year. We campaigned. It was an 
underfunded campaign, but we believed that we had the ideas that would 
make a difference in my campaign.
  I talked in very general concepts. I talked about the tenth 
amendment, which I hear all of us talking about, where the tenth 
amendment says all the powers not specifically given to the Federal 
Government are reserved to the States and the citizens. I quoted Thomas 
Jefferson, who said the government that governs least governs best. 
Perhaps my favorite quote and the centerpiece of my campaign was the 
James Madison quote which really encapsulated what my campaign was all 
about.
  Madison, who was one of Framers of the Constitution, said all powers 
not specifically--I am sorry--said, we have staked the entire future of 
the American civilization not upon the power of government but upon the 
capacity of the individual to govern himself, control himself and 
sustain himself according to the Ten Commandments of God. I thought I 
was this visionary, that nobody else was talking about the tenth 
amendment because I did not hear anybody in Congress talking about the 
tenth amendment. I did not hear anything coming out of Congress or the 
White House about the tenth amendment or talking about Madison or 
Jefferson. I thought that these were archaic ideas that our Founding 
Fathers talked about but that somehow this liberal Congress had 
forgotten all about.
  I come up to Washington, DC and I find out that everybody else, you 
and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], on the other side of 
the continent were saying the same exact thing. There was just 
this undercurrent that swept us into Washington, and people do not 
understand why we are so committed to do what we promised to do. It is 
because our people put faith in us when nobody else, when the political 
pros and the pundits and the New York Times, which personally came to 
my district and said there is no way you are going to elect radicals 
like Scarborough.

  I am sure all of my colleagues here have the same stories. Nobody 
else believed in us, believed in the ideas of Madison and Jefferson. 
But my constituents did, and I will be darned if I am going to spend my 
time in Washington compromising with a liberal Democratic Party that 
never represented my district well and never represented the views and 
ideals of the Founding Fathers that laid the great foundation of this 
country. That is my responsibility, to carry through on that promise.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said something very 
interesting, paraphrasing friends from the fourth estate who sometimes 
seem to step across that bound of reporting into advocacy for those who 
always propose bigger government programs and a highly centralized 
state.
  It was interesting to hear that description of your candidacy as 
radical. Of course, the amazing thing is that only to those who exist 
inside the beltway were our candidacies or is this new majority in any 
sense radical. Quite the contrary, to the people in the heartland of 
America, from California to Florida, through Texas and in Arizona and 
in the great State of North Carolina, throughout this country, it is 
not radical; it is rational and reasonable.
  And therein we find the difference. Despite what the media axis 
between New York and Washington would report and promote and quite 
often distort, the American people in their infinite wisdom cut through 
all of that and understood what was at stake. I think we have a prime 
example here on the floor tonight in our good friend from Texas, the 
pundits called, as you will remember, the giant killer, who was able to 
win election to the Congress of the United States after many tries and 
some talk from the pundits that he ought to maybe not think about 
public life.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, we just had a town hall meeting. We had 
several town hall meetings. I thought after reading the papers, I 
stated believing, Mr. Speaker, some of those issues and wrongly so. 
Some of those issues are, we are doing the wrong thing, we are going in 
the wrong direction. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say something. I went to 
those town hall meetings. The chairman, the former chairman of the 
Democrat Party, the country judge there stood up and he said, sir, I 
have been a Democrat all my life and I stand behind what you are doing; 
not because it is Republican, not because it is Democrat, because it is 
the right thing to do.
  I was amazed as people came forward that knew and understood what we 
were doing and the knowledge that they had. They said to me, please 
continue what you are doing, do not stop. Quite frankly, I was 
astounded. I came away from that wondering whether the people that act 
as our fourth estate really comprehend that the rebellion that took 
place was at the grassroots level.
  Mr. Speaker, we had $1.2 million spent against us, $1.2 million. That 
is a lot of money. He was going to be the dean of the U.S. House, the 
dean of the House. Everything was going great. He had been here 42 
years, 42 years. You would think that everything, the world was wrapped 
around his finger; but the people spoke, and the people felt their 
power for the first time in 42 years and stood up and said, we want 
change.
  When change came, they were standing next to me and saying, keep it 
up, that is what we voted for. But our friends from the fourth estate 
say, no, no, no, no. We are losing our grip, we are losing what we 
fought for, what we got for 40 years. Socialism is slipping away, and 
we hear those cries back in our district, no, it is not what we want, 

[[Page H 11816]]
socialism. We want you to stay the course.
  I know one thing, we are not going to punt. We are not going to punt. 
We are going to do exactly what this says. Our good friend, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent], freshman, signed it. I said, do 
not drop the ball. Pass the budget.
  I cannot think, Mr. Speaker, of a greater gift for Christmas than to 
give our children and our grandchildren a balanced budget. I know that, 
as you know, we are going to stay the course. We are going to give the 
best Christmas present of all, a balanced budget.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
think he absolutely sets forth the dynamic at work here. The question 
is, Are we willing to love generations yet unborn enough and those 
youngsters who are now in our homes--and I think of my children, one of 
them in college but two not even in grade school yet--do we love them 
enough to leave them a country where they will not continue to pay our 
debts?
  I think the gentleman from Texas offers an embodiment of part of the 
change that took place last year on that fateful Tuesday in November, a 
change that continues around the country tonight. Indeed, as I heard 
the words of my friends from Texas, I thought of my good friend from 
North Carolina who went on a personal journey, both intellectually, 
philosophically, and finally politically. For the gentleman from North 
Carolina had his dad serving in this House, a conservative man who yet 
sat on the other side of this aisle. I yield to our friend who reserved 
this special time to talk about what has gone on not only in his own 
life politically but what has gone on in his district in North 
Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I 
appreciate him making reference to my father who did serve for 26 years 
in the U.S. Congress representing the First District of North Carolina. 
It is very humbling to hear comments from both Democrats and 
Republicans, the elevator operators as well as those on the police 
force, how much they thought of him as a fair man and a good man. I 
really appreciate you mentioning his name.
  I will tell you that my father and I both discussed my change of 
party affiliation. I used to be a Democrat, served 10 years in the 
North Carolina General Assembly. Quite frankly, as you mentioned, my 
father was a conservative. He said to me, he said, Walter, I do not 
think that you nor myself, he was speaking, belong in the Democratic 
Party because they have become so liberal. They are out of touch with 
the people.
  I think my friend from Arizona as well as my friends from Texas and 
yourself have mentioned that this country needs leadership. When a 
child is born in this country today--and I know I have said it 100 
times, and each one of you, but it is so important. A child born in 
this country today, 1995, the time they take their first breath they 
owe $187,000 in taxes, $187,000 in taxes.
  If they live to be 75 years of age and we do not balance the budget, 
then they will pay $187,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the 
debt.
  Our children deserve the American dream, not the American debt. That 
is why this new Congress, my fellow freshmen, you and the gentlemen 
from Texas, Arizona, and California and the gentleman from Florida that 
just had to leave, we know what the American people want. We are here 
to make those decisions.

  Yes, I will tell my colleagues, they are tough decisions. But I will 
also share with my colleagues and those watching that, when I go home 
every weekend but four in 11 months, and I drive home and drive back, I 
see the people. The people say to me, Walter, do not stray, stay 
committed, balance this budget, because where the liberals forget, they 
try to scare the senior citizens about Medicare.

                              {time}  1000

  Yet we are promising an increase in Medicare. We are promising 
choices for our senior citizens. We are giving them the choices that 
they deserve to have. We are giving them the security that they deserve 
to have. Yet, the other side keeps trying to scare the senior citizens.
  I would tell the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], it is not 
working in my district. The people in my district have enough 
confidence in me and my fellow colleagues that they trust us to do what 
is right to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare.
  The other point I would like to make before closing is that when you 
have a country where the average working family in this country today 
will spend more on paying taxes than that same average working family 
will spend on clothing, housing, or food, how can they ever realize the 
American dream? They cannot. That is why they turned to the Republican 
party last November, almost 365 days ago, because they said, ``We want 
a change. We want to believe that this is the greatest country in the 
world. We think that you, under the new Republican conservative 
leadership, you will give us the hope that the liberals have taken away 
from us through taxes and regulations.''
  Yes, I am pleased to be with you tonight. I am proud to be part of 
the new majority that cares about America.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thought of 
another familial relationship, a parental bond. You described the 
service of your father in this House, and how both of you made that 
philosophical journey. As we turned to our friend, the gentleman from 
California, a couple of distinctions, Mr. Speaker, that are worth being 
noted in the Record.
  First of all, we heard our good friend, the gentleman from Florida, 
speak of Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson was indeed a man of many 
talents, including that of being a vintner, a winemaker. It is our 
privilege to have someone from the real world, from the wine country of 
California, a vintner, here serving with us in this freshman class; but 
also he draws a distinction, and it is akin, it comes back to the Sixth 
District of Arizona, for his mother was born an inspiration by the 
Inspiration Mine, in the Sixth District of North Carolina, so in a 
sense, I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, or the 
Sixth District of Arizona and I would like to claim him as at least an 
honorary Arizonan, the vintner of the House of Representatives with a 
very, very sober reflection on what has transpired in these last 40 
weeks.
  Mr. JONES. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am proud to be 
associated with all three of you gentlemen here today, to talk about 
what has happend in the last year since our eve of election about a 
year ago today.
  I, too, spent the weekend going home and traveling in the district 
and making many stops. I stopped in Lemon Cove, the Sequoia Middle 
School, to address the 7th, 8th, and 9th graders. In particular, a lot 
of the message that I state, and of course, being on the Committee on 
the Budget we deal with budget issues, and I talk budget issues there, 
and I go home and I explain what we are really doing as far as reform 
and expanding the Medicare system and offering choices, and limiting 
government, decentralizing government, privatizing government, 
localizing government through the budget process.
  They all realize, too, that we are coming to the point now where 
there are threats of a budget train wreck, and there is the issue about 
raising the debt ceiling, and a standoff between the Congress and the 
administration, the executive branch. By and large, people are 
concerned in general.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, and I think it can be articulated, 
in one of my Monday morning meetings I met with the Parcel Post Service 
in Fresno, which is a distribution center; I met with about 100 truck 
drivers and the management of this company, who presented a $25,000 
check to the West Fresno Christian Academy for them to be able to fix 
their restroom floors. I was honored to be in the middle of this 
presentation. I was able to speak and give them an idea of what we were 
doing.
  I explained to them with regard to the upcoming brinksmanship that we 
are in now with the budget, in that we had not too long ago, last week, 
four experts from Wall Street sit down and talk to our Republican 
conference and deliver a very strong message, and the message was that 
even if we have to go through short-term economic disheveling in order 
to get a balanced budget, 

[[Page H 11817]]
that it is worth it for the future economic health of this country to 
go through something short term, if we have to. It is imperative to get 
a legitimate balanced budget passed this year. That was the message 
that the Wall Street Journal experts, I think, conveyed to all of us.
  I took that message home and explained to my group of employees there 
at United Parcel Service, and the message got applause when I said this 
is what Wall Street was willing to come up and say: ``If there is 
brinksmanship here, let all the stops go, but just make sure you get a 
balanced budget.'' Their message to me was ``Do not come home without a 
balanced budget.'' They are serious. They want government out of their 
face. This budget begins that process. It does that.
  The response that I get from people in my district is just leave me 
alone, let me run my own life, do not try to be my mommy, do not try to 
be my daddy, do not try to be my pastor, and do not try to be my 
employer. That is really the message that I come back with.
  Basically, Mr. Speaker, they sent me back here saying if I drop the 
ball, do not come back to Fresno. They are that serious about it. My 
commitment is that, that we pass a legitimate balanced budget, one that 
is scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the legitimate 
scoring agency in the House here; not by the Office of Management and 
Budget, like the administration wants their budget scored.

  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California, 
I think I was in that same meeting, but I would appreciate if the 
gentleman would reaffirm what I thought I heard from those four 
economists, one statement they made: Since the Republican majority had 
been the majority, that the interest rates had dropped by 2 points, and 
if we should pass a balanced budget, because many of the markets feel 
that maybe it is more talk than action, but that if we did balance the 
budget, that it was accepted and we balanced the budget, that the rates 
could almost within a certain number of months drop to 5 percent. Does 
the gentleman remember that?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. What I can relate is that we met with--on a number of 
occasions Alan Greenspan with the Federal Reserve met with the 
Committee on the Budget, and in that, he expressed supreme confidence 
in two things: No. 1, that business, health, and the economy and the 
country was directly related to our good intentions, and we had better 
prove it all out in passing a balanced budget, but the effect of that 
would have a minimum of a 2-percent decrease in interest rates. So that 
is something that comes from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and 
backed, actually, by scoring in the budget that we have right before us 
today.
  I want to make one brief comment. That is that people in America have 
to be really concerned about what their representatives say and what 
kind of numbers they quote. The best example I can give is the 
Congressional Budget Office is the legitimate scoring agency for 
budgets in town, and everybody, including the OMB, recognizes that the 
CBO is the more legitimate scorer. If you take the President's 10-year 
budget that balances to the CBO and have it scored, it still has annual 
deficits of $60 billion.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. A very key point, and if the gentleman will yield, I 
think it is important before, Mr. Speaker, we end up in a type of 
alphabet soup when we talk about the Congressional Budget Office or 
OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, that we make this clear 
distinction. Indeed, it happened prior to us joining this institution, 
prior to the historic shift: The President of the United States stood 
at the podium here behind us at the outset of the 103d Congress and he 
said, with great oratorical flourish, that his administration would 
always use the figures provided by the Congressional Budget Office, 
because year in and year out, they were the most reliable numbers.
  Yet, the same dichotomy and indeed the same reversal that we have 
seen on so many issues came with our friend at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, when somewhere along the line, camped out in the 
Rose Garden, was that mythical figure, Rosie Scenario. Rosie Scenario 
set up shop with the President's budgeteers in the Office of Management 
and Budget, and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, Rosie Scenario and those at 
OMB cooked the numbers for a 10-year plan that my friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Radanovich], is absolutely correct in stating 
gives us no type of balanced budget, throws the numbers out the window 
that this same President said were the most reliable numbers. And, 
clearly, this dichotomy is behavior and rhetoric and instant revision 
of history calls into question just how serious the gentleman at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is in joining with our new majority in 
the legislative branch to truly govern.
  My friend, the gentleman from Arizona, I know we have talked about it 
on several occasions, this flip-flop, and I think it is incumbent upon 
the incumbent President to join with us and govern.
  Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, I have talked 
to some of my Democrat friends on the other side. I think they know 
full well that there is going to be a lot of rhetoric, there is going 
to a be a lot of theatrics from the White House, and ultimately he is 
going to have to do the right thing because the American people are 
demanding it. This is a President that constantly has his wet finger in 
the air, testing which way the wind is blowing. He knows that the winds 
of change, they run hard and they are pushing us toward balancing the 
budget.
  I would say to the gentleman from Arizona, this is not rocket 
science. Most folks understand that if they keep spending and spending 
and spending with their charge cards and their revolving debt and all 
those things that get us into trouble, that before too long there is a 
time that you have to pay the piper. When you have to pay the piper, 
you either decide that you are going to cut back on your spending in 
your family budget or you are going to find a new source of revenues.
  At the Federal level that new source of revenues is the cash cow. It 
is the taxpayer. That is where Congress has gone in past years, taxed 
basically out of oblivion. Last Friday I went and spoke to two senior 
classes, government classes, at Tempe High School. I looked into their 
eyes and I asked them if they understood the implications of a budget 
that would not be balanced; if they understood full well that right now 
we have a $5 trillion debt--and your eyes kind of glaze over when you 
hear $1 trillion, because nobody has ever held, smelled, or touched $1 
trillion--and when we explain to them that the first 33 cents out of 
every tax dollar that they send to Washington goes just to pay the 
interest on the debt, and under the current budget scenario, with $200 
billion deficits, in 5 years we reach another trillion. Then before too 
long it is $10 trillion. Do you know what happens when we reach $10 
trillion. Everything, everything that we have right now in the form of 
revenues is consumed just to pay the interest on the debt. Everything. 
We have nothing left for programs unless we go back and raise taxes.
  I further went on to explain to them, those kids, most of them 17- 
and 18-year-old kids, when they reach my age, if we continue with the 
trends of yesteryear under the failed old tactics of the Democratic-
controlled Congress, then they would be facing an 85- to 90-percent tax 
bracket. That means that $9 out of every $10 that you earn goes to 
Washington, DC. That is immoral. We cannot continue to do that.

  No family would do that. No family would put themselves so far into 
debt that they would leave to their children, instead of an 
inheritance, all the Master Card bills and Visa card bills to pay. 
Nobody would do that. It is laughable. Why then would we conglomerately 
as a country do that to our children? It is the same exact principle.
  Let me talk just for a minute about the tax cuts, too, because we 
hear so much from the other side that we are providing tax cuts for the 
rich. In my town hall meeting I asked this question: How many of you 
have children? Almost everybody raised their hand, I would say about 80 
percent of the people in the town hall raised their hand. Then I asked, 
them ``Out of those of you who have children, how many of you paid at 
least $500 last year to the 

[[Page H 11818]]
IRS?'' I ask those of you listening on C-Span to consider the same 
equation: How many have children, how many have paid at least $500?
  According to the liberals here in Congress, you are the rich. You are 
part of the problem. I think most of us understand that if you fall 
into those parameters, you are not a wealthy person. That is mainstream 
America. That is mom and pop America, who are trying so desperately to 
raise their children and trying to take care of their family's needs, 
but they are not able to because they are sucked up here in Washington. 
It is time we change, and it is time we realize that those people are 
not the wealthy, they are not the ones to be despised so we can rob the 
middle class to pay for failed social programs.
  It is time to make a difference. We came here to make a difference, 
and is it so unique? Is this so historic that we finally have a body 
that has the integrity to keep its word? That is what this is all 
about.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I 
think we see why I have such ample evidence of the pride I take in 
having such a responsible neighbor, because it is a pleasure to serve 
alongside him in this House, and geographically, to have our districts 
alongside one another.
  My friend, the gentleman from Arizona, makes a very good point when 
it comes to personal finance and the family gathered around the kitchen 
table, trying to decide budget priorities. It is irresponsible to the 
10th degree to imagine a family transferring its debt from Master Card 
to Visa in a type of credit card kiting scheme. And yet, and yet, Mr. 
Speaker, in common parlance here, as a Member of Congress, many of us 
have come to call the card that I hold here now, our voting card, in an 
attempt to laugh to keep from crying, we call this voting card that 
each of us has, the world's most expensive credit card.
  There is an element of humor in the truth. Again, I think we cite it 
to laugh to keep from crying, so absurd has this equation gotten over 
the years, so overreaching has this Government come into the pockets of 
Mr. and Mrs. America. The reason we call our voting card the world's 
most expensive credit card is because when my colleagues and I received 
ours, each came with a debt of almost $5 trillion.

                              {time}  2015

  The gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. If the gentleman from Arizona would yield for just a 
moment, because the comments that the gentleman has made, as well as 
the other gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon], I wanted to share this 
with my colleagues, because as we talk about the debt, roughly $4.9 
trillion, $5 trillion, and we talk about the debts of this Nation, I 
want to share this with my colleagues, that the bipartisan Concord 
Coalition reports that debt and deficit spending have lowered the 
income of American families by an average of $15,000 a year.
  Very quickly, let me repeat that. The bipartisan Concord Coalition 
reports that debt and deficit spending by this Congress have lowered 
the income of American families by an average of $15,000 a year. You 
are absolutely right. That is why the new majority is here and I am 
proud to be a part with you gentlemen tonight.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, trying to 
grasp $1 trillion, think about it, I am trying to grasp $1 trillion. I 
asked an economics individual one time, I said, how much is $1 
trillion? He said $1 trillion was $1 bills laid on top of each other 
like this going from the Earth to the Moon and back again. That is $1 
trillion. Think about that.
  What kind of a legacy are we leaving? We are talking $5 trillion, 
five trips to the Moon and back, and yet we are so addicted to spending 
that we cannot stop.
  Mr. Speaker, as I was running, somebody said, we had a great 
hurricane in 1900, in fact, the largest disaster in the United States 
to this day. Wiped out the whole town of Galveston, killing thousands 
of people. They built a seawall and on the other part of the seawall, 
the gentleman said, Steve, he said, we need a seawall. Can you get us 
Federal dollars? We know that your opponent will get us Federal dollars 
to build a seawall. I said, I cannot do that. I said, if you want a 
seawall, you maybe should vote for my opponent. Because see, if I 
promise you that, I am not spending your money, I am not spending your 
child's money or even your grandchild's money. I am spending your 
great-grandchild's money to buy your vote, and I, for one, cannot look 
in the mirror and say I bought your vote with your great-grandchild's 
money. That would be morally wrong. So I suggest if you want a future 
for your great-grandchildren, vote for me. But if you want a lousy 
bridge or road, vote for my opponent. I suggest to you, future is 
better, because we owe it to our great-grandchildren to do better and 
we will do better--$5 trillion.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, he makes a 
point so profound, and I think it demonstrates why the people of his 
congressional district had the great and good sense to end a long term 
for his predecessor and to make a change for the better in Texas, and 
indeed, as we see what goes on, the question remains, not the 
worthiness of some projects, because some projects are exceedingly 
worthy when viewed in a vacuum, when viewed without the reality of the 
budgetary constraints in which we live. And for those at home, Mr. 
Speaker, who may be watching saying, yes, but, yes, but, what about the 
role of government as charity, I would simply suggest this: Nowhere in 
the document of the Constitution, in the preamble especially, do you 
see the word charity. Indeed, it is not the province of the Federal 
Government to be the charity of first recourse. This Government exists, 
it derives its powers, from the people to serve the people, and indeed, 
my friend from California who serves on the Committee on the Budget has 
been dealing with the heavy lifting and the harsh realities of the 
numbers we confront. In one sense, in Washington or Orwellian Newspeak, 
it is an incredible, monumental task and exceedingly difficult. And 
yet, in real-world numbers, it is a challenge that must be met.

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Radanovich], what struck him most about the entire budgetary exercise 
on the committee and seeing this through to fruition with the 
reconciliation package?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. If the gentleman from Arizona will yield, the point 
that you bring up and also the point that the gentleman from Texas 
brings up are very good examples of I think some of the changes that we 
want to see coming down in the next few years.
  One thing, the biggest lesson I think that I learned being exposed to 
the national budget for the first time in January and the learning 
process that I went through is that this is a journey of 1,000 miles 
that begins with one step, and this budget truly is one step.
  Now, you had mentioned one thing in particular, and that is the role 
of charity in government and how it got there, and how the one thing 
that we are going to have to learn when we are budgeting is if there is 
a need, it should not always be presented to government. I think that 
if you will look a little more closely in a few other books, the role 
of Good Samaritian was found in the Bible, not in the Constitution, and 
yet this is a responsibility that government is for some reason deemed 
necessary to pick up over the last few years, When something is not 
inherently someone's responsibility, that person is not going to do a 
very good job with that responsibility, as evidenced by what government 
has done with charity, via welfare, during these last 30, 40 years.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. If the gentleman will yield quickly, I just wanted to 
point something out. Do you know that if you had one dollar and you 
wanted to help somebody, and as you may know in this body I was 
homeless, and you wanted to give it to some organization and you wanted 
it to be the most effective dollar you could use, you could give that 
dollar to the Federal Government or you could give it to Red Cross or 
some private charity, or your church or your synagogue, do you know 
that the Federal Government takes 80 cents to 90 cents to give to a 
bureaucrat and only gives 20 cents to the poor? It is the exact 
opposite in private enterprise. Is that compassion, is that true 
compassion to give $1 to the Federal Government seeing 89 cents of it 
wasting and only 10 cents or 20 cents ending up with the poor?

[[Page H 11819]]

  Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, the point that I want to make 
too is that not only are we starting to eliminate the deficit, but what 
we want to do is to begin to reduce this $5 trillion debt that we are 
talking about, and then after we are done with that, then we can start 
reducing further Federal income taxes and really shift control of the 
State and local levels, so that if Texas wants a sea wall, they can go 
to their State and local authorities and fund that and have dollars 
that go a lot farther to solve the problem, and we can contribute to 
our churches' and charities' nonprofit organizations to take care of 
the poor and needy and for once be effective doing it.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would just 
like to comment also, we hear so many times from people as we look at, 
not cutting programs, because I do not think we are really cutting 
anything. In fact, I know we are not cutting anything. The Federal 
budget is still rising dramatically, as we all know. When we hear of 
cuts to Medicare, again, I think Mr. Gingrich probably put it best when 
he said it is really a problem with remedial math. The people really do 
not understand that when you go from $4,500 to $6,400 that that is an 
increase, that is not a cut. But we hear from folks, whether it is the 
arts or the humanities or you name it, all of these wonderful, 
wonderful things that the Federal Government has done, but is is a good 
program and it is good for society. I think back to when I was in 
college and I was a junior in college and I was married and we had our 
first child, and I remember a really high-pressure encyclopedia 
salesman came to our house. He made a good case and he made me feel 
guilty, he said how I really needed to think about my child's future 
and this was such a worthy program, like we hear so much in Washington, 
that this was something that was good. I ended up making the decision 
not to buy those encyclopedias. No. 1, they were very expensive, but 
No. 2, at that time I was working full-time, I was a full-time student, 
my wife was working full-time, and we were having a hard time making 
ends meet. We were having a hard time putting food on the table. We had 
priorities. Yes, it was a worthy program, but do I put food on the 
table for my daughter, for my family, or do I buy this worthy program? 
I think that is the kind of choices that we are faced with now.

  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I enjoyed your 
comments, and you made the statement that we are really not cutting 
programs. I want to share this with you. The total government spending 
over the next 7 years under the Republican plan would continue to grow 
an average of 3 percent per year. Social Security spending is slated to 
rise about 5 percent per year, and Medicare growth will average 6.4 
percent. So when the liberals keep saying we are cutting, we do not 
care about the poor, they are so wrong, we do care about the poor and 
we care about every American's future.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. My wife would like that kind of cuts in her own private 
life.
  Mr. JONES. That is a personal problem.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I think that is vitally 
important, and indeed we should address some of our comments, Mr. 
Speaker, to those who may be looking in who say to us, gee, you have 
not really gone far enough. And what I can say, Mr. Speaker, to those 
who have that idea, I would say, perhaps you are right. But it is 
exceedingly difficult in the span of 40 weeks to change a culture that 
has grown up over 40 years, not impossible, because we have taken the 
first steps to do so. But in this climate, within this beltway, with 
the Orwellian Newspeak that ignores the realities which mathematics 
bears out that the so-called cuts in fact are reductions in future 
expenditures, that have no place on any legitimate number line, but 
only on the squiggle that seems to meander around this district, from 
Federal office to Federal office, we need to have straight talk with 
the American public. The fact is, we are taking some steps that while 
they may be called momentous, history will record, perhaps as modest, 
but as my friend from California said, the journey of 1,000 miles 
begins with a single step. My journeys yesterday took me to the town of 
Eloy, AZ, and to the town of Casa Grande, and in Eloy I had an assembly 
with the entire student body of Santa Cruz High School and the question 
came up, Congressman, how would you rate yourself on education 
spending? And indeed, some of the folks who may be looking in, Mr. 
Speaker, are looking to the Department of Education and saying, well, 
there is an area, there is a project left undone. And it surprised me 
when I explained to the student body and to one of the questioners, I 
felt it was important, again, echoing the comments of the gentleman 
from California, I believe it is important to take the billions of 
dollars spent on a bureaucracy directed by a friend of mine, former 
Governor Riley of South Carolina, a fine and decent gentleman, but a 
centralized bureaucracy spending billions of dollars, I would far 
rather return that money to the States and counties and localities and 
to the school boards and ultimately to the front lines, to help 
children learn than to continue to perpetuate a vast bureaucracy. 
Indeed, as we look at the so-called Information Age, at the 
technological advances that we have now, what do they echo, what 
resounds from them in this new computer age? It is what we find in the 
Constitution, it is what we find in the writings of Madison, which is 
the power of the individual, and so that is our mission, to help 
empower the citizenry, to understand the value and the power of one, 
and to rejoice in the fact that yes, we unify on key questions and yes, 
even as we have differences of philosophy within this Chamber, 
sometimes I think exaggerated too greatly in the theater of politics, 
yet we have this mission to allow people to live up to their fullest 
potential, not due to the dictates of government, but to the dignity of 
their respective person. That is what this revolution encompasses, not 
what is radical, what is exceedingly reasonable, and much remains to be 
done.

  I yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the only 
thing that I would add to the comments of the gentleman from Arizona is 
that the hope is, too, that looking out even a little farther, is that 
some day that dollar, that education dollar that we send down to Casa 
Grande will never have to leave Casa Grande to come to Washington in 
the first place. So that as you well know, and I think we articulated, 
that dollar on its round trip to Washington and back to Arizona loses a 
lot on the way, and if we get to the point where we eliminate the 
deficit and we pay off the debt and start shifting these taxing 
responsibilities down to the State and local level, if Casa Grande 
wants its education dollars to go to the State and local government, 
raise your taxes and fund your own programs there.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, this has been a great hour 
and I really have enjoyed and appreciate everybody that has joined us. 
I know we are getting down to the last 2 or 3 minutes, but to share 
with those that are watching tonight, that all the good that can come 
from the balanced budget, always remember that if we balance the 
budget, that we can create 6.1 million new jobs in the next 10 years.
  We are not just talking about, as I mentioned earlier, a child born 
this year, we are talking about the good that can come to this country 
in the way of new jobs and new opportunities for our people. I thank 
each and every one. I know we are not quite through, but thank you for 
joining me and I have enjoyed being with you.
  Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman will yield, I would just like to follow 
up on that. I think maybe that is one thing that we do not talk about 
enough. The gentleman mentioned that there would be 6.1 million more 
new jobs.
  How does that occur? That occurs when you lower people's taxes. What 
do they do? They invest it in their businesses. And their businesses 
grow. When their businesses grow, there are more jobs for people. When 
the interest rates drop by 2 percent, once we balance the budget, they 
can expand their businesses, they can grow their businesses and jobs 
grow. And what happens when jobs grow?
  Have you seen the bumper sticker that says ``The Best Kind of Welfare 
Is 

[[Page H 11820]]
a Job''? Truer words were never spoken, in many ways, because it helps 
that person preserve dignity and self-respect and feel like they are a 
contributing member of society.
  How many of our other social programs would turn around when people 
felt that they had that kind of dignity and empowerment to take charge 
of their own lives? What is going to happen to our society is we have 
less reliance on social programs, on failed social programs, I might 
add, because there will be jobs and we will be an opportunity society 
as we once were.
  America was great because our grandparents and our grandparents' 
parents that came to this land because it was the land of opportunity 
where you could become anything you wanted be. I think we have lost 
that vision but we are regaining it in this 104th Congress. That is the 
ball we have got to keep our eye on. That once that budget is balanced, 
we will be having an opportunity society again for everybody.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. As I heard my colleague from Arizona, I think of our 
colleague from Texas who perhaps more than anyone in this institution 
has lived the American dream, who knows what it is like to pull up from 
the bootstraps. I would ask the gentleman from Texas, coming through 
the experiences he has, knowing the ultimate fabric and value and truth 
of our society, what does he see as the mission for the future?
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply touched by how after a year we 
still see the grassroots and I want to thank everybody who went out 
today. I have to tell you, I went out today and voted this morning at a 
little church near our home.
  I did start out at night, looking up, in Fort Worth at the clock, it 
also had the temperature, it never dropped below 80 degrees in 1980, 
and I was sleeping on the concrete slab and had a lot of introspect and 
thought, a lot of different things.
  I had to say, how did I get here and were do I want to go? But I 
realized one thing, that I could have easily taken food stamps. I could 
have easily gotten in welfare and got into the system. But that is not 
the road I chose. The reason I did not choose that road is because that 
is a dead-end road.

  What Republicans are doing is opening up the road. We are not giving 
them the fish. We are teaching them to fish. We do not count how many 
people are on welfare. We count how many got off welfare and are 
productive members of society. That is what this revolution is about. I 
think tonight as the vote count is coming in, the revolution will 
continue.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this freshman class commit to, no matter 
what the media up here says, that we commit to the revolution of lower 
taxes and lower and less government.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I would simply 
conclude by thanking our good friend from North Carolina, having the 
foresight to schedule this special hour on an auspicious night where we 
rejoice in the fact that we changed things through ballots and not 
bullets, where we rejoice, in the freedom of our society, in the basic 
dignity of the American people which we hope again to empower through a 
revolution that is not radical but is reasonable, rational, and we will 
see through.

                          ____________________