[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 199 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14911-H14916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CHANGING THE CULTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Under the Speaker's announced 
positively of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank several of my colleagues for 
joining me in the House Chamber. As we discuss the pending events, we 
listen with great interest and, indeed, great agreement with our 
colleague, the delegate from the District of Columbia, and we realize 
also that the people have sent us here to Washington to change a 
culture, to change a pervasive practice which has permeated this 
Chamber and, indeed, our national governance for half a century.
  In fairness, we should note that the Members of both parties have 
been involved in this, and it is this endless notion of tax-and-spend 
and tax-and-spend and tax yet higher and spend yet more. It is worth 
noting that one of our founders, Benjamin Franklin, said that there 
were only two certainties in this life: death and taxes. I dare say, if 
Mr. Franklin were with us in this Chamber as we prepare to confront 
this next century, he might amend his statement to say that higher 
taxes could lead to the death of the American Nation if we do not 
change what has gone on before.
  The facts are these: In 1948, the average American family of four 
surrendered 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government. 
By 1994, that same average family of four surrendered almost one-
quarter of its income, 24 percent, in taxes to the Federal Government.
  It has been noted by Members of both parties that change is hard. 
Change is difficult. But as the newcomers to this Congress who join me 
this afternoon along with one of our distinguished Members of the 
sophomore class will bear out, change is necessary if we are to make a 
difference, if we are to prepare this last best hope of mankind to 
adequately confront the next century.
  The people of the Sixth District of Arizona said it pretty simply in 
November of 1994. indeed, I think it was said across the country. The 
realization is this: The people of America work hard for the money they 
earn, and there is nothing selfish and there is nothing ignoble about 
Americans hanging on to more of their hard-earned money so that they 
may decide how best to save, spend, and invest for their families, so 
that they may make critical choices so vital to their children's future 
and so that they as seniors can hold on to more of their money again to 
make choices that are best for them.
  As I look around the Chamber, it is a formidable lineup. One of the 
gentlemen seated here, who we will hear from shortly, indeed, an NFL 
Hall of Famer, one of the gentlemen to my left, uncharacteristically, a 
resident of California, indeed, I call him an honorary Arizonan, for 
his mother was born in the Sixth District of Arizona, near the 
Inspiration Mine, I know he will have words of inspiration for us; our 
friend from Nebraska, one of three newcomers on the House Committee on 
Ways and Means. It is worth noting the last Republican freshman to hold 
one of those spots was in 1966, a gentleman who went on to become 
President of these United States, one George Bush; our good friend from 
Indiana is here, who has worked so hard on trying to get a handle on 
regulations; our good friend from Kentucky from the sophomore class, 
who speaks so eloquently and is really a redshirt freshman, if you 
will, for he came by way of a special election.
  Mr. Speaker, now it is my honor to turn to the one-time Princeton 
linebacker, who is proud of his Tigers in their accomplishments this 
year on the gridiron, who went on to law school at Wake Forest, and he 
helped to tutor those teams and improve the record of those Demon 
Deacons, my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  Mr. EHRLICH. As usual, I am at a loss for words when the gentleman 
from Arizona introduces us. It is such a great opportunity to be with 
my colleagues from all over the country today to talk about, as the 
gentleman said, change, change that is long overdue in this society, 
change, and I believe the gentleman's words were necessary and hard.
  I would point out to the gentleman, and we have a piece of evidence 
with us today, I would point out to the gentleman that change is hard 
in our society in the 1990's because some groups in our society do not 
like change. They do not want change. They will say anything to ensure 
change does not occur.
  As the gentleman sees, I have brought the actual transcript with me 
of a little ad that is running around the country. The AFL-CIO, a big 
labor group, and I should make this point, not all elements of big 
labor but some big labor leaders and, of course, some big labor leaders 
love big government and, as a result, do not love this new majority nor 
this freshman class, but some members of big labor are running this ad.

  I would like to direct a few questions to the gentleman from Arizona 
and my hallmate, the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich], my 
very good friend and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], ``Mr. 
Deregulation,'' my very, very good friend on our Subcommittee on 
Government Reform. What I would like to do, with the gentleman's 
indulgence, is take a look for the next 10 or 15 minutes; let us take a 
look at the verbiage used by big labor to fight not an agenda for 
America's working families but to fight this new majority who have the 
real interest of America's working families at heart, the real people 
who work for a living, who sent every one of us here. Every one of this 
group was sent here by people who work and who resent these sort of 
commercials.
  The gentleman from Arizona, the commercial begins, ``On November 20, 
our Congressman,'' fill in the blank, ``voted with Newt Gingrich and 
against working families.'' What vote? The balanced budget, the 
balanced budget for America''s working families.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, how on Earth can that statement 
even be made? For why would a balanced budget work against America's 
families? Are we not putting money back in the pockets of working 
families by balancing the budget on a 30-year mortgage? Are we not 
realizing real cash that stays in the wallets and pockets of working 
families? By lowering interest rates with a balanced budget, are we not 
really helping to fulfill the American dream?
  I am just curious that the gentleman from Maryland understands the 
rationale for this statement and if it is grounded within any type of 
intellectual fact.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Of course not. If the gentleman will yield further, let 
us look at what follows the introduction. I know the gentleman from 
Indiana and the gentleman from California are chomping at the bit here, 
but it is essential that the American people understand big labor loves 
big government. They do not want a balanced budget. They do not want 
the agenda that every member of this freshman class ran on in support 
of the American family, in support of people who work for a living, who 
resent the increasing instrusion of big government into their lives 
every day.
  Second line, ``He voted to cut Medicare.'' Third line, ``Education 
and college loans.'' Fourth line, my favorite, ``Class warfare.'' Class 
warfare from big labor. ``All to give huge tax breaks to big 
corporations,'' and our favorite, ``the rich.''
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. I appreciate your 
diligence ferreting out the truth on these ads. It is about time we had 
a standard of truch in advertising that would apply to some of the 
claims that are made.
  Is it not true, though, that the average worker will benefit from our 
balanced budget because of lower interest rates, where, if they have to 
borrow $15,000 to buy a new car, they will be able to save $900 over 
the loan? Now that is $900 that is more of his take-home money that he 
can pay. And is it not true, in my district, for example, 

[[Page H14912]]
the median income is $25,000; a lot of people work in factories. We 
have got several GM plants. We have got factories all over the 
District. That $25,000 though, $9,000 goes to pay for taxes for city, 
State, and Federal taxes. And is it not true that a key part of our 
budget plan says, ``For a family of four we are going to take $1,000 of 
that $9,000 in taxes and let you keep it? You do not have to deduct it 
out of your paycheck every week and send it to Washington to pay for 
the bureaucrats; it is yours to take home, to buy food for your kids, 
to save for college, to make payments on that car we talked about.''
  So is it not true that every aspect of this budget is actually going 
to be good for the working men and women that the AFL-CIO say they 
represent?
  Mr. EHRLICH. I know the gentleman from California, and he has been 
accused of supporting from California, and he has been accused of 
supporting the rich as well, and I know that for a fact. But if I can 
answer the gentleman's question. of course, it is for the working 
people. But it is very dangerous medicine for big labor, for some 
elements of big labor, and they do not want the American people to know 
the facts.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. My first comment on this is that, you know, if this 
was the advertising program of a private corporation, they would be in 
court right now pending lawsuits against them for truth-in-advertising. 
I know you did not vote to cut Medicare, because I voted the same as 
you, and I did not vote to cut Medicare. There is not a person in this 
Chamber here who voted to cut Medicare. We voted to increase spending 
on Medicare by 50 percent over a 7-year period from the current $4,800 
per beneficiary to at least $6,700 per beneficiary over 7 years.

                              {time}  1530

  Now, I do not know what kind of an idiot these people think the 
American people are, but that is not a cut. The American people are 
smarter than that.
  I would also like to comment on the fact that this Congress has not 
been working for working families, because we spend more than we take 
in. I would like to challenge any one of you to try to make sense about 
how we can be for working families while we cannot even balance our own 
budget, while we are deliberately spending more money than we are 
taking in. That is not good for families.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, that is exactly the 
point, for this Congress should do no less than working families do 
every week or every month around the kitchen table, trying to come to 
grips with their own family budget, to make adjustments, to fight in 
part the battle of taxation that is too high, so that they know how 
best to allocate their resources governed by this simple fact: They do 
not spend more than they take in or they are faced with one of the 
worse 4-letter words ever to come up, D-E-B-T, debt.
  To quantify it, I do not believe this ad tells the truth. If you are 
going to say the rich, indeed with the family tax credit that my 
colleague from Indiana points out, it is a very expensive definition of 
rich, if we are to trust the ad of big labor, for it affects over 80 
percent of American families across the economic strata. And that is 
the impact of the ad.
  While we are in the neighborhood, and I know my friend from Indiana 
has a point, but just one other thing to say to respond to my colleague 
from California's musings about this particular advertisement and 
others like it: I have challenged my former colleagues in broadcasting, 
and indeed I did this at one of the local stations in Phoenix going to 
what in effect was a meeting of their editorial board, I said, friends, 
the reality checks, the truth watches that you do during the election 
season, why not continue now? Why not check the veracity of these ads?
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would call on broadcasters who are licensed in 
the public interest, local news divisions, network news divisions, do 
your own reality checks, do your own truth watches on these repugnant, 
patently false advertisements, for this is an ongoing campaign.
  Mr. McINTOSH. The question I get from people when I go home is my are 
they being dishonest? Why is this ad not telling the truth? Why does 
not the President tell the truth about what is going on? I have been 
trying to puzzle through that, because I do not understand why they 
would so patently lie to the American people time and time again.
  This chart I think explains one of the reasons that is going on. It 
show how in our budget process we have been continuing to negotiate 
over how much we are going to spend each year. The top line shows the 
freshmen started out with $11.2 trillion. The gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Mark Neumann, who joined us here in the Chamber, developed a budget 
that would be balanced in 5 years and only spend $11.2 trillion over 
that 7-year period. But we did not pass that in the House. Instead we 
passed a $11.78 trillion 7-year balanced budget, and then negotiated 
with the Senate, where some of the President's allies inched it up to 
$11.9 trillion. Then when we passed the act again this fall it went up 
a little bit further and further to this point, where we are at $12.004 
trillion. What the President wants to do is add another $400 billion to 
that and take it up even further.
  The bottom part of the chart shows what they have done with the 
taxes. In the Contract With America we started out with $358 billion of 
tax cuts for the American family. Then in compromising with the Senate, 
we came to $245 billion in tax cuts. Now the President wants to shrink 
that down to about $70 billion of tax cuts. You can see the parallel. 
As they cut back on tax relief and get more money for the Government, 
they can spend more over and over again.
  So the question is, do we want to spend more for the bureaucrats' 
budget here in Washington, or do we want more for the family budget, 
for people who are living in America trying to make ends meet?
  What we have said in the freshmen class in particular and in the 
Republican Congress is enough is enough. We think $12 trillion is 
plenty of money to spend on the Government programs, and we need to 
start focusing on giving families some tax relief so that they can have 
an easier time of balancing their budgets and have more money 
available.
  Let me make one other point. That would be reason why I think they 
are being dishonest. They want to spend more money and are afraid if 
they tell the truth people will focus on what the effect is for the 
family budget.
  The second reason is, and I wanted to ask the question whether in his 
research on this issue of welfare for lobbyists, whether this 
advertisement was paid for by any groups who received taxpayer money?
  Mr. EHRLICH. You mean grant reform? The dirty little secret this 
class has exposed? We have been joined by three of our wonderful 
colleagues in the freshman class. You mean $39 billion in taxpayer 
money?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Is it possible these groups want to make sure that some 
of this spending ends up going into their coffers? So they are going to 
lobby and send ads to make sure that they continue to live on the 
trough of all this Government spending?
  Mr. EHRLICH. As the gentleman knows, we have exposed, I think, ``we'' 
being the class in the new majority, have exposed a lot of very 
relevant information that the people of America need to know about, 
some nonprofits, some for-profits, some groups in this country, who 
continually take the taxpayers' money, not to spend it to help people, 
but to lobby Congress for more money.
  The gentleman has been a leader in this respect, and I congratulate 
him.
  Before our new colleagues begin, I would like to respond for one 
minute to the gentleman from California. I know the gentleman from 
Arizona has something to say about this, too.
  The gentleman from California asked are people this stupid? Are 
people this naive, to believe this sort of ad? I have good news for the 
gentleman. The answer is no. Calls coming into my office from union 
members eight to one say ``Ehrlich, stay the course. Balance the 
budget. Protect me. Do what we sent you to Washington to do.'' And 
there is a great distinction that big labor would not have us talk 
about, the gentleman from Arizona and California, and that is this: If 
the labor membership followed labor leadership, the seven of us would 
not be on this floor today. We would not be on this floor, because the 
membership understands where their 

[[Page H14913]]
bread is buttered, and that is with a balanced budget, and that is with 
a less intrusive Federal Government.
  Mr. McINTOSH. If the gentleman would yield for one quick second, 
before we switch from that point, let me reinforce your message. When I 
go home, I go through factory tours a lot, virtually every 
other weekend or so, and I walk up and down the line and ask people 
working for a living, ``any message for Washington? Anything you wanted 
me to take back with me when I go back there?'' Time and time again I 
hear from them, ``Yeah, cut our taxes. We are having a difficult time 
making ends meet. If you guys take less of my paycheck, I can work for 
a living and have a better life.''

  That is the message from the rank and file. It is not getting up to 
their leadership. But, fortunately, the rank and file guys and women 
who are working for a living know the difference, and I think they are 
going to continue to support our effort to balance that budget.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. So too in my district. When we faced the recent 
Government shutdown, I represent fortunately an area that has three 
national parks, Yosemite, Kings and Sequoia National Parks. Putting 
Federal employees out of work and giving them time off, they get paid. 
They worry a little bit, but they get retroactive pay. But in my 
district the people that suffered were those who depend on the tourist 
economies in these small communities, the one I was born and raised in, 
Mariposa, other communities, Oakhurst and Sonora, those areas, those 
businesses suffered. I had people that suffered a 50-percent loss in 
revenues during that period of time.
  Still, the amount of response that I got during that time was at nine 
to one, ``stay the course.'' And what they called to say was that they 
are not buying this, because, thank God for Rush Limbaugh and C-SPAN, 
these people, the everyday American can spot somebody who is not 
telling the truth. They are much more educated than before. This may 
have worked over the last 40 years, but it is not working today.
  So I have got faith in people. When I walk down and talk to 
transportation, parcel post deliverers, and their on-line employees, 
basically their message to me was, ``George, don't bother coming home 
if you lose this budget battle.'' They say ``Hang in there.'' They know 
exactly what is going on.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming the time, I thank my friend from California 
for making that point. I thank my friend from Maryland for making a 
very key distinction between those who are bosses of big labor and 
those who labor for a living. The miners in the Sixth District of 
Arizona, who want to hand on to more of their paychecks, who understand 
the overburdensome taxation their families face, and who came out in 
record numbers in 1994 to say that we want a change.
  So I salute the gentleman from Maryland for again exposing this. I 
challenge the mass media to follow suit with their own reality checks, 
their own truth watches.
  I know perhaps if there is a footnote the gentleman would like to 
add, I just looked to the well and I know that your exploits on the 
gridiron among the members of this class are exceeded only by our good 
friend who returned to his native Oklahoma to run for this body, but 
before that distinguished himself in the National Football League, and 
indeed entered that Hall of Fame, the best hands in the freshman class 
and one of the brightest minds, I would yield now to our good friend 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent.
  Mr. LARGENT. I wanted to thank my loquacious colleague from Arizona 
for yielding to me. Really I begin my time here by making a confession, 
and that is I have one of the poorest senses of direction in existence. 
In fact, I have gotten to the point where I do not even trust my own 
sense of direction. I have on my key chain a compass that I carry 
around with me in Washington, DC, and I found it has come in handy as 
we wander through the Halls of Congress.

  The reason I bring that up is that I found I have learned not to 
trust my own sense of direction. In fact, I get particularly turned 
around when I go shopping in the mall with my wife, and we go shopping 
for 2 or 3 hours, and go in and out of the stores. By the time we are 
done shopping, I cannot find the car. So what I have learned to do is 
as I come out of the mall and I am trying to determine which way the 
car is, if I think it is to the right, I always go to the left, and 99 
percent of the time I am right.
  What I have also learned in my short time in Congress is that if 
everybody in Washington, DC is saying to go left, if I go right, I am 
probably doing the right thing. And that really brings me to the point 
of why I have come here this evening, and many of my colleagues are 
joining me here this evening, and that is to talk about the tax relief 
that is offered in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  Because I want to tell you, and I also confess that even some of our 
Repbublican colleagues have fallen into this trap, that Washington, DC 
is saying ``Go left, out into left field, on the $245 billion tax cut, 
because the American people are saying don't give tax cuts; balance the 
budget.''
  But I want to make a very, very important point to the American 
people tonight, one that they need to understand, that there is nobody 
in Washington, DC that is saying ``Don't do the tax cuts in order that 
we can balance the budget sooner.'' People need to know that. People do 
not want the tax cuts because they want to spend the money here in 
Washington, DC. It is not that they want to take $245 billion away from 
the taxpayers in order that we can eliminate the deficit sooner than 
2002.
  It is they want to take the $245 billion of taxpayer money away from 
them so they can spend it on programs X, Y, and Z. That is why they do 
not want to give you back your taxpayer money, and I think, frankly, 
that the Republicans have done a very poor job of defending the tax 
cuts and explaining why they are so important.
  The first reason, there are two reasons in my mind, the point I would 
like to make before I yield to other gentlemen to talk about the 
specifications of the tax package. The most important reason that we 
need to have $245 billion in our tax relief for the American taxpayer 
is just that. The Federal Government does not have a single dollar, 
except the dollars that they collect from American taxpayers. We do not 
have any money, except for the money that we take from the American 
taxpayers. So the first and most important reason that we need tax 
relief in this country today is in order that the taxpayers can keep 
more of their hard-earned money.
  You see, there are some of us in Congress that believe that taxpayers 
and families can spend their money more wisely, more efficiently, more 
effectively for their families than we can in Washington, DC. And I 
know that my colleagues that are gathered here this afternoon believe 
that.
  But, second, and this is equally important to understand, the reason 
that the tax cuts are necessary is that it is a critical, an important, 
an unbelievable mechanism to decrease the size of Government. You see, 
if we take that $245 billion, as I said earlier, we are not going to 
apply it to the deficit. We are not going to cut spending. We are going 
to spend more.

                              {time}  1545

  And so the tax relief package that is contained within the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995 does just that, it not only gives the taxpayers back 
their own money, but, at the same time, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 
reduces the size and cost of the Federal Government, at the same time 
still getting us to a path to a balanced budget in the year 2002.
  Now, I would like to yield back to my colleague from Arizona and ask 
if he would yield to our other colleagues here that are prepared to 
talk about the tax relief specifics.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
restoring our sense of direction with his very illustrious examples, 
and I look to the other side of the aisle, where in this special order 
we are joined by our colleagues, but I think symbolically of the fact 
that we want to reach out to the other side of the aisle; that we hope 
to work together to confront this next century, and I would simply 
yield to my good friend from Nebraska, the gentleman who sits on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, where tax policy is formulated, our good 
friend Mr. Christensen.

[[Page H14914]]

  Mr. EHRLICH. Would the gentleman from Nebraska bear with me for 20 
seconds?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I would gladly yield.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I am happy of two things: First; I have the time to 
speak today; and, second, I never had to catch this guy.
  Before the gentleman from Nebraska, our colleague, Mr. Christensen, 
begins, I would make one point that I think is very relevant. We would 
love to do every day what symbolically we are doing here today; 
reaching out. However, the one precondition all of us, and I think I 
speak for everyone in this majority feels that that precondition is 
every debate, every reasonable debate must be on facts.
  When demagoguery and class warfare and generational warfare run the 
airwaves and run this floor, it is very difficult to reach out.
  I yield back and thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think Robert J. 
Samuelson said it best in The Washington Post in a commentary of a few 
weeks ago when he said, when one side continuously distorts the facts 
and refuses to debate the policy, then the purpose is not to debate, it 
is to destroy.
  Mr. Speaker, here to help destroy and shatter some of the myths that 
have been propagated, again it is our good friend, the gentleman from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I think our friend from Tulsa has put his finger on the problem, and 
that is this Government, Washington DC, has had an appetite for 
spending. All they want to do is spend, spend, spend. The more money 
going into the coffers, the more they can spend.
  This is not about whether it is $245 billion or used to be $360 
billion in tax relief. What we are talking about now is the 
administration wanting to compromise and to increase the consumption of 
the Federal Government.
  One of the areas in the Ways and Means that we worked so hard on, and 
I campaigned on for over 2 years, was capital gains tax relief, the 
centerpiece, I believe, of getting this economy moving, keeping it a 
robust economy, and returning people's money back to where it belongs, 
in their own pockets and not in the Federal Government's. Not in the 
bureaucracy.
  In Nebraska alone, over 200,000 Nebraskans will see relief from a 
capital gains tax cut. As a matter of fact, the overall tax package in 
Nebraska will see 580,000 Nebraskans benefit from a capital gains, 
a child care tax credit, or some provision in our tax package. That is 
putting money back in their pocket, taking it out of wasteful programs 
that have overspent and have gone into $5 trillion in debt over the 
last 40 years.

  What we are doing is talking about putting the trust in the people, 
whether it is in Arizona or Oklahoma or Nebraska or South Carolina, and 
the thought and the belief that they can spend their own money better 
than Federal bureaucrats can in Washington, DC. I am a strong supporter 
and a believer in the fact that I know how to spend my buck better than 
some bureaucrat down at Treasury.
  That is why I believe that the tax package has been compromised too 
much already, and I think that to move off that $245 billion tax figure 
would be a big mistake and would be a win for the bureaucracy, a win 
for as-usual politics. I think that this freshman class stands up and 
will make our voices loud.
  Mr. LARGENT. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, I would.
  Mr. LARGENT. I talked to the gentleman earlier, and he mentioned, as 
a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, that he had a figure for 
what the total tax cut package was in relationship to the entire budget 
over the next 7 years. Does the gentleman recall that figure?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Less than 2 percent. We are talking about less than 
2 percent of returning the people's money back to them. Over the next 7 
years, all the budgets added up, 2 percent is what the tax package is. 
Is it asking too much of this Federal bureaucracy, of this Federal 
Government, to return 2 percent of the money back to the people? I 
think not.
  I yield to my friend from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman.
  Anybody who is trying to bring this to a conclusion and is listening, 
they need to understand this. If we want to take money from the family 
budget and spend it in Washington, DC, to get a deal, count me out. If 
we want to adjust senior citizens' payments to get more money to spend 
in Washington, count me out. If we want to take $135 billion of so-
called new money and spend it on Washington, DC, count me out.
  I think we are going to find a lot more people saying exactly what I 
have said.
  What does $12 trillion mean? If anyone is doubting that there is room 
for a tax cut and a need for a tax cut, let me tell my colleagues what 
the Federal Government takes from us--$12 trillion is spent in 
Washington. If we spent $1 million a day it would take us 2,700 years 
to spend $1 trillion.
  We have a $5 trillion debt. To retire $1 trillion of the national 
debt would be equivalent to $3,814 from every man, woman, and child in 
America. My colleagues and I all know that every American does not pay 
taxes. The ones that are paying, are paying a ton of it.
  I firmly believe that the Washington, DC, budget has got plenty of 
room to be reduced. The family budget is on a shoestring, and if we are 
going to let people spend money on a family, let the family people do 
it and get us out of the business.
  I want to make one last point. If we divide the population of the 
United States into the budget of the United States over a 7-year 
period, the Federal Government will spend $162,764 on a family of 4. To 
me, that is enough.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from South Carolina 
for the points he makes and  reclaiming my time, I just think it is 
important to understand one historical perspective to really stand in 
relief.

  It is worth noting that in 1992 candidate Clinton talked about tax 
relief for the middle class; and then, upon taking the oath of office, 
President Clinton gave us the largest tax increase in American history. 
And there has followed, from that broken promise, a string of broken 
promises, not only with taxation but with balancing this budget.
  And with that in mind, I would yield to our good friend from 
Wisconsin, who has done yeoman's work, gotten in there, rolled up his 
sleeves, taken out a sharpened pencil and taken a true look at what is 
at stake for the American family and the American Nation with the 
budget. I yield time now to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time, and I 
go back to what the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] said. He 
is exactly right here. The question is how much money we are spending. 
And I would like someone, just someone out there to call my office and 
say, we think the Federal Government should spend more money. That 
never happens. Nobody calls my office and says we are not spending 
enough money; spend more money. That never happens.
  Here is what has gone on with the budgets we have now and why we 
cannot reach agreement here. We have CBO-scored numbers, an apples-to-
apples comparison of what is being spent and where the deficits are 
going.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield for a second, would the 
gentleman please tell us what the acronym stands for and why it is so 
important?
  Mr. NEUMANN. It is the Congressional Budget Office. And what is very 
significant in this is that we now are using the same numbers to 
compare our plans to balance the budget.
  What I have on this chart with me is what the deficits are in each of 
the years from now through the year 2002, showing that in the 
Republican plan, the plan that has been laid on the President's desk 
and has now been vetoed, we go through the deficits. They go through a 
decline until we reach a $3 billion surplus in the year 2002.
  Let me make this perfectly clear. With CBO scoring, we do reach a 
balanced budget in the year 2002, as each and every person standing in 
this room today promised their constituents, and 

[[Page H14915]]
as we, as a Congress, have promised the American people we would do. It 
has been done.
  The President's budget, last week, and I have to tell my colleagues, 
I was a little different than some of my colleagues even in this room. 
I said, let us wait and see. Let us take a good hard look at the 
President's budget and let us see what this budget says and see if we 
cannot reach a conclusion looking at the President's budget.
  We have it now. We have a fair comparison between the President's 
budget and what was presented to him. They are scored with the 
Congressional Budget Office. The same set of numbers are evaluated in 
both plans.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Wisconsin would yield 
for a quick question. Does that top number, with the plus 3, even 
include the tax cuts?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Yes, it does. It does include the tax cuts.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. So we balance the budget in the year 2002, including 
the $245 billion in tax cuts. The President's number is a lower amount 
in tax cuts and does not balance the budget; is that correct?
  Mr. NEUMANN. That is exactly right. And here we can really clearly 
define what the problems are as we work toward balancing the budget. As 
we can see, in year 7 of the President's plan, we have a $115 billion 
deficit.

  I want to make this perfectly clear to everyone in this room. As far 
as I am concerned, this is not about the President or Democrats and 
Republicans fighting with each other. This is about the future of our 
country. This is about our children's future that we are talking about 
here. We have to get this number, right here, where it says $115 
billion of deficit, that has to be zero or we have not balanced the 
budget.
  It has to be a black number. It has to be a number that is a positive 
number or zero, or we, in fact, have not done what we promised for the 
American people, and that is balance the budget.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Be happy to yield.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Neumann, would you care to reiterate the results 
of the last shutdown, and what was the agreement made by the 
administration, and how they would submit their next budget?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Sure. In the shutdown in November, we reached a 
conclusion that extended the Government operations for a period of 
time. We all promised, Republicans and Democrats, that we would bring a 
plan to the table that was balanced under a 7-year plan with CBO 
scoring.
  This plan is not balanced on a 7-year plan with CBO scoring, and it 
does not keep the promise that was made as recently as November, that 
we would have a plan from both sides of the aisle that was balanced in 
7 years using CBO scoring.
  Mr. LARGENT. Would the gentleman yield? That was not a promise. That 
was a contractual agreement; is that not correct?
  Mr. NEUMANN. That is exactly right. It was a written contractual 
agreement between the Republican leadership, between all of us when we 
voted on it, and the President of the United States. That is exactly 
right.
  So that the bottom line is these numbers are cut and dried, folks. 
This is not a Republican-Democrat debate at this point. This is a 
mathematical statement of facts that I am bringing to my colleagues. We 
do not have a balanced budget under the President's plan. It is $115 
billion short in the last year.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Sure.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to point out, then, because the gentleman's 
example here perfectly illustrates the frustration that we are 
experiencing in Washington when we make a pledge to the American 
people, many of us who are here for the first time, that we are going 
to go back and balance the budget, and then we run into a game of 
charades basically, in order to drum up phony numbers so that we can 
live up to our obligations made with regard to balancing the budget in 
7 years.
  So, unfortunately, I think through this process, if there is any good 
that can come out of it, would be commitments made and kept, but also 
honest numbers. Because that is really what is driving, I think, the 
American people nuts and driving this whole controversy right now.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I think there is another important thing 
that shows up here. If we were to put into law the Republican plan, 
exactly as it was presented to the President, that does get to a 
balance in 7 years, we would still add $635 billion to the national 
debt over the next 7 years. So under the Republican plan, we would be 
adding $635 billion to the debt and we have not solved all the problems 
yet.
  But under the President's plan we would be adding over $1 trillion, 
an extra $365 billion to the Federal debt. And, folks, that is our 
children we are talking about. They will have to pay that money back.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the gentleman yield? This has been a fascinating 
conversation. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] mentioned 
something a while ago; that the game in Washington is not to take the 
$245 billion in tax cuts and to balance the budget with the money, the 
game is to spend it.
  From what the gentleman has been able to tell me, and what the 
gentleman from Nebraska, John Christensen, has said, I think we have 
some pretty good evidence that is true.

                              {time}  1600

  Is it not fair to say that the President's tax cut plan is at $78 
billion, I believe?
  Mr. NEUMANN. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. He cut taxes at $78 billion, and he is $115 billion out 
of balance. That is pretty good evidence that the money that he took 
away from our tax cut went to spend more money on the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Failed welfare programs and failed social programs.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think that is a very telling point.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Going through some of the areas, I just want to ask 
if the gentleman's understanding is the same as mine. Have we increased 
or decreased spending in education, job training, and student loans?
  Mr. NEUMANN. We have clearly increased spending.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. How about Medicare?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Medicare spending is going from $4,800 in the system to 
$7,100 per person in the system over the next 7 years.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Veterans?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Veterans' benefits are increased $400 million, and the 
HUD VA appropriations bill is the only one of them that is increased.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. How about welfare spending?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Welfare spending is going up significantly, from about 
$90 billion to $140 billion this year to the year 2002.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. I know in Nebraska a lot of people have asked me why 
are we spending so much.
  Mr. NEUMANN. That is the question I keep coming back to. When I show 
these numbers to my folks back home and I say. ``Even under the 
Republican plan we are adding $635 billion to the debt over the next 7 
years,'' does the gentleman know what they say to me? ``Why are you 
doing that? Why are you doing that? Get this job done faster.''
  That is why earlier this year we did present a plan that balanced the 
budget in 5 years and then did something we do not usually talk about 
here. It paid off the debt in a 30-year period of time, and we did not 
use any Social Security trust fund money to do that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Did the gentleman view the media report a couple of days 
ago that had Mrs. Clinton testifying before Congress about Medicare 
saying that if we control the growth of Medicare, if we reduce it from 
11 percent to 6 to 7 percent, we can balance the budget and protect 
Medicare and keep it from going broke? Did the gentleman see that 
report?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I sure have.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Is it not true that our spending on Medicare is at 7.2 
percent?
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We are spending more on Medicare than her testimony. Is 
the gentleman aware of a speech that the President made to an AARP 
group in 1993--excuse me, 1995, where he indicated, might have been 
1993; I do not want to get my facts wrong--where he indicated that 
Medicare and Medicaid are driving the country broke. It is growing at 3 
times the level of the private sector. If we could reduce it to 

[[Page H14916]]
twice the level of inflation, we could take care of every senior 
citizen and balance that budget, and that is not too much to ask. Is 
the gentleman aware that he made that statement?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Yes, and I have heard so many times in our town hall 
meetings, people in Wisconsin are saying, ``Why are you increasing it 
at twice the rate of inflation?''

  Mr. GRAHAM. Is it not a fact that we are increasing it twice the rate 
of inflation?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Yes, it is.
  Mr. GRAHAM. What he said to do; what Mrs. Clinton said to do. We are 
doing what they asked or told somebody to do 2 years ago, and we are 
getting killed for it by them.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], was this the President's first try at 
balancing the budget? Which budget number is this as far as the $115 
billion figure?
  Mr. NEUMANN. This is budget No. 3. But in all fairness, I will point 
out that this is, in fact, the closest we have been to a legitimate 
budget proposal. This is the closest that he has been in three tries to 
balance the budget.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. The first budget wound up in the Senate with a 99-
to-nothing vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. It was 96.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I have to wrap up my part of this. Can I 
conclude very briefly here? This Nation of ours, this great country our 
ours, is in trouble. We are $5 trillion in debt. We are sinking fast. 
We have got deficits every year through the year 2002.
  Every time this Nation has been in trouble in the past, do my 
colleagues know what has happened? The American people have joined 
together and solved the problems. Not Democrats, not Republicans; 
Americans.
  It is time for us, the Members of this Congress and the President of 
the United States, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as 
Americans first, to get the job done that American people sent us here 
to do and to get the job done that we promised we would do on their 
behalf when we came here.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
very much for bringing this information. I want to say briefly that our 
priorities in this process in defending, to a degree, the increase in 
the debt even under our plan, is that we are committed right now with 
priorities of a 7-year balanced budget; the second being CBO scoring, 
which we are still working on; the third being the quick elimination of 
the deficit and the debt.
  Unfortunately, under our plan, while we are working at eliminating 
the deficit, we are unfortunately still adding to the debt. But after 
that deficit is gone, then the debt gets worked down.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and 
I thank our good friend from Wisconsin who once again demonstrates why 
he has been the workhorse of the budget process and is deserving every 
accolade that this new Congress can provide.
  I am holding here a certain financial document. It is a check. I 
heard my friend from Nebraska and my good friend from South Carolina 
lament the fact that the President of the United States was making 
allegations about Medicare that is part of the cacophony, the mantra of 
the mediscare campaign of the discredited American liberals who cannot 
seem to face facts. So, how ironic it would be if this President, who 
has worked very hard with his own special interests to raise scads of 
money for what will be a very difficult reelection campaign, again, Mr. 
Speaker, the challenge goes out to everyone, including the President of 
the United States, if they can show us a cut in Medicare spending that 
goes from $4,800 this year now to $7,100 per beneficiary in the year 
2002, if there is some way to do that, then the Republican National 
Committee, Haley Barbour, the national chairman, is prepared to pay up 
with $1 million.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Would the gentleman yield on that point? Your 
seniors in Arizona will not be herded into just one program, will they? 
They will have an opportunity for a number of choices.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And freedom of choice is one of the fascinating things 
about Medicare-Plus. And just as the benefits per beneficiary increase, 
so do the opportunities and options for seniors under Medicare-Plus.
  Speaking of opportunities and options, as I reclaim the time, let me 
also turn to our good friend from Kansas who has a couple of 
housekeeping items which we need to allow him to take care of, but also 
may have some observations. Let me yield time to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Arizona 
yielding to me. This $1 million check, I think, is a clear statement to 
the American people, to anybody anywhere in the world, that if there is 
a real cut in Medicare, show us. We will pay them $1 million.
  The point of it is, and it is just to make a point, there are no cuts 
in Medicare. I appreciate my colleagues explaining that to this body, 
so that this body can understand, as I think most of them do, but in 
some cases act like they do not, what the situation really is.
  I particularly appreciate the earlier dialog that I have been 
watching as well, saying to this body and educating this body, look, we 
are in a dire situation. We have got to do that and we have got to do 
that compassionately and we are doing it compassionately.

                          ____________________