[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3568-H3576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1900
                           REFORM INITIATIVES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Metcalf). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I come to speak to my 
colleagues tonight here in the House to discuss some of the reforms 
that we have achieved thus far and where we need to

[[Page H3569]]

go in the next few months to make sure we complete our agenda to create 
jobs, to have reforms and to make sure the institution that we are 
serving in and the public we are serving for are being properly 
represented in every way imaginable inasmuch as in a bipartisan way as 
possible, in that total effect.
  Let me just review, Mr. Speaker, if I may, with you some of the 
important reforms we have achieved.
  First on opening day we cut one-third of committee staff, eliminated 
3 committees, 25 subcommittees. At the same time we also passed a rule 
for this 104th Congress in the House, there would be no tax increase 
unless with three-fifths of the Members present voting for that tax 
increase, and I can report to you we have had no tax increases to date.
  We also have one-third cut in the franking privileges, the free 
mailing privileges that Members have, and since that time some other 
additional reforms I think are worth repeating and worth underscoring 
for my colleagues.
  We have passed a ban on gifts from lobbyists. Up until December 1995, 
lobbyists could give gifts to Members, whether it be a trip, or a 
dinner, or anything like that. And we took a stand, I think very 
strongly, very properly, saying since no Member in this House would 
want the adverse inference that their vote would be changed by a 
lobbyist giving a gift, we have now banned those gifts, the first 
Congress in history.
  And we certainly are on the right direction as well, requiring lobby 
disclosure. We now know because we passed a bill that is signed by the 
President, bipartisan Congress, House and Senate. Lobby disclosure for 
the first time has been effectuated here, and because of the task force 
on the form, which I now serve on, a bill will be forthcoming to bring 
about campaign reform, as well, which I think would be the final 
chapter of this Congress' achievement, a ban on gifts, lobby 
disclosure, and filing campaign reform.
  We have already saved through these reform measures, Mr. Speaker, 
$150 million on just the operation of the House. I think that is a 
testimonial to the kind of hard work that the Republicans have 
initiated as a majority party, and we have had bipartisan support in 
all of those initiatives, and I think that says a lot about the 
membership reflecting the will of the people back home.
  But beyond those reforms in the institution, we have also made great 
strides, moved forward to our agenda to try to make sure that we have a 
balanced budget. This House has passed for the first time since 1969 a 
balanced budget. Now, since we started that balanced budget, which was 
presented to the President and not yet signed, we have moved $440 
billion closer to the President's figures in trying to achieve the kind 
of an agreement that will not only bring us a balanced budget, but we 
are still $440 billion on Medicare, Medicaid, environment and 
education, four areas that in a bipartisan way the Congress is moving 
to protect.
  We just saw a week ago, Mr. Speaker, that a line-item veto was signed 
into law by the President. This will allow the President for the first 
time, like 43 Governors, to be able to cut out wasteful pork-barrel 
projects, ones that House Members in the past or Senators may insert 
into the budget just to get a reelection effort or just to take care of 
their districts, but would not have regional or permanent value, that 
would be a project worthy. Now the President will have that line-item 
veto, and that is certainly a reform that this Congress can be very 
proud of.

  We have also passed congressional accountability. That law says that 
anything that we pass will be applied to our staffs as well. In prior 
Congresses, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Congress 
itself was exempt from bills in the past, whether it is OSHA, or fair 
labor standards, or whether it is civil rights law. It is the last 
paragraph; Congress is exempt from the application of this law. And 
that was wrong in two ways. First, it was wrong because we did not 
understand the pain or the suffering put through some individuals and 
businesses with requirements of Federal law; and, two, it was unfair to 
the staffs of the Congress in being able to have the protections that 
laws can afford. And so the President did sign that law into effect, 
sometimes called the Shays Act, and Chris Shays, who is from 
Connecticut, deserves a great deal of credit for having moved that bill 
forward, and we adopted it here in the House and the Senate, and the 
President signed the law.
  The unfunded mandates reform; I know that you back--Mr. Speaker, and 
served in Washington State, and you know that the Federal Government 
for years before you arrived here in Congress would send mandates back 
to Washington State or to your home community or your school district 
and said the Federal Government requires this, you got to pay for it. 
Well, that almost bankrupt some local communities, trying to see to the 
wishes of the Federal Government, least sensitivity of the funding that 
goes along with these programs that we implement.
  So the unfunded mandates reform has been passed, and no longer can 
the Federal Congress, the House and the Senate, and together with the 
President, send back a mandate to home without the money that goes with 
it. I think the benefit of that is that we can make sure that what we 
send back is certainly going to be something that is worthy of having 
the Federal Government be involved with the funding as well as the 
initiative.
  We also passed in this Congress a new crime bill, not just for more 
police on the street, which is certainly a positive step to take care 
of all local communities, but we also passed on this $10.2 billion new 
program more funds for police officers on the streets, more money for 
police equipment, for crime prevention, maybe for a drug court, and 
leave to each community, county and municipality, or State the 
initiatives on their own part to decide where the anticrime, where the 
prevention programs, should have the money best spent.
  In some communities it might be establishment of drug court. In other 
communities it might be prevention programs. Still in others it might 
be rehabilitation programs to make sure first-time offenders no longer 
become full-time or professional criminals.
  These kinds of initiatives will go a long way to improve our 
anticrime programs and to work with the attorneys general in each State 
and our U.S. Attorney General in trying to bring about more safety in 
our communities and in our States.
  We have also passed initially in this House welfare reform. Now, the 
President said in 1992, when he ran, he wanted to end welfare as we 
know it. Now we send a bill over to the White House; it was welfare 
reform in a bipartisan fashion, passed by the House and Senate, has 
been vetoed, But we are still hopeful here in the House that there will 
be a bill upon which we can have the consensus and can get a final 
passage.

  The kinds of things we are trying to get is to make sure there is a 
safety net for those who are unemployed or unemployable, but those who 
are able-bodied, what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is make sure 
they have job counseling, job training, job placement, and day care, if 
necessary, to make sure that every individual who wants to work, who 
has the ability to work, will be able to work and have the pride of 
work.
  But also part of the welfare reform legislation was appropriate 
funding and increased funding for food nutrition programs for schools 
and the WIC Program, the Women, Infants and Children Program. We think 
this goes a long way in trying to get the problems addressed because 
while we have spent 15 percent in the cost of one of those two 
programs, the WIC and the food nutrition, in the proposal that we have 
before the House right now is to have those programs block granted to 
the State, but the way we do it is we told the Governors you can only 
spend 5 percent on administration; with the other 10 percent that is in 
the budget, the money must go toward feeding more children more meals 
under the national standards of the National Science Foundation.
  So, with those kinds of safeguards, we think the programs, closer to 
the people without the fraud, abuse and waste for anything will give us 
a better job back home, will give us a better chance to feed those 
children and to serve them well.

[[Page H3570]]

  Our pro-jobs agenda has been one that I think that we can take a lot 
of pride. You know, many people said, well, what kind of health care 
provided for workers, for those employed? Well, H.R. 3103 passed last 
week in the House provides several things. Most notably, Mr. Speaker, 
H.R. 3103 is going to make sure that our people who employed, when they 
move from one job to the other, or if they lose their jobs, that the 
insurance is portable. And that is very, very important. It also 
insures that no matter what preexisting condition you have you cannot 
be denied the coverage. It also provides medical savings accounts.
  So these are very positive things for workers that we want to make 
sure, hopefully the Senate will agree, and the President, as well, will 
sign.
  We also want to try to get 100 percent deductibility on health 
insurance to encourage employers to provide the health insurance for 
their workers.
  We also are discussing investment tax credits and research and 
development tax credits for the purpose of making sure we encourage 
investment, encourage new jobs, retaining jobs, and to make sure that 
we keep our businesses here in the country and not overseas.
  We also are looking for regulatory relief, and our purpose is to try 
to make sure that we do not duplicate what States are already doing. 
Mr. Speaker, we cannot really have regulation upon regulation when they 
have already have made sure that they done in the States, they have to 
duplicate in the Federal Government.
  We have with us tonight our colleague, Congressman Tauzin, who I hope 
will join us here and talk about some of these reforms that we have had 
in the Congress and where we go in the future of this second session of 
the 104th Congress. I will yield to him to give us his thoughts on 
where he thinks the continuation of this revolution will go.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I particularly wanted to join you because I listened to the special 
order that preceded you, and if you were to listen to that special 
order, you would assume that much of the regulatory reform efforts that 
you just referred to that were conducted during the previous year in 
this Congress were somehow aimed at destroying the environment, 
creating dirty water and dirty air and somehow making life unsafe and 
unhealthy for us, when nothing could be further from the truth.
  The fact is, as we approach Earth Day and we celebrate a much cleaner 
environment for America, the fact is that we ought to reflect upon what 
we fought for earlier this year, that some of which remains yet undone 
and some of which needs to be accomplished in this session of Congress 
or the next.
  Now, one of that is regulatory reform. Now, again, if you would 
listen to that special order that just occurred, you would think, for 
example, that the clean water bill that this House produced was somehow 
a partisan special-interest piece of legislation that was not designed 
to do anything about clean water in America. The truth was that it was 
supported by a large majority of this House, bipartisan in nature, 
Democrats joining Republicans, attempting to bring some rationality to 
the section of laws that deal with clean water regulations in America, 
particularly trying to define wetlands in a way that we can properly 
respect the preservation of real wetlands and at the same time respect 
the rights of property owners and people in America who are affected by 
those regulations.
  Now, the properly rights bill itself was one that was supported by 
many Democrats in this House, and we sent it down to the Senate. It was 
a bill that simply set up due process rights for property owners who 
were affected by some of the regulations dealing with either the 
Endangered Species Act or the pull for wetlands regulations.
  In regulatory reform, you will recall that when this House passed its 
regulatory reform bill, the Republican majority was joined by many 
Democrats who agreed with us that it was time to put some risk-benefit 
cost analysis into the process by which the government makes 
regulation. Why? Because we simply want to make sure that regulation 
makes common sense, that you look at the real risk you are going after, 
analyze it carefully and look for the least-cost method of achieving a 
reduction of that risk in our society, making sure, in fact, that 
regulations issued by bureaucrats made common sense.
  Was that an attack on the environment? Of course not. We want a 
safer, cleaner, healthy environment for America, but we simply want the 
regulators in Washington, who are sometimes out of control, sometimes 
not living in the real world, to simply take people into account and to 
make their regulations make common sense.
  This House overwhelmingly endorsed that proposal and sent it down to 
the Senate. We have still not seen that enacted into law. But we stand 
for those propositions tonight as we did earlier this year. We stand in 
this week when we celebrate the planet and clean air environment, we 
stand for a cleaner healthier, safer place for Americans to live, but 
one in which Federal bureaucrats start treating people with a little 
less arrogance, when they start making regulations that take risk and 
cost into account, that they start respecting property rights in 
America, that they start respecting the very people they are supposed 
to serve in America rather than ramming regulations down their throat 
that sometimes do not make sense.
  In short, we are looking for more effective environmentalism, more 
effective regulatory structures that really work. We are looking for as 
much voluntary agreements and conservation, voluntary agreements, as 
possible, consultation with local folks, bringing, in fact, 
environmentalism back home where it belongs instead of here in 
Washington in some Federal agency.

  I remember recently when Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, 
visited Louisiana, he went down and talked about the Republican assault 
on the great outdoors. My comment was, Mr. Babbitt, you don't 
understand something. Sir, we love the great outdoors as much as you 
do, perhaps more than you do, in Louisiana. We grew up in the great 
outdoors. It's the great indoors that we complain about, the indoors 
where all these Federal bureaucrats who have lost sight of reality and 
make all these regulations that just don't make sense that Americans 
can't live with and that in many cases disrespects constitutional 
rights, civil rights, like the right to own private property in our 
country.
  And so as we fight to balance those things, as we fight to bring some 
common sense to regulatory reform, respect for property rights, and 
some regulations dealing with wetlands and clean water and clean 
drinking water that indeed are based on good risk analysis, cost-
benefit analysis; in other words, regulations that achieve their 
results more accurately for Americans. As we make that fight, we will 
also celebrate with our colleagues on the other side Earth Day this 
week.

                              {time}  1915

  We are going to try to see to it in the coming weeks and months, for 
example, that we make a new Superfund law for America, one that does 
not waste all the money that is collected in a courtroom with lawyers 
and others making all the money in the system and nothing getting 
cleaned up.
  The President in his State of the Union address, his first State of 
the Union address, pointed out to us how awful that was, and called 
upon us to change that law. We are going to try to do that, Jon, to 
pass a good Superfund law, a good clean drinking water law, and get the 
Senate, hopefully, to agree with us eventually on good, safe, clean 
water acts and property rights and regulatory reform.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would say this to the 
gentleman. One of the items he brought up about being commonsensical 
about the environmental laws, our chairman of the Committee on Science, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bob Walker, said we should have strong 
environmental laws but they should be science-based, based on what--we 
know we can improve the environment, but based on those who are expert 
in the field coming forward and telling us how can we achieve that end. 
I think that is very important.
  Certainly you hit an item on Superfund. We have seen since 1980 when 
Superfund was first created, most of the funds have been spent 
unfortunately not on the cleanups, which are

[[Page H3571]]

in some cases not that great a deal of money, but we have been fighting 
over who the potentially responsible parties are under the Superfund 
law. So the money is going into lawsuits instead of the cleanups.
  I think with the reform that you are speaking to, that the House is 
going to be addressing, it is going to finally get some of these 
cleanups going. Most of the companies that have been involved want to 
do the cleanup, but they are in court because of one party or the other 
is disputing what percentage of liability they have.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, why 
they do that, the reason they spend so much time in court battling over 
liability, is that the current law as it is written has this so-called 
deep pockets provision in it. So if you contributed 1 percent of 
whatever is in that site, you could be liable for 100 percent. If you 
are caught having contributed that 1 percent and you are told that the 
other parties are not found liable, you are going to have to cough it 
all up, you are going to try your best to bring them all to court and 
fight over that liability forever.

  The result is the government spends the taxpayers' dollars in that 
courtroom, the private parties spend interminable amounts of time and 
money in that courtroom, and in the meantime the citizens out there 
waiting for the cleanup to occur wait and wait and wait, and the money 
is wasted and no cleanup occurs. That is what is wrong with this 
system. It lacks common sense.
  If we had a system, for example, that said if you are known to have 
contributed 20 percent and you are willing to put up your 20 percent 
cost up front without a legal fight, so we can take that 20 percent and 
go start cleaning up that site, would that not make better common 
sense?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. It certainly would.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Of course it would. That is what we are trying to do in 
this reform. In short, we are trying to bring commonsense 
environmentalism to America. We are not trying at all to back away from 
our commitment to the environment.
  I believe, and I know most Members of this House believe, that we are 
here as guests on this planet and that we share it with other forms of 
life, and we all breathe the same air and drink the same water. We all 
cherish clean water and safe environments for our family. But we ought 
to have commonsense regulation out of this Federal Government, and very 
often we do not. We end up wasting the money, the precious dollars that 
ought to go to cleaning up places in America and making it a safer, 
healthier place for our children.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think what we need to do is to work with 
the EPA, work with the advocacy groups, with our colleagues, to make 
sure this is a bipartisan issue, because there is no one party that is 
for the environment. Both parties are for the environment and both the 
Congress and the White House are for the environment. Now it is a 
question of how do we get up there.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Yes, but you would not believe that by listening to some 
of this debate on the floor. The fact of the matter is there are quite 
a number of lobby groups in this town on both sides of this equation 
who have very special interests. There are environmental lobby groups 
who have very special interests in keeping a fight going, raising more 
money and fighting some more. There are other groups out here who 
obviously would like to not see any environmental protection in the 
land.
  Neither one is right. What we have to do is find the balance to make 
sure that neither one of the lobby groups sneak away with the issue and 
we never get anything done, but that in fact Americans get a cleaner, 
healthier, and safer place to live in out of this maze of regulation 
and legislation.
  The bottom line is we ought to be asking the simple question, does 
this work. If it does not work to bring us a cleaner, healthier place, 
if it does not work to save a species, if it does not work to really 
protect wetlands, then let us build a better system. Let us build one 
that makes common sense and works and delivers for Americans what they 
are paying for, which is cleanup of hazardous sites, which is 
protection of endangered species, which is protection of valuable 
wetlands, and protection of the clean water and the air and the lands 
upon which we live. If we deliver on that promise, it will be the best 
bipartisan gift we can give to America, not only on this Earth Day, but 
on every Earth Day.
  But if you listen to some of the debate on this floor, I mean, you 
would believe that some of us really do not want clean air and clean 
water and a clean place for our families. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. The fact is we all want it, we just disagree on how to 
achieve it. We disagree on how in fact to attain that good environment 
for our families.
  In the end, that is a debate that we ought to have, but we ought to 
do it with a little less of this partisanship, a little less of this 
acrimonious sort of name-calling and get-ready-for-the-next-election, 
which seems to preoccupy this Chamber too much.
  If we remember as we approach Earth Day that we have a common goal 
here to make regulations work for the good not only of our environment 
but for the citizens who live in it, then I think we will be on solid 
ground.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think we will.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's approach, which is one that is 
global, that is pro-environment, pro-people, and one that is going to 
bring about positive change with common sense, I think that is what the 
American people want. They do not want to see anymore rhetoric, they 
want results. I think by following the Tauzin plan, we will achieve 
that.
  I think just as important as achieving the protection of our 
environment, as the gentleman has outlined, whether it be Superfund or 
endangered species, clean water, clean air, we also need to have FDA 
reform. I have been working with you and others on your Committee on 
Commerce, and I know the gentleman from Texas, Gene Green, was the task 
force chairman that the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Bliley, has 
appointed, and I am very excited about the progress we are going to 
make in that area not only on the drugs and medical devices, but also 
in the food area, to make sure that we speed up the approval of drugs 
and medical devices so life-extending drugs and life-saving drugs will 
be approved more quickly, because we do not want that technology or the 
work force or the jobs to be going overseas. We can keep it here, 
whether we reorganize FDA, that they need more people, or they need to 
be out of their morass of overregulation. We need to save lives. That 
is what the name of the game is. With FDA reform and environmental 
protection, we might find people living much longer and much better.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, in all this process of RDA reform, we have 
to keep our eyes, again, on the ball. The ball in this case is to make 
sure that food products Americans enjoy are safe products. That has to 
be our preeminent goal. Our second preeminent goal ought to be to make 
sure as we regulate good and drugs in America, that we do have a 
climate where new inventions and developments can reach consumers as 
rapidly as possible after they have been appropriately tested, so 
Americans do not have to run to other countries to get treatments that 
should be available in America, so that new devices and new drugs and 
new treatments can be available to citizens here, and so that in fact 
they can be available at an early date to save a life or prolong a 
life.

  FDA reform is critically needed in that regard. I want to join you in 
the hope that we can accomplish that before the year is out.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the average drug now might take 
12 years and $350 million to come to market. Some people cannot wait 12 
years to get that miracle life-extending drug, and $350 million is a 
lot of money for a company to invest without ever getting approval.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Guess what, too, after they have invested 12 years in 
that drug and $350 million, where do you think they get that money 
from? It goes into a much higher costing drug that Americans may need 
to save their lives or prolong their lives.
  If we can simply have a better process that does not take 12 years, 
that

[[Page H3572]]

does not cost $350 million, we will also be providing life-saving and 
life-prolonging drugs and treatments to Americans at more decent 
prices, which is a critical component of our health care reforms. We 
hope to accomplish again some of that this year.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The work that has been done so far by the 
gentleman from Texas, Joe Barton, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Scott 
Klug, and, as well, the work of the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Richard Burr, they have been appointed along with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Jim Greenwood, in your committee to move this initiative 
forward. I am very much heartened that it has been a bipartisan area of 
legislation.
  I think besides the environmental protections you have discussed and 
some of the pro-jobs things we have also discussed, getting FDA reform 
this year is one of the most important areas in which I think that we 
have accomplishment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, did he mention 
the success this House had in passing a health care reform bill this 
year? That came from our committee as well. For the first time, we 
finally got a bill out of this House that deals with the terrible issue 
of portability, as Americans move from job to job and lose their 
insurance.

  This bill now says you can take your insurance with you when you move 
jobs. It also takes care of this terrible problem of preexisting 
conditions. When you move from one job to the next, you might not have 
been able to get insurance for the thing you had, that you had coverage 
for at your old job.
  That bill dealt with that preexisting condition problem, and made 
other good cost-saving reforms in malpractice insurance, in paperwork 
reform, waste, fraud and abuse. It was the first real targeted effort 
to begin the process of reforming insurance for medical care in 
America, and reforming the availability and affordability of those 
systems for more Americans.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. While still retaining the choice of doctor 
and hospital for each patient.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Gil Gutnecht, join us in this dialog. It is very important. He has been 
one of the very hardworking reformers in this 104th Congress, trying to 
make sure we move forward in our agenda to be responsive to the 
American people, and I thought he might want to join us.
  I yield to him for the purpose of giving his reflections on where we 
have been up until this point and where he might see us going for the 
remainder of the 104th Congress.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to be part of this 104th 
Congress. The gentleman and I, and I think most of us, went home and 
had town meetings, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and I 
suspect you did as well. One of the most frustrating things that I 
found was how many times what we really have accomplished, what has 
really happened in this Congress, has been in some respects 
misrepresented by some of our adversaries and not always accurately 
reported by the press.
  As a matter of fact, one of the things we did in our town meetings, 
talking about reform and saving the Medicare system, it has been 
difficult sometimes, because we have to go over the same ground, and I 
found in my town meetings where we could explain exactly how much we 
are spending today in Medicare, how much we are proposing to spend in 
Medicare, and it goes from about $161 billion in fiscal year 1995 to 
$247 billion in the year 2002.

  Once people get those numbers, some of them actually scratch their 
heads and say, ``Well, wait a second, I keep hearing you are cutting 
Medicare,'' when in fact we are making big increases in Medicare. As a 
matter of fact, a few say, ``Gil, maybe that is true, you go from $161 
billion to $247; yes, that is probably an increase, but if you divide 
it by the number of seniors, there are going to be more seniors in 7 
years than there are today, so what is that number?'' That number is 
$4,800, and it goes to over $7,100 in just 7 years.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Even accounting for the increase in seniors.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Exactly. That takes into account all the new seniors 
that are coming. One of the things that I found that really began to 
get people's attention is when I would stop after I had made that 
presentation, giving the real numbers and our budget numbers, and said 
if we do this we can save the system. If we continue to do what we have 
always done, the system goes bankrupt.
  Then I would always tell them that I was born in 1951, and that may 
not be significant, but when I graduated from college, the Speaker at 
our commencement address was the director of the U.S. Census. He told 
us something that day that I think is very important. He said that 
there were more babies born in 1951 than any other year. We are the 
peak of the baby boomers. There are more people right now 45, and, 
well, that has probably changed somewhat, but at that time there were 
more people 22 than any other single age.
  Both of my parents are living, and God bless them, I am happy to have 
my parents both living and we are delighted, and it is a blessing to 
have them with us. They are both on Social Security, they are both on 
Medicare. As a baby boomer, I feel that I have a moral responsibility 
to my parents. But on the other hand, I have three teenagers. I have a 
moral responsibility to them, too. I think we ought to offer them the 
same kind of opportunities, the same opportunities of the kind of 
standard of living which we enjoy today.
  So in some respects, I think baby boomers stand on the hinges of 
history. I think we have a moral responsibility to seniors to make sure 
they get the kind of care and benefits they are entitled to, but on the 
other hand, if we allow the system--as my grandmother used to say, if 
you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you 
have always gotten. What we have got is a system that is going 
bankrupt.
  Frankly, I think we have a moral responsibility to do what is right, 
to save the system, not only for current seniors but for future 
generations of seniors. I am proud to say this Congress has been 
tackling that issue head on, and by using competitive forces, some of 
the marketplace changes that are happening out there in health care 
today, we can save Medicare. The same is true with the environment.
  One of my favorite Presidents was John Kennedy. He said that we all 
inhabit this same small planet, we all breathe the same air, and we all 
cherish our children's future.

                              {time}  1930

  I might add, parenthetically, we are all environmentalists. Is there 
anyone who does not want clean air and clean water for their kids? I do 
not think there is anybody. But the question is, will we continue to 
impose $50 solutions, Washington-based solutions on those problems out 
in the States and the districts?
  I think if we work together, if we have an honest dialog, we can have 
a cleaner environment, we can have a balanced budget, we can have a lot 
of these things we are talking about, because we have got to get the 
whole notion that all good ideas reside in Washington, we have got to 
get that out of our system, because it has not worked. The evidence is 
overwhelming.
  In fact, if Washington-based solutions worked, Washington, DC, would 
be the most efficiently run city in the world, and we all know that is 
not true, because we live here. We see it every day. There is a lot of 
common sense in Louisiana, in Pennsylvania, in Minnesota, all over this 
country. We have got to tap into it.
  So I am proud of what we have done in the 104th Congress, I think we 
are doing the right things, making the reforms that need to happen. I 
must confess that we have not always communicated very well, but we 
have got to do a better job of that.
  I think once the American people understand what we are trying to do 
and how we are trying to do it, to decentralize the bureaucracy, put 
more of the decision-making back in the districts and in the States and 
in the hands of individuals, all sharing the same goals, I think we are 
going to change the course of history. I think once the American people 
understand that, they are going to be far more supportive than 
sometimes the polls show them.

[[Page H3573]]

  Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank the gentleman for joining us and 
congratulate him on an excellent statement.
  My mother is on Medicare. I got a wonderful call from her just today 
telling me that she is finally out of the hospital, been discharged, 
doing well. She is a twice cancer survivor on Medicare. Do not think 
for a second that I am going to not do everything I can to make sure 
Medicare does not go bankrupt, for her and for everybody's mother and 
father that we cherish and love as much as I love my own mother.
  The bottom line is, we cannot let that system go bankrupt. If we do 
not face that problem head on, as the gentleman has said, and provide 
new solutions for it while at the same time increasing the benefits per 
beneficiary, as our plan did, and preserve for every Medicare recipient 
the right to go to the doctor of their own choice and to stay in the 
Medicare system if that is what they choose, if we do not do that kind 
of a reform, how are we going to save this system?
  And if we do not save it, 7 years from now, when it is about to go 
bankrupt, are we going to let that happen? No. We know what is going to 
happen around here. There will be a doubling of the payroll taxes to 
save it, and then the next generation will be threatened with 
bankruptcy. We will have been imposing an undue burden on the children 
and grandchildren to save a system that we should have saved and could 
have saved today, and the gentleman is so right in that regard.
  When it comes to the business of finding common sense in America, I 
agree with him. The best common sense resides in those town hall 
meetings back home. That is where I really learn the truth about many 
of the issues we debate here in Washington. That is where folks really 
tell us how the real world works and where the good ideas are, and more 
of us I think ought to spend time in those town hall meetings and less 
time here in Washington.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. They do not feel any qualms about telling us 
where to go and how to get there. That is good. That is how we learn.
  But let me say this about the Medicare situation. We are the 
individuals in the majority party that said, look, we think seniors are 
very important. We want to roll back that unfair 1993 tax on Social 
Security. We passed a bill to that effect. We are the ones who said, 
look, we want to raise the income eligibility from $11,280 without 
deductions from Social Security for those under 70 to $30,000 a year. 
We passed that.
  We are the same ones who are saying, look, we love our seniors, want 
to make sure they live long and well, as long as possible, but what we 
want to make sure of is we take out the waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
system, $30 million a year, and make sure we keep those savings for 
health care only, not to go somewhere else in the budget.
  We also want to take the medical education, now part of Medicare, for 
direct and indirect costs for interns and residents, a very valuable 
program but it should be a separate line item in the government. We 
should make sure that those dollars also go to Medicare for seniors.
  We want to see paperwork reduction from 12 percent of Medicare costs 
to 2 percent while still offering Medisave accounts and managed care 
for Medicare.
  Doing all that together, we are talking about a 7.5-percent increase 
a year for Medicare, double the rate of inflation. And frankly, knowing 
the bipartisan House we have here now, if we need to make increases in 
Medicare, we will do it.
  But to have people say through demagoguery or rhetoric that any one 
party does not want to do what is right for seniors is absolutely 
wrong, because we are looking for increases here to make sure Medicare 
works but get that fraud, waste, and abuse out of it, because I want to 
make sure those dollars are being spent for seniors' health care and 
not for a provider to become rich.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] said something 
worth repeating. At one of the town hall meetings during the break, it 
happened to occur on the 4-year anniversary of my father's death. I 
spent that morning with my mother.

  We recalled together how one of the things my dad had always asked me 
to try to do as his Congressman, as his son and friend, was to do 
something about that awful income earnings limitations that we put on 
seniors under Social Security. My father was living under Social 
Security until his death, and the idea that we told him and other 
seniors, ``Don't go try to earn more money to have a good life, because 
we're going to take your Social Security away if you dare go out and 
continue to work,'' was an insult to him.
  One of the sterling accomplishments of this Congress has been to 
raise that earned income limitation now to $30,000, so now seniors can 
earn up to $30,000 without affecting their Social Security check. I 
remember telling the audience that night, I said, ``Dad, this one's for 
you.''
  This one is for all the seniors who have been asking us to do that 
for so long, and to stop this awful tax on their Social Security 
benefits that was imposed during the early years of the Clinton 
administration, and this House did that. It has repealed the tax on the 
Social Security checks that seniors get around the country. I hope, 
frankly, we can see that enacted into law in a much bigger income tax 
reform that all Americans can benefit from before this Congress is 
over.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. One of the other areas we are working on for 
seniors that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] have been the leadership point 
for, and I think it is very important and worth repeating, is that we 
are also trying to make sure we have enough funds for in-home services. 
While people are living longer and better, we want them to live longer 
at home and less in a nursing care situation for as long as we can put 
that off by having additional funds for in-home services.
  And also I think what is very important is that we are spending 
money, and it should be, on women's health care initiatives. That is a 
very important program that we in a bipartisan fashion are trying to 
move forward, additional funding of research for osteoporosis, for 
cardiovascular diseases, for cancer, for uterine, ovarian, and breast 
cancer, additional research in that area as well as for menopause. We 
are also talking about, instead of having every other year under 
Medicare for mammograms, doing them yearly.
  Those are the kinds of changes this Congress is moving forward on 
because we want to make sure our seniors and others are living longer 
and living better.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. This is part of the frustration, the list that the 
gentleman just went through. I suspect most Americans, particularly 
American women, do not know how much this Congress has really done. It 
is so frustrating because it seems to me--and I do not mean to be 
critical of the press but maybe I guess I am--these are the kinds of 
things that need to be reported more, and frankly too many Americans do 
not know how much this Congress has accomplished.
  But, again, I am proud of the 104th Congress. This has been a can-do 
Congress from the very first day. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Fox] remembers as I do that very first day, and the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] was on the other side of the aisle that day, but 
it is great to have him with us now.
  But the point is that from the very first day, we were enacting 
reforms which a lot of people, and I am sure the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] included, had been trying to get reformed here 
in this Congress for many, many years. The very first bill, H.R. 1, the 
Congressional Accountability Act, the Shays Act, to make Congress abide 
by the same laws as everybody else.
  We actually for the first time in I do not know how many years had an 
audit of the Congress, and frankly what the auditors found was, this 
Congress itself has not been very good at managing its own funds and 
has not been very accountable for its own funds. If we look at item 
after item, this Congress has really changed the course of history and 
we have changed the nature of the debate in this body.
  Frankly, it is frustrating sometimes to go home and have to re-
explain that, because I think in some respects the

[[Page H3574]]

press has done such a miserable job, in my opinion, of telling how many 
good things this Congress has done, and so sometimes it is very 
frustrating for us to have to go back and tell the story. But on the 
other hand, I guess that is part of our job, as well, to talk about 
what is happening.
  Frankly, let us also admit we have made some mistakes. That is part 
of being a democracy, that is part of a democratic republic. We are 
going to make mistakes, but I think on balance I am proud of the record 
of accomplishment of this Congress.

  It has been a Congress that has been dedicated to reform, whether it 
was welfare reform, Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, or even reforming 
the way we keep our environment clean and pure. We have been willing to 
take a look and take some of the tough votes, take some of the 
criticism, because I think in the long light at the end of the tunnel, 
at the end of the day, I think the American people will look back and 
say, hey, they were doing the right things, moving in the right 
directions, taking power away from Washington, decentralizing, using 
market forces wherever possible and ultimately trying to get more 
services, more good, more bang for the buck for the taxpayers who pay 
the bill.
  I am proud of this Congress. I am delighted to have the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] with us as a Republican. The gentleman gave 
a great presentation at noon for the consumption tax, sales tax, 
whatever we want to call it. I think that is another issue.
  We saw on April 15 the American people have had enough with our 
current tax system. I do not want to take too much of the time, but 6 
billion man hours are invested in keeping records and filling out forms 
for the IRS. Frankly, the time has come for all Americans, we need a 
national tea party, because this country was founded by tax protesters 
who said enough is enough.
  Six billion man-hours, and put that in perspective. That is how many 
man-hours that are used to build every car, every truck, and every 
airplane built in the United States. That is how much time is spent 
just keeping records and filling out forms for the IRS. We have had 
example after example. Money Magazine has surveyed, you can go to 50 
different tax professionals, you can go to 3 different IRS offices and 
get different answers from all of them.
  The truth of the matter is, we all know that the system we have in 
terms of collecting revenue for the Federal Government is broken. We 
have had the courage, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], and others have had the courage 
to take this issue on, go forward and begin to put some programs on the 
table, some bills on the table, so we can have a national debate, a 
national dialogue, and really come to a conclusion in terms of what 
kind of tax policy we ought to have, what is the maximum amount the 
Federal Government ought to get and what is the simplest way, the most 
efficient way for the Federal Government to raise the revenue.

  I congratulate the gentleman. His presentation at noon was one of the 
best I had ever heard. I congratulate the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Schaefer] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], as well, 
because they have all been working together. In fact, when they started 
on that proposal it was clearly bipartisan. We hope to encourage more 
Democrats to join that debate as well.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. One of the reasons why I think 
this has been a do-something Congress that has been unrecognized is 
that much of what we have done and completed went to the White House 
and got vetoed. We have got to remember that.
  We did pass Medicare reform through both houses of this Congress and 
it got vetoed. We did pass a balanced budget bill for this country and 
it got vetoed. We passed a Medicaid reform bill and it got vetoed. We 
passed welfare reform twice and it got vetoed. We passed product 
liability reform and it is scheduled to get vetoed.
  We had a liability reform bill dealing with securities laws. That got 
vetoed. We mustered a two-thirds majority to override on that one, but 
most of these bills have been vetoed. We do not have a two-thirds 
majority to override.
  But this Congress has produced and believe me, if we could, this 
Congress would produce a complete repeal of the IRS and the income tax, 
as our bill would do, and the whole mess of guilty until proven 
innocent and double taxation and the awful mess the IRS has created for 
this country. If we could appeal it this year and substitute an 
alternative tax system that was fair and made sense for Americans, I 
would love to see it done this year.
  We have at least put an idea on the table. That is part of what this 
Congress has been all about, putting new ideas, new reform concepts on 
the table, passing many of them, as the gentlemen from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox] has pointed out, some of which has become law, many of which 
we are still fighting over because they have been vetoed. But we are 
going to keep up that fight until we win those reforms.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think the people driving it frankly are 
the people back home. They are saying they want a simpler, fairer, 
flatter tax. They also say they want the IRS to be changed. Some want 
to eliminate it, to be sure. But the Taxpayer Bill of Rights which the 
gentleman has been active on, with the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson], is going to provide, I think, part of the first 
antidote for the problem.

  Mr. TAUZIN. That was passed yesterday with a huge bipartisan 
majority.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. And it provides, if I recall correctly, that 
the taxpayer will have an advocate at the IRS who will intervene on 
their behalf. It waives the interest charges and penalties when the IRS 
is at fault. It extends time for taxpayers to pay delinquent taxes 
without being subject to interest charges from 10 to 21 days. It 
expands measures to protect rights of divorced filers. It provides the 
IRS with authority to return levied property. It increases the maximum 
award amount from $100,000 to $1 million for reckless collection 
actions by IRS, and establishes accountability by requiring the IRS to 
file an annual report to the tax writing committees, of which the 
gentleman is a part, documenting misconduct by IRS employees.
  So I think that it does take for the first time a bold step, saying, 
sure, there are good employees at IRS, we are not saying that. We are 
saying we want a system that is fairer. They are doing their job. We 
are saying we want to make sure that the taxpayers also have rights, 
they also are heard, and not treated as a number but as people who want 
to pay their fair share, want to pay it but they want to make sure they 
have their rights protected. That is what this law does in a very 
strong way for the first time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I think if I could jump in here, I think the Taxpayer 
Bill of Rights is a giant step in the right direction, but ultimately 
what we need is a much simpler tax system than we have today.

                              {time}  1945

  The idea that Americans are spending six billion hours, are 
intimidated by an agency that has 110,000 employees, that idea is an 
idea whose time has passed. The idea whose time has come is a much 
simpler tax system, whether it be the consumption tax, whether it be a 
flat tax, or whatever. I am not certain what the right answer right now 
is. Representative Tauzin does a beautiful job. I hope he will have 
some special orders between now and the end of summer so the American 
people can begin to understand what we are really talking about, what 
the problem is, and how your particular solution will address that.
  But I think we need that national dialogue, and ultimately what we 
need is a much simpler tax. Frankly, the taxpayers Bill of Rights does 
begin to level the playing field. Because heretofore the IRS had a huge 
advantage and they used the power of intimidation over individuals.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Think about it, there is no other place in America, not 
even our Federal courts, where you go and you are presumed guilty. Even 
in Federal criminal court you are presumed innocent, and until the 
State proves you guilty you walk out a free person. With the IRS, you 
are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent. What an awful 
type of situation Americans find themselves in.
  Worse than that, as you know Jon, the IRS is a double taxation 
system.

[[Page H3575]]

Not only does it tax your income, but every time you buy anything made 
in America, you are paying the tax of every business that contributed 
to the manufacture of that product. Economists tell us that could be a 
hidden tax of between 10 and 14 percent on the price of everything made 
in America. Unfortunately, we do not charge that tax to products 
imported. So, guess what? We import more products.
  It is a system that tells us do not earn money, do not save money, do 
not invest because we are going to penalize you, do not try to leave 
anything for your kids because we got inheritance and gift taxes that 
will catch you then. Even when you spend money, you better buy foreign 
products, because if you buy anything made in America, we are going to 
double tax you.
  It is a horrible system, and it is time we think about changing it 
for the good of every taxpayer; but, more importantly, for every wage 
earner and every business in America that would like to manufacture 
things here instead of manufacturing them all over the world.
  If we have that debate, honestly and forthrightly and in a bipartisan 
fashion, to make sure whatever we substitute for this system is indeed 
a fair system, it is simpler, makes better sense, does not double tax 
us, does not tax American products only, but taxes fairly all products 
in our society, so we can encourage manufacturing again, if we have 
that debate as part of this agenda to do something in this Congress, 
move these reforms forward, I will feel a lot better than I do already 
about a Congress that has made some great progress to this date.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If I can ask you, Mr. Tauzin, beyond the 
discussion we had on flat tax, with or without deductions for mortgage, 
the Armey and Specter versions, as well as the Forbes version, and the 
consumption tax and national sales tax, what other programs are your 
committees looking at as far as tax reform?
  Mr. TAUZIN. The Committee on Ways and Means is the committee doing 
it. I do not actually serve on it. Bill Archer is the Chair, and we are 
working closely with Bill. Mr. Archer actually supports this 
consumption tax concept. But he is not making that decision right now.

  What he is doing is the right thing. He is going to hold hearings on 
this proposal for a national sales tax. He is going to hold hearings on 
the Armey flat tax proposal. He will hold hearings on alternative 
proposals, such as the value added tax or anything anybody wants to 
come up with.
  By October, the Committee on Ways and Means will report to the 
American public. Hopefully the candidates for President will join in 
that debate, and by next Congress, maybe we can have an American tea 
party, and Americans can express themselves and dump this whole system 
into the Boston Harbor and rewrite something that makes sense for 
Americans again.
  What we recommend is to pull the IRS and the income tax out by its 
roots, to get rid of the whole mess, to throw away the inheritance and 
gift taxes along with it, and substitute a simple national retail sales 
tax at the end of every purchase, providing a complete rebate to 
incomes under the poverty level, so that no one is hurt under poverty, 
and providing the same treatment for home ownership the current code 
does to encourage families to own their homes and build their families 
here in America.
  It is an awfully interesting concept, but it is only one of many. The 
Committee on Ways and Means is going to look at them all and hopefully 
report to the American people by October which one they think makes the 
best sense, and we will have this debate next Congress.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think Congressman Gutknecht and 
Congressman Tauzin, as much as it is important to reform the tax 
structure, and, believe me, the American people want that, they also 
want to make sure we have a more business friendly Congress and 
business friendly government.
  What I am talking about now is people who have tried to deal with the 
Federal Government to do work. I had a gentleman who has a business in 
my district that wants to do business with the Federal Government, but 
he had 187 pages he had to fill out for a $25,000 contract. He had to 
hire an accountant, an attorney, and an engineer to assist him in that 
regard.
  I do not think we are not a business friendly government if we cannot 
figure out a way to make sure that we encourage people to be vendors, 
those who can come forward with their Government, give a quality 
product, and try to sell it to the Government on a bid process.
  I am talking about getting the best product for the lowest price. 
Well, he may have had the best product, but the Federal Government will 
never have the chance to buy it, because he did not want to go through 
187 pages of paperwork.
  So I think that has to be part of our initiative, to make sure this 
is a government that works leaner and works better.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Indeed, to go back to taxes, the Kemp Commission reported 
that the average small business in America spends $4 complying with the 
Tax Codes for every $1 they send the Federal Government. Think about 
that, when our forms and our regulations are so complex that you have 
got to hire so many accountants and go through so much paperwork to 
send the Government $1 you have got to spend $4 in your business. And 
guess who pays all of that? The consumer does in the end. When our 
systems are so complex that people cannot bid to do Government work 
because they cannot get through the bureaucracy and the paperwork, when 
businesses cannot even pay their taxes without spending four times 
as much as the tax liability, spending it on paperwork and accountants 
and auditors, then something is wrong in America. We have got an 
inefficient system.

  If it does say to people ``Do not come do business with this 
government,'' we are locking out people that could be doing business 
for us, perhaps in a much more efficient way than our current vendors, 
our current suppliers. That ought to get changed.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. It is just as important as the tax reform.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I was going to say, whether you are talking about tax 
reform, health care reform, Medicare reform, welfare reform, reforming 
the way Congress does business, opening up the process, really what 
this debate is about is whose country is it, and whose government is 
it, and who is in charge, and whose money is it? And for too long we 
have sort of taken, or our predecessors have taken the attitude in 
Washington that it is Washington's money and Washington's government.
  One of my favorite Presidents once observed we are a people with a 
government, and not the other way around. And really all of these 
reforms are about opening up the process. The beauty of this Congress 
is for the first time we are having honest and healthy debates about 
what kind of a Medicare system we are going to have, what kind of 
welfare system should we have?
  We have agreed that the problem with our welfare system is not that 
it costs so much money. The problem with our welfare system in America 
today is that it costs too much in human potential. We have created 
dependency.
  When Representative Tauzin talks about our tax system, it is a system 
riddled with perverse incentives. Throughout all of our programs, it is 
a system of perverse incentives. No good deed goes unpunished. Frankly, 
it is wrong, and the America people know it is wrong.
  If there is a reform party, I think once the American people get a 
chance to look at these issues, what has really happened in the 104th 
Congress, how the process has been opened up, how we finally had honest 
debates about real reform, returning more power back to the people, I 
think they will agree that there is a reform party in the United States 
of America, and it is our party, and it is this party that forged those 
reforms, it is this freshman class, if you will, that has really forced 
the agenda to make those changes, to change the attitudes in 
Washington, and begin the process of giving the people the power back. 
And that is what this Congress is about.
  I hope that as we go forward, we will have more opportunities this 
spring to have this kind of a dialog, this kind of a discussion, 
because I believe facts are our friends, and once the American people 
have the facts, whether it is about our budget, about Medicare, about 
tax reform, all of those other issues, I think it makes it very easy 
for

[[Page H3576]]

us to win the debate, for them to win the debate, because facts are our 
friends and, as John Adams said, ``Facts are stubborn things.''
  Mr. TAUZIN. You know, the freshmen, Jon, all of you guys, have taken 
a lot of heat in the press, being too hardnosed, too rigid, inflexible. 
The truth is, the freshmen came to this House with a very refreshing 
concept. It was a concept that the Government ought to be our servant, 
not our master. And you came with a simple notion that we needed to 
make Government user friendly again. It needed to be responsive to 
people and helpful to people, instead of control and mandating and, 
indeed, inaccessible to people because its formularies and regulations 
were too difficult for people to understand. It is a very refreshing 
attitude.

  I often comment to folks back home, thank God we have a huge crop of 
freshmen that have that attitude. I think it is great that we have the 
infusion of new ideas and new thought. We have seen it in the form of a 
willingness to tackle issues that sometimes no one wanted to tackle 
before; to face head on the crush and calamity of Medicare collapsing 
into bankruptcy and to try to deal with it, to face head on the fact we 
have got a welfare system that is condemning people to dependency, 
instead of rescuing them from dependency; to face head on the fact that 
Medicaid in our country is about to cripple the ability of our States 
to take care of people who are uninsured and need the assistance of 
others for their health care; and to face head on complex issues like 
immigration policy, and issues like, indeed, environmental reform, 
which are very contentious and very difficult to debate sometimes.
  Freshmen, in my view, have added a great deal to this Congress, and I 
am glad you are here.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Congressman Tauzin, we certainly appreciate 
the fact you are an honorary freshman, you have joined us in that 
regard, because your enthusiasm to find bipartisan solutions and work 
to make a positive difference is what I think all the Congress is 
about.
  You would not be here and would not have the privilege of serving if 
you could not make a positive difference. The thing we have to do is 
make sure we continue listening back home. Back home are the best ideas 
on keeping costs down, on keeping government accountable for what they 
want, and to make sure we in fact have a government that is user 
friendly. In that regard, for any final comments Congressman Gutknecht 
may have?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and Louisiana 
for the special order. I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I 
want to thank you for the kind words about the freshmen. I think in 
many respects, though, the freshmen just represent the common sense 
values and views of the American people.
  This Congress started with a lot of excitement and fanfare, but I 
will never forget the day after this Congress started, I was out in the 
hall, outside the House chambers, and a reporter came up to Dick Armey, 
the majority leader of the House Republican Conference, and she said to 
him, ``How does it feel now that the American people have given you all 
this power?'' And he said something very important and very profound. 
He said, ``The American people did not give us power. They gave us 
responsibility. They loaned us power.''
  That is part of the attitude I think reflected in this Congress. The 
American people have given us responsibility. For as long as we have 
that responsibility, I think particularly speaking on behalf of the 
freshmen, we are going to do everything we can to give the power back 
to them, because we know that ultimately here in the United States it 
is the people who are sovereign. For too long, they felt as if there 
was a government that had the people, rather than a people with a 
government.
  Frankly, I think we are bringing fresh attitudes, I think we are 
willing to tackle the tough issues. Have we done everything right. No. 
Have we made mistake? Yes. We may make mistakes in the future. But we 
are always guided by the basic notion that it is the people who are 
sovereign, and we work for them, and ultimately we have a 
responsibility to this generation, but, more importantly, to the next 
generation as well.

  So I want to thank Representative Tauzin and Representative Fox. It 
has been a great special order. We need to do this more often. As I 
said earlier, facts are our friends.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I just want to reecho that thought, that this is the 
people's House, and in this House the people rule. That is an awfully 
statesmanlike approach to take, and it is surprising, indeed, that more 
folks do not realize that in this Chamber.
  In the end, when we go back to the town hall meetings back home, we 
are asked a simple question: Have you advanced an American agenda? Not 
a Democrat or Republican agenda. Have you advanced the cause of this 
country? Have you made it a place where there is more liberty, instead 
of less liberty? Have you made it a place where we can advance our 
family's future more easy instead of more difficult. Have you made this 
a place where indeed our children can have a brighter future than we 
ourselves have?
  If we can say yes to all of those questions, then we can go home 
proud and pleased with the work we have done here. I think we are well 
on the way. We have accomplished a lot. We have a lot left to do. But I 
think this ``do something'' Congress will be heard from much more in 
the days ahead.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I want to thank Congressman Gutknecht and 
Congressman Tauzin for their leadership, not only in presenting the 
reforms that they have worked for, but in trying to forge a bipartisan 
agenda, one that is going to make this Congress continue to be pro-
jobs, pro-reform, anti-tax, and one that relies more on the individual 
responsibility and relying on the fact that the Government does not run 
the country, the people do, and they do lend us that responsibility and 
that authority to act in their behalf.
  So while we want to see term limits, we want to make sure the time we 
are here is made valuable, because what we have done is made positive 
changes. That will always be our guiding thought.
  I thank you for letting us have this time period, Mr. Speaker, to 
have this dialogue. We will return again to give a further review in 
the future. We appreciate the input of our colleagues, from our 
constituents and the American people.

                          ____________________