[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3154-H3162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            BUDGET AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the House 
regarding the recently passed budget agreement. I would like to begin 
tonight by talking about what that agreement really means to the people 
in this great Nation we live in because it means an awful lot for 
virtually every generation of Americans in this country. Whether we 
look at our senior citizens by passing this balanced budget plan that 
contains a direction and a plan for paying off the Federal debt, when 
we pay off the Federal debt it really means that what we are going to 
do is put money back into the Social Security trust fund that has been 
taken out.
  That is very good news for our senior citizens because that means 
Social Security is solvent for the foreseeable future. It also contains 
language that is going to allow us to take care of Medicare so that 
Medicare is once again solvent. For our working families, there are two 
real important things as we pay off the debt and restore the Social 
Security trust fund. It also means that we are in a position where we 
are not going to have to raise taxes on working families to make good 
on promises to seniors. But it also provides tax relief for the working 
families in America today through the $500 per child tax credit, a 
college tax tuition credit, capital gains tax reduction, and of course 
the death tax is being changed so we do not have to see the tax man on 
the same day that we pass away. I think it is a very important change 
in this great Nation of ours.
  It seems ridiculous that we would find ourselves in that particular 
situation. For the younger generation it is great news because this 
budget contains a plan to literally pay off the Federal debt by the 
year 2023. And in paying off the Federal debt it means that we can pass 
this Nation on to our children debt-free. Instead of our children 
looking forward to having families that are required to pay $500 a 
month to Washington to do nothing but pay interest on the huge debt, 
instead of being in the situation we are in today, where we literally 
pay that $500 a month to do nothing but pay the interest on the Federal 
debt, this budget contains a plan to literally pay off the Federal debt 
so our Nation can inherit this country debt-free and keep that money in 
their own homes and in their own families.
  To put it in perspective, just how far we have come with this budget, 
I think it is important we go back to something that many people in 
America remember hearing about; it is called the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 
Act. It was first introduced in 1985. It laid out this blue line that 
we can see here as a plan for deficit reduction to get to a balanced 
budget. The red line shows what actually happened with deficits, and we 
will notice that we never actually got to the blue line. We never 
actually hit the targets for balancing the budget.
  As a result of course the deficits exploded. In 1987, they realized 
that their 1985 plan was not working so they fixed it and they passed 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 2, and again the blue line shows the direction to 
get to a balanced budget. The red line again shows exactly what 
happened. And as we can see, they never hit their targets for a second 
time straight.

[[Page H3155]]

  I would like us to contrast this picture, a plan that was laid out to 
balance the Federal budget where they never hit their targets, with the 
plan of 1997 and in particular what has happened from 1995 forward.
  This chart, the red columns, show what we promised to the American 
people when we passed our plan to balance the budget in 1995. The red 
column shows what the deficits were projected to be. The blue column 
shows what they actually were. Notice the stark contrast between the 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, where they never hit their targets, and what has 
gone on out here today.
  As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1996, a year that is already 
completed, we not only hit our targets, but we were about $50 billion 
ahead in terms of deficit reduction. Right now today, 1997, we not only 
hit our target for 1997, but we are over $100 billion ahead of 
schedule. A lot of folks are asking how can that possibly happen. That 
happened because the economy performed better than anyone anticipated.
  We had this working model back in 1995. It was a theory. The theory 
went like this: If Washington could control spending and therefore 
borrow less money, that money would stay available in the private 
sector. And when the money is available in the private sector, more 
money available, interest rates will stay down. When rates stay down, 
people can afford to buy houses and cars. And when people buy houses 
and cars, somebody else has to build the houses and cars. That is job 
opportunities. And when people fill those job opportunities, that means 
they are leaving the welfare rolls and going to work.
  The idea here is that less government spending, more money is 
available in the private sector, lower interest rates, lower interest 
rates leading to more homes being purchased, people living the American 
dream. More cars being purchased, leading to more job opportunities. 
That was our theory.
  The theory worked better than anyone could have possibly imagined. 
And that is why it is that we see this chart over here where we have 
not only met the expectation in our promises of 1995 but we have 
exceeded them.

                              {time}  1800

  How did this happen? How did we actually control spending?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up this portion of it, and I will have 
an opportunity to work with the very prominent freshmen that have 
joined us this year in Congress to carry this plan forward, by saying 
that I think this is the best thing that could possibly happen for 
future generations of Americans.


                       BALANCED BUDGET AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the newly elected Republican Members of 
this body have faithfully and dutifully come to the floor each week to 
talk about positive solutions to some of the Nation's problems. We have 
done this since February and we have talked about ideas to renew 
American communities, ways to reignite the era of big citizenship, even 
as we dismantle the era of big government.
  We have talked about ways that the Federal Government can be a 
partner rather than a parent. I think that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, we would be happy to make him an honorary Member of the 
freshman class for this special order, but what we want to focus on is 
exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin began with.
  It is true, Mr. Speaker, that some of us here in this Chamber are a 
bit bleary eyed from a lengthy day, and I see staff rolling their eyes, 
I think they share in that feeling, but what I want to do is make an 
announcement. The American people, Mr. Speaker, have gotten their 
money's worth. They got their money's worth first of all yesterday, in 
that we focused as a body on I think the single most important issue 
facing this country.
  We had a debate that began yesterday that went well past midnight. It 
was a debate that remained focused on the issues at hand. It was a 
professional debate, one that much civility surrounded that debate. We 
debated well into the early morning hours and for those individuals 
across the country, unfortunately, who will invariably find fault or 
choose to find fault with this institution, I think the American people 
got their money's worth yesterday and it was a testament to the 
positives of this great institution.
  But far more important than that, Mr. Speaker, the American people 
got their money's worth in a substantive way. They got their money's 
worth in this bipartisan agreement in which 333 individual Members from 
across this great land resoundingly endorsed. This bipartisan agreement 
is going to help restore economic freedom and opportunities for all 
Americans. That is what we would like to focus on for the remainder of 
this special order.
  I am joined by some of my colleagues, and I would be happy to yield 
to my friend from Kentucky, [Mrs. Northup].
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow freshmen and those of us 
here that are here to talk about the budget. I appreciate having the 
opportunity to discuss this issue. It is one of the most important 
issues. It was discussed in my district at every public meeting and 
every discussion regarding the direction that the Federal Government is 
going.
  In my remarks tonight I would like to focus on the bipartisanship, 
the fact that we understand how the American people feel; that they 
want us to recognize that good ideas come from both sides of the aisle 
and they come from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  And so even though this budget agreement does not look like any one 
of us would have written had we had total control over it, we have had 
to learn the lessons that we have learned in every aspect of our lives 
and that is to listen, to build a consensus, to grow and to learn from 
others.
  This has very much been a part of my life, Mr. Speaker. I have said a 
lot of times that I learned a lot of life's lessons growing up in a 
family of 11 kids. None of us got our way all the time. None of us got 
to watch the channel on television that we wanted. None of us got 
control of the family, but we learned to listen, we learned to 
understand the varied perspectives, we learned to deal with those ideas 
and we put them all together, and together we found a better way.
  So many cynics are out there and they always feel that the glass is 
half empty, and I believe that we need to look at the glass half full; 
at what we gained. In my years of being in the Kentucky General 
Assembly it became so recognizable that it is so easy to oppose 
something that is big and complicated because there is always one thing 
one can be against. There are always a couple of things that one could 
find different, but if we are to make big progress we have to unite and 
do it together.
  In closing, I wanted to say tonight that we talk about budgets, and 
they are inevitably about numbers, but in truth this is not a debate 
and it is not a discussion and it is not a consensus about numbers, it 
is about our children. It is about my six children, two who are joining 
the work force, two who are in the work force, and two who are about to 
complete school and join the work force, and it is about their 
opportunities, it is about their freedom from taxes, from the cost of 
paying for the debt that we have run up.
  When I came to Congress I thought about my children, I thought about 
their generation, I thought about the opportunities I hoped that they 
will have. They are going to have to work hard. They will have to go to 
work every day and they will have to contribute to this country, 
because one thing that will not change is that they will be responsible 
for America tomorrow. But thank goodness we are giving them an America 
that will not be so burdened by debt.
  It has been a wonderful last 24 hours. We have made such progress and 
I am proud to be here with the other Members of my class talking about 
what that accomplishment really means.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. We 
sometimes do fall into the trap of talking about numbers, and certainly 
in the Kentucky legislature probably rarely did the gentlewoman even 
use the term ``billions of dollars'' and yet we toss those terms around 
here in Washington without really recognizing just what is involved 
when we are talking about these numerical values.

[[Page H3156]]

  I think the gentlewoman summed it up very well and put it in very 
human terms, especially having come from the strong family tradition 
that she has and we appreciate her work with this.
  The gentlewoman mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this bipartisanship. I think 
it is interesting to note that yesterday the newly elected Members on 
both sides of the aisle, freshmen, Republicans and Democrat freshmen, 
actually came together and we had a press event to announce our support 
for what had been hammered out in these negotiations by the 
administration as well as congressional leaders.
  Quite frankly, many of us, regardless of party, in the months leading 
up to November of 1996, we campaigned, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
campaigned on this single issue. In fact, I recall and I was reminded 
by my staff that shortly after the election as we were talking about 
what we were going to focus on in this Congress, this 105th Congress, I 
made the statement that if all we did in this Congress was to pass a 
plan that would balance the budget, that we could fold our tents and go 
home and we could declare this Congress a success.

  We have begun that step in that direction, and yesterday I think the 
strong support by not only the freshmen Republican Members but freshmen 
Democratic Members who joined us, joined us in this debate and joined 
us in this vote and in this effort, even as some more prominent Members 
of this body were making front page headlines, I think there is a 
difference between looking to the next election and then looking toward 
the next generation, and I believe we have focused on the next 
generation.
  I see my friend from Wisconsin, who actually was here a newly elected 
Member in the last Congress. I would yield to the gentleman. How is it 
that we have been able to move in the direction that we have from the 
last Congress, when we had the government shutting down, into a 
bipartisan plan that garnered 333 votes?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Well, first, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
very much for being here and for making me an honorary Member of the 
freshman class. I do consider that a great privilege and great honor. 
During our freshman class we only gave that to one person during the 
entire Congress and that was to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Kasich], 
so I consider this a great privilege in joining my freshmen colleagues 
this evening.
  What happened over the last couple of years is that government was 
growing at a very, very rapid rate, and I understand what the gentleman 
is saying about numbers, but it is also important, I think, that the 
American people at least put into perspective what is going on.
  This red column shows how fast government was growing in the 7 years 
before we got here in 1995, and the blue column shows how fast it is 
growing now. Now, it is important in the blue column to realize that it 
is still going up. Government spending is still going up.
  So when we talk about the truly needy people in this Nation, these 
programs are not being cut and annihilated and all those bad words that 
we heard in the last Congress. That is not what is going on. Government 
spending in fact is going up, and in a very organized and direct and 
caring manner.
  Government is learning to control the rate of growth of spending. It 
is learning that instead of growing at 5\1/2\ percent it can only grow 
3\1/2\ percent. And if it just controls the growth of spending, not 
radical cuts like we heard in the last 2 years, but just control the 
rate of growth of spending, that is what is going on here and that has 
led us to be on track and ahead of schedule as we look to balance our 
budget.
  In the part of government that Washington controls the most, and 
there is a lot of parts to the budget, but the part that Washington 
controls the most is the part that probably many of our colleagues 
maybe even have never even heard of. It is called nondefense 
discretionary spending. That sounds like a complicated term. That is 
the part of government that includes everything except Medicare, Social 
Security. Those are called mandatory programs. Does not include 
interest. It includes that small part of government that we actually 
vote on year after year in the appropriations process.
  In that area we can see in this chart, again the red column is how 
fast it was growing before we got here, and we can see how that growth 
has been slowed and actually in real dollars we can see what it was 
going up before in the red column and now it is actually shrinking. 
That is the part that is actually shrinking. When we ask how have we 
stayed on track and how are we able to do this harmoniously, we are now 
on this track and ahead of schedule and it puts us in a position where 
instead of demagoguing, one side to the other, and frankly both 
Republicans and Democrats have a tendency to do that to each other, but 
instead of doing that this year, we have stayed on track.
  The track is laid in place and now we have to carry that through, and 
that is what the freshman class is such a very important part of.
  I have one more chart that to me really says it all. It says hope for 
the future of this great Nation. It says our seniors can once again 
count on what they are expecting from government in Social Security and 
Medicare. It says our working families can expect to keep more of their 
own money instead of sending it to Washington. And it says our children 
can look forward to a bright future in this country.
  This red line in this chart shows where the deficit was headed if 
there had been no laws changed in 1995. So if the 1995 laws were still 
on the book today, this red line shows us where the deficit was headed. 
In our first 12 months here they were very difficult. I compare them to 
a war. There were no bullets being fired, but it was just short of 
that, is what was going on.
  In the first 12 months this red line got moved down to here. That is 
how much progress we made in terms of getting government spending under 
control. We also laid this plan into place to balance the budget. This 
green line shows our plan for deficit reduction, for getting to a 
balanced budget so that our children could once again have hope in the 
future of this great country we live in.
  Remember the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings where we never hit the targets? 
This green line shows the targets that were laid into place in 1995. 
The blue line shows us what is actually happening. We are winning this 
battle that was started 2 years ago, and we are not only hitting the 
targets, we are exceeding our expectations in terms of reducing this 
deficit and to a balanced budget so that our seniors can again be 
confident that Medicare is there for them, that Social Security will be 
there for them, so that our working families can look forward to 
keeping more of their own money instead of sending it to Washington.
  We are ahead of schedule so that our children in this great Nation we 
live in, and I have three of them, they are all teenagers, and I hope 
they are not too far away from starting their own families, but those 
children can now start thinking about the fact that this Nation is not 
going to destroy its economic future, but rather is going to get to a 
balanced budget, pay down the debt and now provide them with the 
opportunity to live the American dream.
  It is not going to be given to them. It will have to be theirs 
through lots of hard work. They will have to get up in the morning, go 
to work every day, and work very, very hard, but they can look forward 
to a situation where instead of sending their paychecks to Washington, 
they get to keep them in their own homes and decide how they want to 
spend their own money.

                              {time}  1815

  That is what this chart is all about, and that is the track record 
that we are laying down for the American people.
  Mr. HULSHOF. If the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] would 
yield, before returning here to the Nation's Capital, as we had this 
debate yesterday, I had the privilege to stop by one of the schools in 
my district, Ashland School, and I spoke with a ninth grade class. It 
was their Government class. We were talking about issues, and I was 
really trying to put it in terms that they could understand.
  They were asking what are we going to be addressing this week. I told 
them I thought it was going to be quite historic because I believe we 
were going to pass a budget resolution with a lot of

[[Page H3157]]

support from the other side as well as from our side that would finally 
get us on the path that unfortunately we had gotten off of in the past 
couple of decades and trying to boil that down in terms that they could 
understand.
  These were 14- and 15-year-olds and some 16-year-olds not yet old 
enough to vote but some of them starting to get their cars. So we 
started to put it in real terms. I mentioned to them that, if we took 
the Federal debt, this big number, and if we divided it up by every 
man, every woman, every child, every ninth-grader across this country, 
that each one would owe us or have to pay somewhere in the neighborhood 
of about $20,000. And suddenly their eyes popped wide open because we 
started talking about some of the things that they could actually 
purchase, or some of them that were beginning to work and trying to get 
some money to purchase a car that suddenly this was a very real figure 
to them.
  So they wanted me to come here and say fix this problem. I think the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has talked about, I think, the 
plan to do that.
  I see that my friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer] 
is here, who also has been a tireless worker in this effort. I would be 
happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  This theme that my colleague mentions of the incredible debt that 
every single American owes right now just to the principal on the debt 
is something that really gets one's attention when confronted with it. 
But it is not just that debt, that immediate $20,000 that we all owe 
today.
  In fact, I have mentioned this before. My wife and I just had our 
fourth child a fewer months ago; and on the date of her birth, she owed 
$19,700 to the Federal debt. That was her obligation. And that is true 
of any child born today. But we cannot just stop at the debt. Again, 
that is just the principal.
  Mr. Speaker, when we look at what that child is obligated to the pay 
over the course of his or her working life on the interest on that 
debt, it amounts to approximately over $200,000, again over the course 
of that child's working life. Now, that is assuming, as the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] pointed out, the red line here.
  That is if the Government continued to run on as it did until the 
Republicans showed up here that the interest on that debt would have 
continued to climb and continue to be an insurmountable burden for 
every single child in America. But that line is changing and that is 
really the positive and the optimistic portion that we need to focus on 
today.
  We are really changing that number, that $200,000 obligation that we 
heard over and over and over again on the interest on the debt is 
contemplated in this budget agreement that we are moving through 
Congress right now. We are, in fact, lowering the burden and making it 
possible to pay that debt off sooner than any Congress prior to us had 
ever contemplated and ever envisioned. That is really what is exciting, 
what I hope people focus on and take into consideration as they decide 
where they may stand on this issue and watch it move through.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a couple things. I prepared 
some notes ahead of time. For those of us who care about children or 
have children or are concerned about children in our districts and our 
neighbors' children and grandchildren, and so on, I hope we think about 
them at this particular point. That is the object of our attention when 
we are constructing this budget and moving it through this process.
  President Hoover once sardonically observed, he said, ``Blessed are 
the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.'' Now, Americans 
of my generation have frankly done somewhat of a disservice to those 
children, because frankly, up until just a few years ago, this Congress 
has not had the courage to pay for the things that we want right now. 
We figured that my daughters and our children and everybody else's 
children would not mind paying for the things we want right now, we 
would just pass the bill on to them.
  We have not been paying our debt as we go, and we have been shrugging 
it off on our children. But we must begin to pay as we go before it is 
too late, before we have condemned our children to a lifetime of 
exorbitant tax rates and bankrupt entitlement programs. It is incumbent 
on all of us as we step up to the plate and take responsibility for our 
Nation's future. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way 
to go.
  This balanced budget agreement between congressional Republicans and 
President Clinton is an important first step, but it is no more than a 
first step. If we are to ensure the long-term solvency of entitlement 
programs like Medicare and Social Security, if we are to ensure that 
not only that the budget stays balanced but that we begin to pay off 
that enormous national debt that I spoke of, then there is still much 
work ahead of us.
  I would be kidding if I said that all or even most of our 
disagreements have been resolved. They have not been resolved. But 
slowly, steadily we are making progress. And faced with the prospect of 
government growing larger and larger each year, like a snowball rolling 
downhill, we have stood in its path, held up our arms, and demanded 
that it stopped. We have slowed the run-away growth of Medicare and 
Medicaid spending and returned more power to the States and to the 
local governments and to the American people.
  Everyone knows that the bipartisan balanced budget agreement is not 
perfect. It does not provide working Americans with as much tax relief 
as I would have liked to have had. Government spending is not 
restrained as much as I think it ought to be. Washington, DC, still 
wields too much power and authority and influence over our lives, and 
the Federal Government is too large. There is still much work to be 
done. Returning power and authority back to the States and the 
communities and individuals themselves, we need to do all that.
  We are nowhere near being finished. The agreement does represent a 
good start. It is the first real hope of getting our country out of the 
red ink and back into the path of fiscal sanity. The balanced budget 
agreement is not perfect, but we still must not allow the perfect to be 
the enemy of the good. Every American will feel the practical, real-
world effects of a balanced Federal budget through lower interest 
rates, greater economic growth, and a higher standard of living. In 
terms of the money in our pockets at the end of the workday, a balanced 
budget is the greatest tax cut of all.

  Mr. Speaker, the day we have sought for so long has finally arrived. 
Of course, there are those on both sides of the debate who are quite 
unhappy with the bipartisan budget compromise. Much grumbling has been 
heard from the peanut gallery. The cynics and the press have taken 
their shots at the agreement, as well. Fair enough, let them take 
exception. No one has ever claimed the balanced budget agreement is 
perfect. But balancing the budget is a goal. It is a goal that is too 
important to let it elude us once more just because the best agreement 
that we could reach with the President does not go far enough. It is a 
start.
  Remember, it was 28 years, it has been 28 years since Richard Nixon 
first took office that we have been trying and failing to balance the 
Federal books. Enough is enough. We cannot permit the annual flood of 
red ink to capsize the ship of state. There will be another day to 
argue for the rest of the Republican agenda. But today, let us say 
there will be no more debt. The better part of valor is discretion. We 
must take other victories small and large as we find them. And this 
bipartisan agreement with President Clinton is a victory, not only for 
Republican ideals, but for the American people.
  Mr. HULSHOF. If the gentleman would yield, I think the point is 
significant that 1969 was an amazing year. That was the year that the 
Mets won the series. It was the year that Neil Armstrong first walked 
on the surface of the Moon. And it was the last time that the Federal 
Government passed on to the American people a balanced budget.
  Mr. NEUMANN. If the gentleman would yield, I had the wonderful 
privilege of having my wife here in Washington, which does not happen 
very often, and she is here tonight. In 1969 I was a sophomore in high 
school, as was

[[Page H3158]]

she, and we were dating each other. And that is a while back at this 
point in time in my life. So I believe we started going steady in 1969, 
so it is a very memorable year.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Well, just as Mr. Armstrong uttered those words that are 
etched in history, ``one small step for man and one giant leap for 
mankind,'' I am hopeful that what we accomplished early this morning as 
far as this bipartisan agreement will be at least a step toward another 
historic milestone.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hulshof] for 
yielding. It is interesting that we passed the balanced budget 
agreement today, because it seems like years ago when we were up 24 
hours doing what we have been doing.
  I wanted to speak specifically on the tax relief portion of it, 
because for too long Americans have sent far too much of their hard-
earned dollars to Washington, DC. This bipartisan balanced budget 
agreement provides for the first time significant tax relief and serves 
as a first step toward reducing the outrageous tax burden on American 
middle-class families.
  The agreement guarantees that American families will get a tax relief 
that they desperately need. It provides new tax credits for higher 
education and a reduction in the death tax, and it also gives capital 
gains tax relief that will end double taxation and spur an explosion of 
economic growth and bring new jobs and renewed prosperity to the 
working people all around America.
  Perhaps the most important, however, is that the balanced budget 
agreement finally makes one of the key promises of the Contract With 
America a reality. At last, it gives a long overdue $500 per child tax 
credit to American working families.
  So let me say to all the parents struggling to make ends meet, the 
parents who burn the candles at both ends in order to put food on the 
table, the parents who sacrifice their own needs and give everything 
that they have got to make sure their children have a bright 
opportunity, we have finally heard you and we have finally done 
something about it. We recognize that nothing we say or do in Congress 
is as important as the daily work you undertake, the work of raising 
the next generations of Americans. We have no more right to take such a 
large chunk out of your paycheck each month as we would to snatch the 
bread directly out of the mouths of your children.
  Mr. Speaker, being a mom or dad is the most sacred obligation and the 
most awesome responsibility that anyone can possibly assume. Family is 
the backbone not only of this great Nation but of all civil society. It 
was Aristotle who observed that the state is made up of households. 
Without strong households, even a nation as mighty as the United States 
will surely crumble.
  The Republicans' $500 per child tax credit will allow families to 
keep an extra $500 of their own money for each child. That is $500 that 
parents themselves will be spending on their children's welfare instead 
of giving it to Washington bureaucrats.
  I do not doubt that almost every family in America will spend that 
$500 more wisely than we would in Washington. It is hard to raise a 
family these days. I know, I am a father of four children, and my wife 
and I work constantly trying to do the right things for our kids. It is 
very, very difficult. But the world is complicated, probably more 
complicated and more threatening than when I was being raised in the 
1960's and the 1970's, and parents have to work harder.
  It seems like everybody has two-income families. And sometimes 
parents, moms and dads, are just ships crossing in the night and they 
do not get to sit down at the family dinner table anymore and impart 
information from generation to generation. But it is very, very 
important that we do, that we spend time as the family unit together.
  Family tax credit is Washington, not just returning money back to the 
family, not taking money from the family, but actually returning power 
and responsibility back to the moms and the dads and also saying, 
because we are going to be taking less from you, you will be able to 
spend a little bit more time with each other.
  Mr. Speaker, let me yield back. I wanted to make a few other points, 
but I think it is just so important that we all recognize that part of 
it. And again, balancing the budget is not about numbers, it is about 
people.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman joining us on 
this day as we continue to wrap up and talk about what I think is 
probably going to be looked back upon as one of the most important 
positive steps that we have made, certainly in this Congress.
  I think the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] makes a good point. 
I am privileged to serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, which, 
among other areas of jurisdiction, tax relief is one of the things that 
we will be dealing with. And I was engaged in a dialog with a Member on 
the other side, another member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who 
was talking about how much that a certain item was going to cost 
Washington in revenue. And my response, perhaps because as a wide-eyed 
new Member, but my response was, well, Washington's loss is the 
American family's gain. I think that this plan does include much needed 
relief, as the gentleman has pointed out.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I will just point out one or two additions 
to this, and it certainly relates directly to the idea of people 
keeping more of their own money as opposed to sending it to Washington. 
Did my colleagues know today the Federal Government in Washington, DC 
is spending about $6,500 on behalf of every man, woman, and child in 
America?
  So when we talk about these tax cuts or we talk about people keeping 
more of their own money, they are already sending $6,500 per person for 
every man, woman, and child in the United States of America. That is 
the equivalent of how much this Government spends today.
  When we talk about tax cuts, the real question we should be asking 
ourselves is, do we think Washington could get by on, say, $6,000 for 
every man, woman, and child? It almost gets to be laughable when we 
talk about it, if it was not sad that we are taking that much money 
from our families, and if it was not for the burden that taking that 
money from our families places on us and the strains that those things 
place on our families.

                              {time}  1830

  I have just one more thing, and then a few notes here that I would 
like to go through. This past weekend I had an opportunity to talk to 
one of our family's friends from church. They have got three kids. We 
were talking about these tax cuts. The tax cuts to them are very, very 
real, the idea of the fact that they have two kids still living at 
home, that they would receive $500 per child. They are middle-income 
people. I do not know exactly their salary, but it is between probably 
$30,000 and $50,000 a year. The idea that they would get to keep $500 
per child more of their own money in Wisconsin, in their home, in their 
family as opposed to sending it out to Washington, that is an important 
idea to them. They have one in college. Of course, the college tax 
credit would also be part of that.
  I have a few notes that I just want to run through. This whole debate 
is really about less Government, not more. In the 1990's, America has 
engaged in a great national debate about the roles and the 
responsibilities of Government. Liberals and conservatives, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, we have argued and argued about the role and the 
scope of Government. The questions we have debated so furiously, 
sometimes bitterly, but always with conviction, is how to solve 
America's problems: By ceding more power and authority to Washington, 
DC, or by retaining it in the States and local communities, in the 
churches and in our families?
  As Republicans, we have always argued for a less centralized 
bureaucratic control and more individual liberty. We believe that in 
the affairs of State, it is always preferable to err on the side of 
freedom. The bigger a nation's government, the more it taxes citizens, 
the less freedoms that society will enjoy. As Republicans, freedom has 
been our greatest cause and freedom cannot coexist with a bloated, 
wasteful, corrupt Washington that inserts its tentacles into every 
aspect of our lives.
  It is wrong for the U.S. Government to spend more money each year 
than it

[[Page H3159]]

takes in in taxes. It is wrong for politicians to load down our 
children and our grandchildren with a debt tomorrow so they can avoid 
making the hard choices today. It is wrong to continue blindly down the 
same perilous path that we have been on for almost 30 years.
  In 1980, Ronald Reagan told us that Government was not the solution, 
Government was part of the problem. He pledged to get Government off 
the backs of the American people, to restore freedom, that alone could 
make the United States that shining city on the hill once again. He 
transformed not only the Republican Party but the entire national 
debate. The basic question that has dominated American politics since 
Ronald Reagan's election has finally been answered. America's problems 
can best be solved by less Government, not more.
  We have won the battle of ideas. President Clinton himself has 
declared that the era of big Government is over. Political leaders on 
both sides of the aisle understand that while Government does do many 
good things, it cannot do everything. Even if Government could solve 
all of America's problems, and it cannot, even if Government did not 
threaten our individual freedoms, and it does, we can no longer afford 
it. I think that brings us back to what we were discussing before. When 
we start thinking about every man, woman, and child in America paying 
something like $6,500 a year just to pay their taxes to this 
Government, we begin to understand the impact of this over-Government-
spending on our families in this great Nation. A lot of people do not 
even realize when they are all paying taxes, when you talk in the store 
and buy a loaf of bread, the storeowner makes a small profit on that 
money that you paid him or her for that loaf of bread. When they make 
that small profit, part of that profit comes to Washington in the form 
of taxes. When it is all over and done with, this Government is 
collecting an average of $6,500 for every man, woman, and child in 
America, every year, to fund the programs that it is currently running.
  That is what we are talking about when we are talking about 
controlling the size and scope of this Government. We are talking about 
reeling in spending so that we do not have to continue collecting that 
much money from our families and placing that great a burden on our 
families today financially.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes an excellent 
point that oftentimes these taxes are in the form of fees that are 
actually hidden in some forms.
  I had a radio townhall meeting that was focused on Tax Day. We were 
just talking about all different types of tax issues. A gentleman made 
a point, he said, I am puzzled because I hear you in Washington talking 
on the floor of the House and in other ways that we are paying more in 
taxes than we do for food, clothing, and shelter combined. He had just 
figured out his individual income tax form. He said, ``I'm only paying 
21 percent. I don't understand how it is that you can make this 
claim.''
  The point was as we tried to explain to him was that many of these 
taxes are actually hidden and we do not write out a check as we do to 
Uncle Sam on April 15. For instance, this morning many of us who 
grabbed our first cup of coffee, we paid a tax. When we drove to work 
this morning, we paid a gas tax. Of course, we pay income taxes on our 
salaries. For those of us fortunate enough to pursue the American dream 
and to be able to own a home, we are going to pay property tax, not to 
mention the payroll taxes and workers compensation taxes and fees and 
then, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, when we die, there is the 
Government with its hand out wanting a death tax. That is the large 
picture of all of these different fees and taxes that the Government 
has very cleverly put on us as a burden and how it is that we end up 
paying this burden that we are trying to provide relief for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota who was also 
debating very vigorously well into the morning.
  Mr. THUNE. I want to thank my friend from Missouri, our very 
distinguished freshman class president, a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. It is a great privilege to be here this evening, a 
little earlier in the evening than we were last night, but again 
following up on some of the discussion that was held in talking about 
what is truly an historic occasion for this country and something that 
I think is this incredible accomplishment for the future of our kids 
and our grandkids.
  The gentleman mentioned taxes. We are very tax-happy in this country. 
One of the things that occurs to me is I do believe that in many ways, 
taxes have a very subtle, insidious effect. In many ways we do not see 
the effect of the taxes when we pay them.
  The gentleman alluded to some specific instances where we end up 
paying taxes and many times are not even aware that that is the case. 
It strikes me that there are some things in this particular proposal, 
the plan that we approved last night, which are just going to be 
tremendous benefits to people all over this country. I think of those 
in my own State. Of course, our State is primarily agriculture and 
small businesses. We have a lot of family farms, we have a lot of small 
businesses on the main streets of South Dakota, and things that are 
going to really benefit an area like that.

  We talk a lot about preserving the culture of the family farm in 
America. One of the big deterrents to that is the fact that when 
someone dies, we have a death tax. It is very difficult to pass it on. 
In many cases, those properties have to be liquidated just to pay the 
Federal Government what is due in taxes. I think that bringing some 
relief in the area of death taxes is an incredibly important step in 
this process and it is something that certainly will benefit the 
farmers, the small businesspeople, the people who make their living off 
the land in my home State of South Dakota.
  I would also say that the capital gains tax relief that is 
incorporated in this package is something, again, that is going to help 
those very same people. Those are the people who create the jobs, 
create the wealth, provide the opportunities and keep this country's 
economy moving forward. I believe, again, if we can somehow bring some 
tax relief, that will give them the opportunity to do what they do 
best, and that is to continue to promote and allow the entrepreneurial 
spirit in this country to thrive.
  Just a couple of thoughts, if I might. I think that the beauty of 
this thing is that a Democrat President and a Republican Congress have 
finally agreed on a plan to balance the budget by 2002, erasing the 
annual deficits that darken our children's future like a black cloud. 
Most of us I think would say, ``It's about time.'' At last the 
politicians have stopped fighting; if only for a moment, have actually 
started working together for a change, doing what needs to get done.
  As I walked up and down the streets of my State in South Dakota, and 
I would suspect that it was the gentleman's experience as well, one of 
the things that we heard repeatedly is, ``Can't you people in 
Washington work together in a cooperative bipartisan way to solve these 
problems?'' I might say, too, as well, that for those of us who have 
been here a very short time, members of the freshman class, both 
political parties for 28 years, we have not been able to get to a 
balanced budget and we arrived on the scene. I think that speaks very 
well for the freshman class this year. I know there are a lot of people 
who have been a part of this process for a long time and who have been 
committed to it as well.
  Most Americans, I believe, think we ought to put partisanship aside, 
roll up our sleeves and go to work solving the Nation's fiscal 
problems. They like the idea, at least I think the 1996 elections 
suggested this, of a political party from one side in the White House 
and a Congress from the other, swallowing their pride, holding their 
noses if the case need be, and meeting each other halfway for the good 
of the country.
  The Democrats have joined the Republicans in agreeing that the United 
States must get its fiscal house in order. We have finally come to 
understand that to avoid doing so is not only bad policy but it is 
immoral as well.
  I think a new consensus is emerging in this country, a consensus of 
common sense, of fiscal restraint born of the realization that our 
children's future depends on an economy free of crippling deficits and 
a skyrocketing national debt. As Thomas Jefferson once said, it

[[Page H3160]]

is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debt as it goes.
  Republicans and Democrats have finally stopped bickering and come 
together to find solutions to our most chronic of economic problems. 
Where we can find common ground, where we can agree on solutions, we 
have acted to cut spending and to provide tax relief for American 
families. Where we are still far apart, and we are in some areas, we 
have done the best that we could.
  The American people, I believe, are tired of tantrums, they are tired 
of accusations and name-calling and intransigence on Capitol Hill. They 
demand that we cooperate, that Republicans and Democrats alike work 
together to find common solutions to our problems. We Republicans gave 
a little. The Democrats gave a little. We agreed to support some of the 
President's domestic initiatives and he agreed to respect our 
priorities.
  I think critics on both the left and the right have denounced the 
bipartisan balanced budget agreement because it does not fully satisfy 
all their demands. They are absolutely right. The budget agreement 
cannot be all things to all people. It is, indeed, a compromise, but 
compromise, after all, is a prerequisite of democratic government. 
Without compromise, there can be no progress.
  One sign that the balanced budget agreement is a good one is that no 
one is completely satisfied with it. Everyone, Democrats and 
Republicans, Congressmen and Senators, can think of ways the agreement 
should be altered to make it more to his or her liking. There is a time 
for ideology and a time for practical wisdom. There is a time for fiery 
rhetoric and a time for calm and reasoned accommodation. There is a 
time for speechmaking and there is a time for action.
  It is time to act. We have compromised on specifics, on details, 
without compromising our principles, for there are certain core 
principles, I believe, that Republicans will never compromise on. We 
will never compromise on the principles of limited government and 
individual freedom. The balanced budget agreement represents a critical 
first step. Keeping our principles always in sight, we need to move 
forward together.
  I think that leaves us with one final question; that is, where do we 
go from here? I think it is important that we look down the road 
because we have achieved a great milestone. Reducing the size of the 
Federal Government, reforming entitlements, revamping the Tax Code, all 
of these goals are extremely important and they have not been 
forgotten. But the importance of the balanced budget amendment should 
not be underestimated. The road ahead of us is a long and an arduous 
one. As conservatives, we look at this budget agreement as a promising 
beginning and nothing more.
  Much of this year will be spent implementing the provisions of the 
understanding between congressional Republicans and President Clinton 
and writing the terms of this agreement into law. This is only a 
starting point. We have no time to waste congratulating ourselves.
  Where we can agree, we still need to work together, and we will work 
together. Where there remains disagreement, I say, let the debate 
begin; because if this were the end of the discussion, many of us might 
have reason for concern, but this is only the beginning of what will be 
a long process. The journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. 
Tomorrow there will be plenty of time for passionate debate, for 
uncompromising stands, and for further battles. So today let us join 
hands across the aisle and make that important first step together.
  To my friend from Missouri, I look forward to working with him and 
the other members of our freshman class, some of whom are on the floor 
this evening, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, a very 
distinguished member of our class, to do the things that are important, 
to see that we implement the promises that have been made, that we 
continue to stand firm on the principles that we believe in and the 
things that we talked about, and the reason that we are here today.
  We have something which I think is just absolutely an historic start, 
and I look forward to continuing down the road toward fiscal 
responsibility and fiscal sanity in this country. I think it is the 
right thing to do, for our kids and for our grandkids.
  Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate the gentleman's words. I think very 
eloquently stated.
  I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
gentleman. I want to continue on the observations that the gentleman 
from South Dakota observed.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about what cutting spending and slowing the rate 
of growth in government means for the American people, and it really is 
dollars in the pockets of American families and American individuals. 
Well, this is how this works. What occurred in 1995 when the 
Republicans took over the Congress and began to become serious and make 
this institution serious about shrinking the size of the Federal 
Government, the impact of that was to put more cash, more wealth not in 
Washington's pocket, not centralized here in Washington, DC, and in big 
government, but to move that wealth out to the country again and put it 
back in the hands of the people who are earning it and working hard, 
who, in fact, spend those dollars more wisely and better on things that 
are more important for their children, for their farms, for their 
businesses and so on.
  When you look at these blue bars here; again this is the levels of 
the deficit, and these are the charts of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Neumann] that was here a few minutes ago. The red lines, the red 
bars, are what in 1995, under the Republican plan, what we projected 
our deficit to be. As you can see, our deficits are much lower all the 
way out through 2002 as a result of less spending.
  Now this was far and above beyond our projections and our hopes and 
what we had aspired to accomplish with deficit reduction, and again 
what this shows: this was a surprise to many people, so there are many 
people that still do not believe this. They still cannot believe that 
the deficit actually shrunk more than we had hoped, even with the new 
Congress taking over back in 1995. And we expect that to go down even 
more.
  This is the real effect of moving wealth out of Washington and 
strengthening the financial positions of every American family, not by 
giving families handouts or by giving more Federal benefits or creating 
more government programs, but just by leaving people alone, just by 
taxing them less, by allowing the dollars in their pockets to be more 
productive.
  And you know the deficit projections, even the blue bars that we have 
projected out in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and way over there at the end 
in 2002, and let me point that out. This way over here at the end, the 
far left of the graph in 2002, you cannot see the line here, right over 
there. That is because we projected that deficit will be a negative 
deficit in 2002 by about $1 billion at this point in time. But even 
these projections have the possibility, the outside prospect, of even 
coming in lower than we project here today.
  Now these are conservative numbers because we are a conservative 
legislature. We want to be careful. We do not want to over promise and 
then end up under delivering at some point in time. But just as these 
projections here for declining deficits were far surpassed and far 
exceeded by reducing the deficit more than we had anticipated, that 
opportunity, that chance, still exists here. In fact, if the economy 
continues to perform as strong as it is today over that next 7-year 
period out to 2002, we will see deficits come into a balanced budget 
period before the end of the decade. And again that is all predicated 
on some assumptions that turning wealth, turning authority, turning of 
power away from Washington, DC, and toward the States and toward 
families and communities is in the long run beneficial for communities.
  Now the gentleman from Missouri mentioned tax cuts before. You know, 
many people did not believe this either. They did not believe that we 
could actually cut taxes and see us glide, put ourselves on a glidepath 
towards a balanced budget. Even the President during the course of the 
1996 campaign said this is ridiculous, you cannot cut taxes and balance 
the budget at the same time. But, lo and behold, we come

[[Page H3161]]

here to Washington, and when forced to compromise and sit down at the 
table with reasonable Republicans and those who understand full well 
the economic history of America, that President came to the conclusion 
that cutting taxes is indeed necessary to achieve our common goal of 
balancing the budget.
  Now there are those, as we mentioned before, in the outside, the 
fringes, of those represented here in this body who oppose the idea of 
tax cutting. They do not want to put more authority into the hands of 
families throughout the country. They like holding it here because it 
puts them in charge here in Washington and in the Congress.
  Well, fortunately this morning, when we voted on this package, the 
reasonable voters, the reasonable thinkers, the reasonable Members of 
Congress who are dedicated to balancing the budget, came to their right 
conclusion, that cutting taxes, reducing spending, reforming 
entitlements and making government smarter will accomplish a balanced 
budget by 2002. That is the promise of the agreement that was reached 
this morning and that was confirmed by this House and will soon be, I 
am confident, over in the Senate as well.
  It is the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, the $500 per child 
tax credit, the tax relief for college students, families who send 
their children to college, those kinds of reductions in tax policy, 
that tax relief that we provide to families, that is the seed corn that 
really helps us start our economic engine to go a little faster, to be 
a little more productive, to run a little stronger.
  This case was proven a couple times. There are many economists and 
many liberal thinkers who really believe that when you move authority 
out of Washington that it causes the country to undergo some kind of 
damage. But President Kennedy, a Democrat; President Reagan, a 
Republican, both proved to the American people that when you cut tax 
rates, you effectively increase tax revenues to the Federal Government.
  Now what I mean by that is that when you tax people less, they go out 
and make better investments. They pour their income and their wealth 
into more productive activities. They buy new businesses, they buy that 
new piece of equipment that allows you to be more efficient, they put 
their child or their children into better schools, or maybe go invest 
in getting the better college degree, or getting the masters degree and 
so on. They put this wealth into more productive activities.
  What President Kennedy and President Reagan proved is that this trend 
is something we should expect that is a real promise to the American 
people. Cutting spending, cutting taxation, making government more 
efficient results in more liberty, results in more wealth for the 
American family, more independence and more freedom.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a point worth visiting 
about.
  You know, the economic pundits, some of the political pundits have 
really in the last weeks, you know, have had a heyday with poking holes 
in and pointing out some parts, perhaps, of the agreement that they do 
not choose to support. Some economists talk about or mention the fact 
that our economy, granted, has been very strong for a period of time 
but that it is living on borrowed time, that if you look back in 
history that surely there is, you know, perhaps a downturn ahead.

  But I think the gentleman is dead on with this point, that looking 
back at history, whether it is a modest cut in the capital gains tax 
rate, and we do not know what that is going to be or how extensive that 
is going to be, but I know even through the campaign and even beyond 
since being sworn in as a Member of this body people back in the Ninth 
Congressional District of Missouri have talked about holding on to 
capital assets. I have got a good friend, a gentleman who is in his mid 
sixties who worked a lifetime, his career, for Wal-Mart and accumulated 
through that company stock that he now cannot dispose of because he 
cannot take the hit that the capital gains tax rate would put on him 
and his family because they are really at a time their kids are grown 
and they are out of a house. But they are really trying to make it 
through retirement and trying to plan efficiently, and he by no means 
considers himself to be a wealthy American, and yet when you listen to 
these, you know, the pundits; you know they talk about tax breaks for 
the wealthy and this demagoguery, and I think the gentleman has a good 
point, and I yield back to him.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Well, tax cuts for the wealthy is 
really a joke when you hear people say that here because what we are 
talking about here is your average American.
  I got to tell you I come from eastern Colorado. It is a very agrarian 
district, just farming and ranching is the primary industry, and when I 
go on farms and meet farmers and ranchers in the small towns in the 
eastern plains of Colorado, what they tell me is about the impact of 
the capital gains tax.
  Now these are farmers who worked the land every day, they work hard. 
They are not wealthy; these are not rich people. If you look at their 
portfolio, you might come to that conclusion, but all of their assets, 
all of their hard earned income, is invested back into the farm, back 
into equipment. You know, expensive equipment, poured into the costs of 
just maintaining land any more with high property taxes, Endangered 
Species Act that you have to comply with, endless rules and regulations 
that come out of Washington. By the time the day is over the farmer has 
very little to show for the hard work that they have poured into their 
labor, but the impact of the capital gains tax is one that is 
critically important if they want to sell a certain portion of their 
farm, if they want to sell equipment, if they want to sell a home, sell 
anything tall of value that they have accumulated.
  First of all, they paid income on the income that they earned in the 
first place to put into those investments, and then when we cause that 
farmer to pay again on the capital gains and the value of those assets, 
we tax that farmer twice. It increases the failure rate of farms 
throughout the country, it increases the price of food and the price of 
production for consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, a capital gains tax cut is not about helping the rich, 
it is about helping me, it is about helping you, it is about helping 
just about anybody we meet on any given day as a Congressman in our 
district relating to constituents.
  And the inheritance tax, the same applies there as well. Again we 
have farmers with large acreages that when the farmer gets old and 
decides that he wants to get out of the business and leave the farm to 
his children, it is virtually impossible to keep that land in 
production any more. The cost of inheritance tax at over 50 percent of 
the value of a farm and the assets makes it almost just out of the 
question to have one of the children continue to keep that land in 
production.
  So these taxes, by cutting those taxes, we really will see the 
economy perform in a way that I described before that allow us to 
achieve these goals and objectives of lowering the deficit and 
eventually getting to the point where we begin to put more and more 
emphasis on paying off the national debt which is another huge problem 
that does need to be dealt with.
  But seeing a very liberal President like Bill Clinton and a 
conservative Congress like that we represent here come together to 
agree that the American people sent, for some reason sent a liberal 
President, a conservative Congress, they sent us all back here to 
Washington and stirred us up and said please get the job done, balance 
the budget. The fact that we have been able to come from those two 
positions to the center in such a commonsense approach that you see 
here represented today is a great day for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I really believe that. We really are making life more 
promising for American children, for my kids, for your kids and for all 
those that we care about in our districts and throughout the country.
  Mr. HULSHOF. I see, Mr. Speaker, our time is just about to elapse.
  House Concurrent Resolution 84 will never become a household phrase, 
does not fall trippingly off the tongue, but that is the resolution 
that passed early this morning, about 3:30 this morning, by a 333 vote 
to 99 margin. This is a plan that will balance our Federal budget. It 
is going to restore economic freedom and opportunities for all 
Americans.

[[Page H3162]]

  To sum up what we have talked about, Mr. Speaker, this agreement 
saves and protects Medicare for the next decade which insures that 
older Americans will continue to have access to quality health care. 
Family farms and family businesses will finally have relief from the 
very punitive Federal inheritance tax. The forthcoming budget also 
calls for a reduction on the tax and savings and investment, otherwise 
known as capital gains which will create additional economic growth as 
we have discussed. There will be education initiatives for families who 
are wanting to put kids through school, additional funds available for 
Pell grants and moneys, much needed moneys, some $9 billion more for 
roads, for bridges and for infrastructure. Those are additional moneys, 
$8 billion over and above what the administration requested.
  This is a win-win budget.
  You know there was a lot of passionate debate, and I am honored the 
debate went well into the evening last night and early this morning. In 
fact this morning I have been answering some questions today because 
there were several substitute amendments and some have asked me why did 
you not support this version or that substitute amendment or that 
particular one; why did you support this one? And it was difficult for 
me to describe a day that happened a couple of weeks ago where we had 
had a very contentious day in this House, it had really been a tough 
day, debate had really become somewhat partisan, and I choose, Mr. 
Speaker, rather than going through the tunnel and walking through the 
maze back to my office over in Longworth, I decided on that day to walk 
out the front door out into the sunshine. It was a beautiful spring 
day; the clouds, not a cloud in the sky, a beautiful crisp day here in 
Washington, DC, and as I burst out the front doors of this House out 
into the sunshine, at the bottom of the steps of this Capitol there 
were about 35 or 40 high school students all dressed in their school 
colors, and their choir director facing them, and they were singing a 
four part harmony medley of patriotic songs.
  And in that instance, in that instant moment, suddenly the divisive 
debate melted away, and I thought of that moment, Mr. Speaker, last 
night, as we left the Chamber about 3:30 in the morning, because what 
we accomplished here last night was for those students and students and 
men and women all across this country just like them.
  This is truly a historic day for them and for all Americans.

                          ____________________