[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8121-H8130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   IRS, MEDICARE, AND SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Madam Speaker, I have been sitting in the Chamber 
listening to the 5-minute speeches that have been going on, so I want 
to start tonight by proposing some new legislation as it relates to 
campaign finance reform.
  And here is what our legislation will do. We will make it illegal to 
make fund-raising phone calls from offices that are paid for by the 
taxpayers of this great Nation, so in the future it will be illegal to 
make phone calls from offices that are paid for with tax dollars.
  We will make it so that the Lincoln bedroom, a very important part of 
our heritage in this great Nation, is no longer for sale for purposes 
of raising money for any political sort, whether it be Republican, 
Democrat or otherwise.
  And the third thing our campaign finance reform bill will do is it 
will make it illegal for foreigners to contribute to, that is, buy, 
election influence in the United States of America.
  Those are the three points of our campaign finance reform bill that I 
would hope to introduce.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania is nodding his head, and I would 
yield to him for a comment.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Well, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
and would just tell him that this is a takeoff of legislation I started 
about 8 months ago on the Lincoln bedroom. But I think the gentleman's 
legislation is a little more comprehensive, and I, frankly, would like 
to cosponsor the gentleman's bill and make sure we carry the message 
forward.
  I think when the public and our colleagues hear about this particular 
abuse or that abuse, I think a comprehensive bill that would embrace 
all of the changes would get the attention, I believe, not only of the 
public but as well the Speaker and the leadership. So

[[Page H8122]]

I would like to work with the gentleman on that legislation so we can 
have both sides of the aisle embrace it and have it pass in this 
session.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I would tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that two-
thirds of this is already illegal in the United States of America. 
Unfortunately, we have these laws on the books already and they are not 
being enforced.
  So I thought maybe after all we had been hearing about this campaign 
finance reform here tonight, that we should go back and redo the laws 
already on books, just write them over again exactly the way they are, 
and start enforcing some of the laws already on the books to clean up 
some of the mess out here before we try to add more laws.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Perhaps we should make sure the Attorney 
General is aware these are the laws so that she can make that a 
priority while she moves forward in making sure the Justice Department 
is effective and efficient.
  Mr. NEUMANN. So perhaps we should re-pass them in that case.
  I want to move forward now in a much more direct manner here. I would 
like to dedicate the rest of this hour to a very important person, and 
I want to pay special tribute to him this evening. My father had his 
birthday last week and I want to just pause tonight to recognize how 
important he and other people like him are in the lives of people like 
myself.
  Without dad, and dad's influence in my life and his understanding and 
leading me through many tough situations in our life, and being an 
active help in our campaigns, both when we won and when we lost, I for 
one would not have been elected to this Chamber and we would not have 
brought about some of the changes that are happening.

  I thought I might just dedicate a small portion of this to some of 
the changes that are being made specifically for senior citizens, and 
specifically after discussions with my own parents and an understanding 
of how influential they have been in my life, and, dad, I should pause 
long enough to say thank you this evening to dads all across America, 
my colleagues' dads, that have been so influential in changing America.
  For senior citizens I do think it is important to know that Medicare, 
that was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1993, has been restored and 
Medicare is now solvent, so our senior citizens can rely on Medicare. 
There are some changes in Medicare, though, that came about after 
having these discussions with our senior citizens.
  First, the attention is being turned to preventive care as well as 
care only after the disease or problem has developed. Things such as 
screening for breast cancer, screening for prostate cancer, blood sugar 
monitoring for diabetics, screening for colorectal cancer, these are 
things that have been added now as a preventive measure that in the 
long term will help our seniors live a healthier and better life. And I 
think it is a big move forward as we look at Medicare.
  It is also important to point out that as Medicare was restored, it 
was done without raising taxes on the American people. It was done by 
providing our seniors something they never had before. Before the 
legislation that has just passed, the Federal Government decided what 
health insurance was necessary for our senior citizens and then they 
designed one-system-fits-all and said, senior citizens, like it or not, 
here is your health care.
  The outcome of that, the outcome of Washington developing a one-size-
fits-all health care policy, was that senior citizens like my parents 
were paying $43 a month, $43.50 a month to buy part B Medicare 
insurance. And on top of that they were going out and buying 
supplemental insurance to go with it to help pay for the things that 
Washington did not deem it appropriate to pay for.
  Under this new plan our senior citizens will have the choice of 
staying on Medicare as they know it today, or they may take those same 
dollars and buy a different private sector policy.
  I was talking to Mom and Dad about this particular aspect of the 
Medicare thing recently, just before we passed the bill, and they said 
to me, ``Well, I think I am staying on Medicare.'' I said, ``Well, Mom 
and Dad, is there any other program out there that you have seen that 
you like, that you might even give small consideration to switching 
to?'' They came up and talked about one they thought might be okay, but 
it was still in the developmental process.
  That is what this legislation is all about. I know and respect my 
parents and I know that the senior citizens in this Nation are capable 
of making good decisions for themselves. I know that like my mom and 
dad, if Medicare is the best thing for them, they will make the 
decision to stay on Medicare. But there are certainly very talented, 
capable people that are ready to look at other programs out there and 
they are certainly capable of making the choice to do something 
different, and that should be their freedom and their prerogative, and 
I am happy to say that is a significant change.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, I wanted to add 
that I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on these issues, 
especially dealing with seniors and making sure that Medicare is 
approved.
  One of the other items I want to thank the gentleman for working with 
me on is making sure we fought back the Senate changes that were 
proposed to raise the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67. We 
fought that back and won.
  There also was the Senate proposal to have a means test, and we 
fought that back, for people that had already invested in their work, 
from the time they were working for Medicare. We won on that.
  And there was also to be an increase in the co-pay, the Part B for 
home health care. We fought that back. So we were able to make sure not 
only were the prevention programs the gentleman worked on, to make sure 
they were a part of the Medicare package, but also we were able to 
maintain the kind of program as it is, without the means test, without 
the increased co-pay and without raising the age of people who are on 
Medicare.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I sincerely hope that our colleagues and our colleagues' 
parents all across America will look to our parents and thank them for 
their contribution as Medicare has been restored.
  I thought, continuing this theme of dedicating a portion of this to 
my father, in honor of his birthday, I thought we would also talk about 
the Social Security System, because I know how important that is to my 
parents in their lives and what it means to them to receive a Social 
Security check, and what that means to other senior citizens all across 
America.
  Today, Washington, the government, is collecting dollars out of the 
paychecks of people, working families, so that they have money in here 
in this fund called the Social Security fund so they can give Social 
Security checks back out to our senior citizens. Today they collect 
more money than what they pay back out to our senior citizens in 
benefits.
  Now, with that extra money, it is supposed to be set aside in a 
savings account. And the savings account is supposed to grow and grow 
and grow, to protect our seniors, to protect the Social Security System 
as we know it today. Well, it should come as no great surprise to 
anyone out here that before we got here in 1995, since about 1983 that 
extra money that has been coming in has been spent on other government 
programs instead of being set aside to preserve and protect Social 
Security.
  So we have introduced legislation out of our office called the Social 
Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act, it is 
not like Einstein kind of stuff. It simply says the money coming in for 
Social Security must be put in the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The idea of collecting this extra money out of the paychecks of 
working families is that when the baby boom generation moves towards 
retirement, and there is not enough money in the Social Security Trust 
Fund to make good on the Social Security checks, instead of going to 
senior citizens like my parents saying, ``We can not give you Social 
Security any more,'' the idea was that there would be enough money 
sitting there in the savings account, so when there was a shortfall 
they could go to the savings account, get the money, and make good on 
the Social Security promises to the senior citizens.

[[Page H8123]]

  The legislation that we have introduced, called the Social Security 
Preservation Act, very simply would require that the money coming in 
for Social Security would be put in the Social Security Trust Fund and 
would stay there.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, I think the 
gentleman's bill certainly is an idea whose time has arrived. I 
cosponsored the bill as soon as it was introduced.
  I know, having been a senior citizen advocate myself, making sure my 
parents had the benefits of Medicare and Social Security, I know that 
in prior Congresses, before we arrived, they had in fact helped to 
balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens by borrowing money 
from the trust fund, I think to the tune of about $380 billion.

                              {time}  2000

  So, hopefully, with the line-item veto, with the downsizing of 
certain Government programs, hopefully with legislation that I have to 
sunset agencies and departments that are duplicating the State 
government work, that we will be able to make sure over a period of 
time with my colleague's bill, which we cosponsored, be able to pay 
back to the trust fund the kinds of moneys that we want to have in 
there so that when they say now the funds are secured until 2029, but 
this will take it well beyond 2029, so that future generations of 
senior citizens will also have the benefit of the Social Security 
system.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, that is great and that is where we 
should be going with the future of this country.
  Another thing I know my parents and they have talked to me a lot 
about and most senior citizens in this country, they want to give a 
Nation to their children that is better than the Nation they received. 
They want to fulfill their responsibility to this country, just as 
generations before them have done.
  One of the problems that has developed over the last 15, 20 years is 
the growing debt facing America. And they are very concerned about 
this, and they are very concerned that this is the legacy that will be 
passed on to the next generation. So I thought I would take a few 
minutes and talk about how we got to where we are, how deeply in debt 
we as a Nation are and what we need to do to fix the problem and how 
things have changed in the last few years.
  This chart I brought with me shows how the debt was growing starting 
in 1960 to 1980. You can see how it is a relatively flat line, but from 
1980 forward, this thing has gone off the wall. Let me put this in 
perspective, because there has been a lot of partisan stuff going on 
here on this floor this evening.
  When I look at 1980 and I say, look, that is when this thing started 
really climbing here, 1978, 1979, a lot of people go, well, that was 
the year Ronald Reagan was elected to office. That is what all the 
Democrats say. They say, therefore, it is the Republicans' fault.
  And all the Republicans say, well, now wait a second. You ought to 
really understand what is going on here. All spending originates in the 
House of Representatives. That is the Constitution. And, therefore, 
since the House was controlled by Democrats, it is absolutely the 
Democrats' fault that we are this far in debt.
  The reality of this situation is that when we look at this debt 
chart, we are currently up here. And it is now an American problem; and 
whether you are Republican or Democrat, it is our responsibility as 
American citizens to do something about this mess before it brings this 
Nation to its knees. That, basically, is what has been going on out 
here since 1995.
  I want to put this in perspective because I know this is the part 
that concerns my parents a lot and I know it concerns a lot of senior 
citizens. The debt today currently stands at about $5.3 trillion. If 
you have not seen that number before, it has got about 12 zeroes after 
it, or 11 zeroes after the 3. It is a huge number. Remember, this is 
the amount of money that this Government has seen fit to spend over and 
above what it collects in taxes.
  To put it another way, and this is the old math teacher in me, I used 
to teach math before I was a home builder, if you divide the debt by 
the people in the United States of America, the Federal Government has 
borrowed $20,000 on behalf of every man, woman, and child in the United 
States of America.
  I would encourage my colleagues to go to a city in their district on 
a very busy day and look at the crowds of people and just start looking 
about what it means for this Government to have spent $20,000 on behalf 
of every man, woman, and child in the United States of America more 
than what it collected in taxes. For a family of five, like mine, of 
course that means they have spent $100,000 more than what they 
collected in taxes.
  Here is the real problem with this growing debt. Today a family of 
five in America pays an average of $580 a month, every month, to do 
absolutely nothing but pay the interest on this Federal debt. That 
money is actually borrowed. It is borrowed by when people buy T bills 
and people invest in T bills across America. This money is actually 
borrowed and there is interest being paid on it. The average cost of 
interest for a family of five is $580 a month.
  A lot of people say, ``Well, I do not pay $580 a month in taxes, so I 
do not have to worry about it.'' But the facts are, if you do something 
as simple as buy a loaf of bread in the store, the store owner makes a 
profit on that loaf of bread and part of that profit comes out here to 
Washington, DC to do nothing but pay interest on the Federal debt.
  It is staggering the impact that this has on our economy today. And 
the nice thought is what would happen if we paid this debt off so that 
this $580 a month could stay in the homes of those families instead of 
being sent out here to Washington, DC. What a change to America this 
would really be.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. First of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for his comments. I did not know he was going 
to get into the campaign financing. But I think all of the people of 
this country would prefer to have an administration in power that gives 
more influence to American citizens than it does to representatives of 
foreign campaign contributors. And I certainly agree with the comments 
of the gentleman on that.
  But I rise tonight especially to commend him for his concern about 
this horrendous national debt that we have. I went recently in 
Knoxville to the Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church. The minister, John 
Wood, prayed what I thought was a very interesting prayer. He prayed 
for those who had come there that day hurting in some way due to a 
family problem or a business problem or a health problem. But he then 
said he was praying most especially of all for those who had come in a 
complacent mood and did not think they needed any help and thus needed 
it perhaps most of all.
  I think in some ways that describes a little bit the condition of the 
country today, because some people think that because the stock market 
is temporarily high that things are better than they really are. But 
this $5\1/2\ trillion national debt puts us on very thin ice 
economically, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] has pointed 
out.
  Then, on top of that, we have these looming Federal pension 
obligations, Social Security as my colleague mentioned, the Federal 
pensions, the military pensions, horrendous obligations that in other 
countries, the only way that governments have been able to meet those 
obligations is by either drastically decreasing benefits or drastically 
inflating the money.
  Sometimes when I speak in high schools I tell some of the young 
people, ``I know when we say we have a $5\1/2\ trillion national debt 
that maybe your eyes glaze over and you think it does not have any 
effect on you. But it really does.'' Every leading economist says it is 
like a chain hanging around the neck of our economy, holding us back. 
Times are good now for some people, but they could and should be good 
for everybody. People making $5 and $6 an hour can be making $10 or $12 
an hour if we did not have this horrible debt.
  We are getting ready, shortly after the turn of the century, to face 
some of the biggest problems that this country has ever faced. And if 
we do not start doing things like the gentleman from

[[Page H8124]]

Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is talking about, starting to pay this national 
debt back and getting Federal spending under control, as I pointed out 
in my 5-minute special order a few minutes ago, Federal spending, in 
spite of all the publicity about cuts, is still going way up every 
year.

  So I salute my colleague for the work he is doing in this regard. It 
is very, very important for the country, especially now while we still 
have a chance to do something about it.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, the statement of the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] about complacency and the pastor's words reminds 
me of a saying that has been ringing very much in my ears as we 
contemplate the next election cycle. And that is not about us but 
rather about the people in America. It goes something like this: ``In 
order for evil to succeed, good people need only sit idly by.''
  That is, effectively, what has happened over the last 15 or 20 years 
in this Nation. We are going to talk a little bit about how we got here 
and how different it is in the last 3 or 4 years, because there is some 
reason for optimism. Some things have changed. We still have got that 
huge problem that they passed to us. But there are things changing out 
here, and it is important that people know about that.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
have to agree with the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] when it 
comes to saluting the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann], really being a trailblazer when it comes to the deficit 
question, and also his work on the budget committee.
  Particularly, when we look to the balanced budget, I know from Alan 
Greenspan and people like the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the committee, by 
having a balanced budget finally by the year 2002, we are in fact going 
to reduce interest costs for cars, interest costs for college, and 
interest costs for home mortgage.
  But would my colleague explain to me, under his Debt Repayment Act, 
what is the effect going to be for the homeowner, for the family, and 
how long will it take us to succeed, over how many years will it take 
for the Debt Repayment Act to take full effect?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, I think if I could take just a 
couple minutes first and show how we got into this mess and how much 
things have changed, and then let us go forward to the future. I think 
it is important for any group of people to understand how they got to 
where they are, if in fact things are changing, and where we might be 
headed to in the future.
  I brought with me a chart today to show how we did get to where we 
are and what was going on in the past. Before 1994, and this credit 
should go to the American people, before 1994 what was going on was 
Washington was promising that they were going to balance the budget. 
They were recognizing how serious a problem this national debt was.
  This blue line shows what they promised to do with the deficit line 
hitting zero, or a balanced budget, in 1993. The red line shows what 
they actually did. And I think it is important to understand that in 
the past they had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the first one, and then Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings again. And then another promise in 1990, and 1993 came 
and went and of course there was no balanced budget.
  In fact, in 1993 they looked at this and they said, well, we cannot 
control Washington spending. So there is only one other alternative if 
we are serious about doing something about this, and they did it. They 
reached into the pockets of the American people and they collected more 
taxes out.
  I have been starting some of our group meetings to show how different 
things are today than they were before by announcing a very important 
piece of legislation. Here is what it does: It raises the top income 
tax bracket from 31 to 36 percent and tacks on a 10-percent surcharge. 
It makes the tax increase retroactive to January 1 of this year. It 
raises Social Security taxes on our senior citizens, and it raises the 
gasoline tax. Just in case we missed anybody with the first group, it 
raises the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents a gallon and does not even use the 
new money that it has taken in for roads; it directs the money to 
social welfare programs.
  I start talking about this legislation because it gradually dawns on 
people that that was the 1993 tax increase bill. That was what they did 
out here when they looked at this picture in 1993. In 1994, the 
American people were fed up with this and they said ``no more.''
  I would add that that tax increase, the solution to this problem of 
taking more money out of the pockets of people, that solution passed by 
one vote in the House of Representatives and it passed by a single vote 
in the Senate. I might add, and I do not want to turn this into 
partisanship but I have tried not to, there was not a single Republican 
vote for that tax increase back in 1993 because Republicans had a 
different idea.
  We thought that the right way to balance the budget was by 
controlling the growth of Washington spending, a very different 
picture. Well, Republicans did take control of the House of 
Representatives in 1995, for the first time in a long time, and the 
Senate. And I think what happened in 1995 should be looked at very 
carefully by the American people, because the American people have had 
these promises in the past and they have always been broken.
  When the change occurred in 1995, we laid a plan into place that was 
very much like this blue line. We said that by the year 2002 we were 
going to balance the Federal budget. I have that on the chart here. 
Here is our promised deficit stream when the Republican plan passed in 
1995. But it is very different than the outcome. We are not only on 
track but ahead of schedule. My colleagues will notice the red line is 
in the opposite spot from where it was up here. We are not only hitting 
our targets, but we are far ahead of our targets, and we are going to 
provide the American people the first balanced budget since 1969 next 
year, 4 years ahead of schedule, not broken promises, no excuses as to 
why it cannot be done. It is done, and it is done 3 or 4 years ahead of 
the original promised schedule.
  That is a phenomenal change in what is happening in Washington from 
this picture and raising taxes, to this picture, balancing the budget, 
on track, ahead of schedule, and at the same time saying to the 
American people ``it is time you had a tax cut.''
  For the first time in 16 years, a tax cut is going to be delivered in 
this year. It is actually signed and into law. The ink is dry. The tax 
cut is there. If we get time later on in this special order, I would 
like to go through some of the things in the tax cut. But for now I 
would like to move a little bit farther forward and show how it is 
possible that we get to a situation where we can both balance the 
budget 4 years ahead of schedule and at the same time lower taxes for 
the American people.
  What this chart shows, the blue line shows the growth in revenue. And 
we see that the growth in revenue from 1989 to 1995 was going up at 
about the same speed that spending was going up. What that meant was 
that all the new money coming into Washington was immediately being 
spent on new Washington programs.

  But in 1995, the revenue kept going up at a pretty good pace, but the 
red line started going up at a slower pace. Well, when spending goes up 
at a rate slower than revenue growth, the lines crossed quickly. So the 
reason we are in a position today where we can both have a balanced 
budget 4 years ahead of schedule and provide tax relief to the American 
people is because the revenues have continued to go up strong, but 
instead of letting spending go up with them, spending has been 
curtailed.
  I have got another chart here to put this in perspective. Because one 
thing that I hear when I am out in public at town hall meetings, as a 
matter of fact I heard it in a meeting this morning before I got on a 
plane to come out here, the general concept is, ``Well, the economy is 
doing so well; and because the economy is doing well, you politicians 
are trying to take credit for how good the economy is.''
  Again, the facts are significantly different than that. I would first 
point out that between 1969, the last time we had a balanced budget, 
and today, we have had a lot of good economies. But in the past when 
there was a good economy,

[[Page H8125]]

Washington simply expanded the spending to a point where the deficit 
remained. That is why we have had a deficit every year since 1969.
  This Congress is different. The revenues did come in faster than 
expected, and the revenues are coming in good because the economy is 
strong. But with the revenues coming in, the growth rate of Washington 
spending has been slowed by 40 percent in 2 years. This chart is 
extremely significant in understanding how we can both balance the 
budget and reduce taxes at the same time.
  Before we got here, spending was growing at an annual rate of 5.2 
percent. It is now growing at a rate of 3.2 percent. So, in the face of 
strong economy, extra revenues coming in, instead of doing what past 
Congresses have done, and that is find new ways of spending it here in 
Washington, at the same time the economy is very strong, spending 
growth has been curtailed in this city. And that is what got us to this 
position where we are going to have our first balanced budget since 
1969 and our first tax cut in 16 years.

                              {time}  2015

  This whole system works because we have curtailed the growth of 
Washington spending. And let us go a step further. When we curtail the 
growth of Washington spending, that means Washington borrows less money 
out of the private sector. Well, when Washington borrows less money out 
of the private sector, that means there is more money available in the 
private sector. More money available, law of supply and demand; again, 
this is not complicated. The law of supply and demand says: When there 
is more money available in the private sector, the interest rates will 
stay down; and, again, this is not unexpected.
  We had hoped that the result of those lower interest rates would be a 
strong economy, where people bought more houses and cars because they 
could afford them easier with the low interest rates, and in fact that 
is exactly what is happening, and that is spurring on our economy today 
better than anything else we could have done.
  So when government spends less, they borrow less out of the private 
sector, it leaves more money available in the private sector. With more 
money available in the private sector, the interest rates stay down, 
and when the interest rates are down, people buy more houses and cars, 
and the logical next step when people buy more houses and cars, 
somebody has to go to work building those houses and cars, and of 
course that is what leads us to more job opportunities for our people.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
think that is one of the best items you just pointed out.
  When you talk about getting the budget in balance, two major facts: 
First, we have lower interest rates for cars, college, and for the 
home; and we also increase, because companies are doing better, more 
job opportunities. So we are lowering the unemployment rate, and by 
doing that, there are more people employed, and those who are employed 
have a better chance of rising up within their own business, and we 
also stabilize the tax base, because you have more people paying into 
the tax system, and hopefully at lower rates because of our new 
programs.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Exactly.
  Would the gentleman, reclaiming my time?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Certainly.
  Mr. NEUMANN. The wonderful thing to think about here is, it is more 
than about these numbers and charts; it is about my two kids are in 
college and my other one, who is a freshman in high school, it is about 
these kids and whether or not there are going to be job opportunities 
right here in America or whether we are going to find ourselves in a 
position where, in order for my children to have hopes and dreams and 
the opportunity to live the American dream that we have had in this 
great Nation, it is about whether they are going to be able to do that 
at home in Wisconsin or whether they are going to have to go over to a 
Pacific rim country, or China, or wherever, in order to have the hopes 
and dreams and the opportunities that we have had during our 
generation. That is what this is about. It is about whether or not our 
kids are going to have an opportunity to live the American dream.
  I thought I would show one more chart, because another thing that 
comes up a lot of times when I am out at public meetings is, they say, 
well, who is supposed to get all the credit for this thing, and are not 
you afraid somebody is going to get the credit, and Clinton is going to 
get credit for what you guys have done, and how are we going to stop 
that from happening? And this is how the discussion goes. And I brought 
a chart to kind of show what would have happened had we not been here.
  In 1995 when we took office, in 1995 when we took office, if we had 
played golf and tennis and basketball instead of doing our job, this is 
where the deficit was going. This is where the deficit was going when 
we got here and what we inherited when my colleagues and I took office 
in 1995.
  This yellow line shows what happened after 12 months, and some people 
remember our first 100 days, the battles that went on. If we had quit 
after the first 12 months, the deficit would have followed this yellow 
line. The green line shows what we had hoped to do, and the blue line 
shows what is actually happening. And, again, the emphasis here is how 
far we have come from 1995 to 1997 and what a phenomenal change there 
is in this great Nation we live in.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I think, you know, you deserve a great deal 
of credit for being a visionary on this. You know, while some people 
look at one bill at a time, you are looking at it from a 4- or 5-year 
projection. As you are looking for your children and eventually your 
grandchildren, you are giving a real vision to this Congressman.
  The question I have, Mark, is, how do we know that we can assure this 
for the years to come? We know we have done for the 104th Congress and 
105th the Congress. What kind of budget discipline and what kind of 
legislation can be achieved so that the same kind of graph that you 
have been showing, where there is going to be more opportunity, your 
children will fulfill their dreams and have a job and give less money 
to the government and more money back in their pocket for their 
children to fulfill their dreams, what kind of legislation do we need 
in order to make sure that the dreams of your children will be 
fulfilled?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Well, I think the logical next step in this whole thing 
is the answer to that question. That is, after we balance the budget, 
we still have that $5.3 trillion debt that our generation is going to 
give to the next as a legacy if we do not do something about it.
  So while things have changed a lot since 1993 and the broken promises 
and tax increases of the past to a point where we are on track 
balancing the budget and providing tax relief to the people, restored 
Medicare, good things, but we have to ask, where are we going next?
  And the answer to that is, we need to start making payments on the 
$5.3 trillion debt, and the easiest way to describe what we are 
suggesting that we do in our legislation, I know we have cosponsored 
this bill together, and people in Pennsylvania are very fortunate to 
have a person like yourself here to help with this kind of legislation; 
what we are doing is proposing, very much like on a home mortgage, just 
like all the folks out there that have a home, and they borrow money to 
buy the home, they make payments on their home mortgage, we are 
effectively suggesting that we do exactly the same thing in that $5.3 
trillion debt.
  We have introduced a bill called the National Debt Repayment Act, and 
what the National Debt Repayment Act does is, it caps the growth of 
Washington spending, it controls the growing Washington spending, at a 
rate 1 percent lower than the rate of revenue growth, and it has to be 
at least 1 percent lower. That creates a surplus.
  With the surplus created, we take one-third of the surplus and 
dedicate it to additional tax cuts, and two-thirds of it goes to start 
making those mortgage payments on the Federal debt, and it is real 
important, when the mortgage payments are being made on the Federal 
debt, we are also putting the money back into the Social Security Trust 
Fund that has been taken out over the last 15 years.
  So our National Debt Repayment Act would pay off the entire debt by 
the

[[Page H8126]]

year 2026 so our children could inherit this Nation debt free, but it 
would also restore the Social Security Trust Fund.
  And I said earlier this hour that I am dedicating this special order 
to my father, who had his birthday last week. Senior citizens should be 
in droves behind this kind of legislation because by putting the money 
back into the Social Security Trust Fund, Social Security once again 
will be safe and secure, and for the people in the work force this will 
provide additional tax relief each and every year.
  I brought a chart with me to kind of show how this would work and 
show what actually happens in picture kind of form. The red line, 
again, is the spending growth, and you can see spending still going up. 
So for those that are concerned that Medicare, Medicaid, or whatever 
will not be there, spending is still going up. And I might just add a 
personal note here.
  If this was me, spending would not be shown going up this fast, and 
if I was in control of Congress where the conservatives were actually 
the majority in this body, this spending line would be much slower, it 
might even be flat-lined, so we would even shrink Washington spending 
much more. But even with spending going up at a small rate, if you keep 
it going up at a rate 1 percent lower than the rate of revenue growth, 
the blue line shows the rate of revenue growth, the red line, the 
spending growth; if the red line is going up slower than the blue line, 
that creates the surplus in between here, and one can see how the 
surplus develops, giving us the revenues necessary to pay back the 
Social Security trust fund, to pay off our debt so we can give this to 
our children debt free and we can dedicate some of those surpluses to 
additional tax cuts for the American people.

  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. People will say to us, well, this sounds 
good, but what happens in times of emergency, and what happens in a 
time of war?
  Mr. NEUMANN. The bill kicks out actually during the time of emergency 
and during the time of war, and remember, the bill says we have to keep 
at least a 1 percent difference in this growth rate.
  There are going to be other times where it is more than a 1 percent 
gap; that is, spending is going to be going up much slower than the 
rate of revenue growth. We happen to be in one of those times right 
now. As a matter of fact, revenues to the Federal Government today are 
growing by 7.3 percent, and spending is only going up by 3.2 percent. 
There is a 4-point spread in there right now. This chart shows how it 
works with only a 1-point differential.
  So during the good times like those that we are in right now, I think 
we find a wider than 1 percent spread, and during those bad times the 
bill would kick out, because in all fairness, if we are in a war, I do 
not think we want this sort of thing restricting us, and if we went 
into some sort of a major recession, there may be a reason for the 
Government to actually spend more money.
  Today, that is not the case. Today, our economy is booming. There are 
job opportunities for people. We are seeing the welfare rolls decline 
with the welfare reform that went through a year ago. We are seeing a 
lot of good things happening in our country, but we do not want to tie 
our hands with this sort of legislation that we could not adjust in the 
event of an emergency.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Well, if the gentleman will yield, the 
National Debt Repayment Act is certainly a bill that both sides of the 
aisle should be supporting, and, frankly, I would like to see the 
Senate support it once it gets there after we pass it.
  But with regard to tax legislation, where we have seen great reform 
in this session which you and I supported along with our colleagues, we 
have reduced, we have a $500 per child credit, reduced capital gains 
tax, increased the inheritance tax exemption, and one of the most 
important items, tax credits on education.
  Do you think we could be going to a time, maybe next year, the second 
session of the 105th Congress, where we can further reduce capital 
gains, which will increase savings, new jobs, and growth?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Well, that is what this bill is all about really, is it 
does provide one-third of this surplus for additional tax cuts as we 
move forward.
  The gentleman mentioned that this needs to happen in the Senate as 
well. I would just point out that in the Senate of the United States 
there is not a single Member over there as of yet that is interested in 
introducing the Social Security Preservation Act which we talked about 
earlier. That is the bill that forces Social Security money to actually 
stay in the Social Security trust fund. Not a single Senator yet has 
moved forward. And on this National Debt Repayment Act, what seems to 
me to be the logical next step, not a single Senator as of yet has 
sponsored the bill. And I am optimistic that we will see movement in 
that direction because it does, after all, take passage in both Houses 
in order to get this job done.
  On the tax cuts, maybe we should go into the tax cuts that have 
already passed, and remember, the bill is currently on the table to 
sunset the entire IRS Code and replace it with something that is 
simpler and fairer, easier for our people to understand, by the year 
2001.
  So I anticipate we are going to begin an immediate debate over an 
entirely new tax system, something people actually can understand, and 
they will at that point be able to figure out their own taxes and 
understand, if there is a tax increase, they are going to know about 
it.
  And there is one thing I know for sure. If they know their taxes are 
being increased, politicians are going to be much less likely to 
increase them. In 1993, the way they got away with it is, they 
demagogued it, saying it was only tax increases on the rich. Well, the 
reality was, you were rich if you owned an automobile and filled it up 
with gasoline, because when they were done, taxes went up by 4.3 cents 
a gallon as well as a 2.5 cent extension in the gasoline tax.
  So that is part of it, but maybe we should talk about the Tax Code 
and how it has changed. And, again, I think we need to look back to 
1993 when taxes were going up and see that this is good even though it 
is a little complicated. Should we start maybe with the one that is 
going to hit the most families? I do not know how many families it hits 
in Pennsylvania. I know in Wisconsin, 550,000 families are eligible to 
keep $400 per child more of their own money in their own house instead 
of sending it out here to Washington, DC.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would yield, my own county, 
Montgomery County in Pennsylvania, in my district, 108,000 families 
will have the benefit of the $400, eventually $500, per child tax 
credit. That will go a long way to help pay other bills.
  Mr. NEUMANN. You have got 108,000 just in your county in 
Pennsylvania, and we have only got 550,000 in all of the State of 
Wisconsin. Our people had better start having more kids in Wisconsin so 
we catch up.
  Seriously, it is important for my colleagues to understand that next 
year, starting in January, for each one of those children under the age 
of 17, on January 1 they can go into their place of employment and 
adjust their withholding taxes so they start keeping $33 per month per 
child more in their own paycheck instead of sending it out here. The 
$33 a month is the $400 total divided up over the 12 months.
  So if you have got a family of five, three kids under the age of 17, 
what they should do in January of next year is go in and increase their 
take-home pay by $100 a month. That is what this tax cuts means to the 
550,000 families in Wisconsin and the 108,000 in your county in 
Pennsylvania.
  The other thing is, I think the emphasis on education in this tax 
bill was real important. I always talk to our groups, and I ask if 
anybody has got a freshman or a sophomore in college, and inevitably we 
see a bunch of hands go up. For a freshman and sophomore in college, in 
the vast majority of the cases, the parents will be able to keep $1,500 
more of their own money instead of sending it out here to Washington.
  And I want to be as clear as I can be on this. This is not a 
deduction. This is as in you figure out your taxes, and when you are 
all done figuring out how much you would have owed, if you are a 
freshman or sophomore, spent $2,000 on their college tuition, room, 
board, and tuition, you subtract $1,500 off the

[[Page H8127]]

bottom line. You figure your taxes out, and you subtract $1,500 off the 
bottom line for a freshman or sophomore in college. For a junior or 
senior in college, it is 20 percent of the first $5,000 of costs, or in 
many cases $1,000 for a junior or a senior.
  And, again, it is important that our constituents understand that 
this means that in January of next year, if you have got a freshman in 
college, you simply go in and take 1,500 divided by 12, or $125 a month 
more in your take-home pay. There is nothing else you have to do; you 
just take home an extra $125 a month.
  For a family of five in Wisconsin, we have got some church friends, 
one in college, freshman in college, two still at home. This family is 
eligible for $2,300 next year, and I know in this particular family 
that they are working several jobs in order to make ends meet.
  Just think what this tax cut package means to a family of five, where 
the mother and father have been working not only their regular jobs but 
an extra job or two in order to get ready for Christmas. Next year, 
this family is eligible to keep $2,300 more of their own money instead 
of sending it to Washington.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, I think one of 
the most important parts of the tax package is the education tax 
credits, because there are so many young people who want to go into 
higher education, whether it is junior college, community college, 
regular college, whatever kind of higher education, leading to a 
satisfying job. They want to know that they have got the chance, that 
their parents will get the kind of credit off their taxes to encourage 
them to get that extra education. They can make sure they get a better 
job, and their families will certainly have full opportunity.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. So I will continue working with the 
gentleman in Congress to make sure we expand educational opportunity so 
each person can be all they can be educationally, vocationally, and 
within the society.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Madam Speaker, the other one that relates to education, 
in the same area, is the $500 per child education savings account. I 
have a lot of grandparents that say what should we give our 
grandchildren for this particular birthday or this particular birthday. 
This account has been set up so that the grandparent could conceivably 
put $500 per child into a savings account that would then stay in the 
savings account until the child reaches college age. The child then, 
the interest accumulates tax-free and the child could then take it out 
when it is time to pay for their college education.
  Of course, it is not only grandparents that could do this, parents 
could do this if they have the financial wherewithal, but it is an 
account that allows families to start saving for their children's 
future education, where the interest accumulates tax-free in the 
account. It is called the educational savings account and works sort of 
like an IRA used to work.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, 
we also have the Coverdell and Gingrich bill, a plus account, which 
will be an additional $2,000 towards college education.
  So I think whatever we can do to give the students the opportunity to 
attend the college of their choice, the institute of their choice, 
whatever it may be, then I think the Congress, moving educationally, we 
are doing the right thing for all of our people.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman 
think these education accounts that we have just talked about point out 
how different things are in Washington?
  Five years ago, if this would have been the discussion, it would have 
gone like this: Well, we are going to raise taxes on the people, get 
more money out here in Washington, and then we here in Washington are 
going to decide which families out there in America have a right to get 
some of this money back.
  That is not what this is about. This says people that have worked 
hard to earn a living, and whoever they are, if they have children 
under the age of 17, keep $400 more of their own money. They have to 
earn it first; it is their money, they have to earn it, but after they 
have earned it, they keep it in their own home instead of sending it to 
Washington. It is not Washington deciding which people are going to be 
eligible and collecting more tax dollars like they did in 1993, but 
rather, it is a tax cut. It simply says if they earn the money, the 
kids are under the age of 17, keep it in their own home; we know they 
know how to spend it better than the people here in Washington. It is 
really great to look at these kinds of tax cuts as opposed to what 
might have gone on before.
  Why do we not jump out of education. I hear a lot of times when I am 
out at our town hall meetings, well, Mark, I do not have any kids, and 
since I do not have any kids, I am not eligible for any of those tax 
cuts. Well, there is a few other things in here, and I talked to a 
union worker in particular. He said, ``My kids have gone and I am not 
really thinking about selling my house and I am not really eligible for 
anything.'' I said to him, ``Are you thinking of saving to help take 
care of yourself and retirement?'' He said, ``I know you are going to 
talk about IRA's, but I already have a 401(k) at work.'' I said, 
``Would you consider saving more for your retirement, if you could, 
tax-free?'' He said, ``Yes, I would be interested in doing that, but I 
am not going to be eligible because I have a 401(K) already.''
  The new tax cut package has changed that. Even if people are eligible 
for a 401(k) at work, under the new tax plan, it is called the Roth 
IRA. People can now put $2,000 per person per year into a savings 
account. Now, they are putting in after-tax dollars as opposed to 
before-tax dollars. They are putting in after-tax dollars, but the 
interest accumulates tax-free, so if they put the money in this year, 
whatever they earn on that money between now and retirement, when they 
get to retirement and take the money out of this account, the money 
that they take out is absolutely tax-free. So they put $2,000 per 
person per year into the account, they pay tax on that money this year, 
but when they take it out in retirement, it comes out to them 
absolutely tax-free. There is no tax on the increased value of that 
$2,000 they put in.
  The nice thing, I have a lot of young people that say, ``Well, Mark, 
I am not sure I am ready to think about retirement yet.'' This account 
also works for young families who are trying to save up to buy their 
first home. They can put $2,000 per year per person into this account, 
and a lot of especially couples without children or single working 
families, they put this money into this account and then later they can 
take up to $10,000 out of the account without penalties to buy their 
first home.
  So for the young families it is an opportunity to save to buy their 
first home. For the folks that are in their 40's and 50's, maybe the 
kids are gone, it is an opportunity to save more for themselves for 
retirement and have it be a tax-free retirement.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, under the Roth IRA, it is 
$2,000 per person for how many years hence?
  Mr. NEUMANN. As many years as one so desires.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. OK. So there is no sunset on that provision?
  Mr. NEUMANN. No. One can keep putting $2,000 per year into this 
account each year from now through the year they retire, unless, unless 
we go back to the ways of 1993; and if we go back to the ways of 1993, 
broken promises and higher taxes, certainly this might be one of the 
accounts they look at; but it is up to the American people to make sure 
they keep elected Representatives who are going to be more interested 
in controlling Washington spending, because when we control Washington 
spending, that means the people can keep more of their own money 
instead of sending it to Washington. The folks have to make sure that 
they understand that is what is necessary in order for this Tax Code to 
continue with tax cuts as opposed going back to the way of 1993, but 
that is up to the American people.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The National Debt Repayment Act, which the 
gentleman authored and I have cosponsored, has this gone to the 
Committee

[[Page H8128]]

on the Budget for review, or Ways and Means? Where has it gone?
  Mr. NEUMANN. It will be reviewed in a series of ways. I am optimistic 
that we will have an inner-term vote, but at least it says no new 
Washington spending with the extra revenues coming in. And it will put 
us on track that the only thing we can do with the surpluses is either 
reduce taxes or pay down debt, and that will certainly put us in the 
right direction.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, one of the related bills that 
I have, and I hope that would also see legislative action, and that 
would be what I call the sunset review of Federal agencies. It is 
something we did in Pennsylvania where we evaluated all of the State 
agencies and said, over a 7-year period or 5 years or whatever we want 
to pick, each agency had to justify its own existence. To the extent it 
could, it would remain. To the extent it did not, it would be 
consolidated, privatized, downsized, or eliminated. This is a process 
that seems so logical it should have been adopted previously, but it is 
something that I believe is related to the gentleman's legislation when 
it comes to debt repayment and balanced budgets.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I have a sneaking suspicion there is a whole heap of 
agencies that could not justify their existence today.
  We started through this in my first year here, and it was 
unbelievable the number of agencies that when we went to them, there is 
just no way that they could justify. But it is too vast a list to go at 
them each one at a time. We get as many as we can. The way to do this 
is to look at the overall numbers and keep squeezing them down, but I 
certainly support that type of legislation, sunseting every agency 
every 7 years unless it can justify its existence. It sounds like a 
great idea to me.
  A couple of the tax cuts that we have passed, and again, this bill 
has been signed, this is happening, the ink is dry, this is law: The 
capital gains tax rate has gone from 28 percent to 20, and then it is 
going down to 18 after that. I have some people say, ``Well, Mark, you 
made it more complicated because it is 15 months or 18 months or 12 
months, and how long do we have to hold it?''
  But when it is over and done, I think people can take the time to 
find out whether they have held their asset for 12 months or 18 months 
in order to pay 8 percent less and then 10 percent less.
  For the folks on the lower income tax bracket, this is something I 
learned in Brodhead, WI at a town hall meeting. I had someone come up 
and say, ``I volunteer my time helping senior citizens fill out their 
tax forms. And all that capital gains stuff you are talking about, they 
do not earn enough money to be affected by the 28 down to 20.''
  Well, the fact is, if a person is earning less than $41,000 a year, 
their capital gains tax rate goes down to 10 percent. This person told 
me about a number of senior citizens who, in addition to Social 
Security, are drawing small amounts out of whatever they have used to 
save money in the past, and of course then there is capital gains on 
whatever it is that they are drawing this money from, and this will 
reduce their tax rate from the current 15 down to 10 as well for the 
lower income folks.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 
a part of what we have to do is make sure we get the word out about 
these new tax reductions so that all of our senior citizens and others 
will continue to take advantage of them.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, another one that not 
many know about, and this really impacts: 74 percent of all senior 
citizens in Wisconsin still own their own home, and there is a new tax 
provision that is very directly aimed at senior citizens, but it is 
going to affect all of society, and that is if they have lived in their 
home for 2 years and they sell the home, they no longer pay any Federal 
taxes on it in the vast majority of the cases. Now, what has happened 
in the past is we had this rule that said if a person was 55, they 
could have a one-time exclusion when they sell their home.
  So what has happened is a lot of our senior citizens have sold their 
home at age 55, took the one-time exclusion, and then they went out and 
bought a smaller home, because of course at 55 their kids were gone so 
they did not need the big house any more. So they bought a new home at 
age 56, and they are now 67 or 68 and would like to sell their home 
again.
  Under the old Tax Code, since they had taken their one-time exclusion 
at age 55, they would pay capital gains on the appreciation of that 
home from the age of 56 to 66. Under the new Tax Code, there is no 
Federal taxes due on the sale of a personal residence as long as they 
have lived in the residence for 2 years in the vast majority of the 
cases.
  This is a phenomenally large change. Being a homebuilder, I dealt 
with this an awful lot where we would have clients come in and the 
clients would say to me, ``Well, I have moved from wherever to 
Wisconsin where it was a little more affordable housing,'' and they 
would come in and say, ``We have huge capital gains, and I took this 
job transfer, and I was happy to take the job promotion and have the 
opportunity to live a better life for myself and my family. When I got 
here the house prices were low and that is good, but now I owe the 
Government all of this money.''
  Well, that is all gone, that is history. The law has changed. If a 
person lives in a home for 2 years and it is their personal residence 
and they sell it, there is no Federal taxes due on it. I have said that 
3 times because I was on a radio talk show in one of our communities 
and I had a caller call in and ask me whether or not I was sure that 
there was no Federal taxes due.
  And I said, ``No, there is no Federal taxes due.'' She had bought a 
home, I think it was for $20,000, and was selling it for about $80,000 
and she wanted to make sure of this. And she said, ``I pay income tax 
on it instead of capital gains.'' And I said, ``No, there is no Federal 
tax due to the sale of your home,'' and she said, ``Well, then I pay,'' 
and she gave me some other kind of tax. I said, ``No, it is not that 
the tax has been shifted to some place else; there is no tax due on the 
sale of that home'' that had appreciated in value from $20,000 to 
$80,000 in this particular caller's case. So this is also a phenomenal 
change.
  I know Pennsylvania has some agriculture, as does Wisconsin. I think 
another point here that we would be failing if we did not bring up is 
the farm tax change.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, 
that is certainly going to help us. We have small businesses in 
Pennsylvania, of course, and in Wisconsin, and we also have a lot of 
family farms. What we are able to do under this new inheritance tax law 
is $1.3 million, I think that is the right figure, will be the 
exemption from the inheritance tax.
  So instead of having to sell the family farm to pay the estate taxes 
of the deceased, we are going to be able to have the family farm or the 
family-owned small business that had been worked on for years now 
carried forward to the sons and daughters, so they can carry on the 
family business without having all of the money that the farm is worth, 
or the business, going up in taxes.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Madam Speaker, they say under this new Tax Code, 
reclaiming my time, that 90 percent of all farms may now be passed from 
one generation to the next generation without the tax being due, the 
death tax being due to the extent where many of those farms are being 
sold.
  The other thing that affects and directly impacts the agriculture 
industry of course is that many farms are now corporations, which means 
there is stock in the corporation and as the stock is transferred, the 
capital gains rate directly impacts what taxes are due, and of course 
the reduced capital gains tax helps our farmers immensely.
  I see the gentleman from Indiana has joined us.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I wanted to briefly join in here, because 
the gentleman called my attention earlier this evening to an article 
that ran in the Wall Street Journal today, and Congressman Shadegg from 
Arizona cited it in particular, and then I actually read it.

[[Page H8129]]

  The gentleman has been a leader in our class and in Congress in doing 
budget numbers, tax numbers, appropriation bill numbers, and has been 
somebody we all look to, and now I realize that the gentleman is 
completely politically incorrect. The article in the Wall Street 
Journal today from Lynn Cheney about the National Commission for 
Education Testing was talking about math, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] asked me earlier this evening, ``Did you see 
this absurd statement in the Wall Street Journal?'' Steven Leinwand, 
this is quoting from the Wall Street Journal today, Lynn Cheney's 
article, who sits on the committee overseeing President Clinton's 
proposed National Mathematics Exam, has written an essay explaining why 
it is downright dangerous to teach students things like 6 times 7 is 
42, put down 2 and carry the 4. Such instructions sorts people out, Mr. 
Leinwand writes, anointing the few who master these procedures and 
casting out the many. That is a quote. As Mr. Leinwand tells it, there 
might have once been an excuse for such undemocratic goings-on, but we 
can now, because of technology, throw off the ``discriminatory shackles 
of computational algorithms.''
  Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, can we just point out again who this 
person is that they are quoting? This is the person that sits on the 
board that is going to design the national tests to test our children. 
All of those things the gentleman from Pennsylvania said. He is the 
person that is going to be designing these tests, and this person 
thinks it is inappropriate to teach kids that 7 times 6 is 42, and when 
they are doing multiplication of more than one number times another, 
how to actually go through it. I am an old math teacher and if my 
colleague sees my face turning red at this point, it is only because I 
find it so frustrating that we would think in this society that we have 
moved to this point.
  I do not want a national math test. I want the parents and the local 
community folks and the school board, I want them to develop a test to 
test their kids and their community for what they think their kids 
should know.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Madam Speaker, 
as both a former math teacher, which the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann] is, and as a former homebuilder whose whole business depends 
on being able to, if not directly, at least understand the computation 
of 6 times 7 equals 42, otherwise you are likely to be having 
ridiculous prices on the homes that you are trying to build, how do we 
expect the American people in the future to be able to read charts like 
the gentleman has in front of him, or be able to understand how to 
calculate capital gains taxes if this man, and to reiterate one other 
point that the gentleman said, he is not only on the National Math 
Board, he serves as a consultant to the Connecticut Department of 
Education, sits on the board of the $10 million National Science 
Foundation math program, and advises the standard-setting project 
funded by the Pew and MacArthur Foundations.
  It is not just this kind of one-man kind of weirdo sitting there, he 
is on a whole bunch of boards, driving this whole dumbing-down sense of 
America. And then people want to know how, well, we cannot quite 
understand your chart. This is too complicated. They want to feel 
things through. If we do not have a basic understanding of math, we are 
basically going to get ripped off.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is the problem 
with the liberal philosophy. The liberal philosophy would tell us that 
we do not need to understand math because Washington can take care of 
you, trust us. The Government will take care of you. That is the wrong 
philosophy. Folks need to understand basic math, reading, and science 
so they can look at a situation and evaluate the situation, and make a 
decision for themselves on how to best take care of themselves and 
their families in this world we live in.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
will be talking later, and I know the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Shadegg] wants to talk about this, too, but the gentleman has been kind 
of a national math teacher to this country, going through the budgets, 
going through the appropriations bills, going through the tax bills. I 
appreciate the gentleman calling my attention to this article and the 
fallacy of these national tests, because if we do not have a country 
that can defend themselves, they are going to get run over by the 
Washington bureaucracy. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. NEUMANN. That is the nicest thing I have been called since I came 
to Washington, so I thank the gentleman.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Indiana sharing with us his comments, because he has also been a 
leader working with the gentleman and I, when it comes to making sure 
the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.
  That is what this is all about, we want to have a Federal Government 
that performs the kinds of services that have to be there that are not 
taken care of by the State government, and that individuals and 
families cannot take care of by themselves. But there is no reason we 
should be overcharged for that.
  Frankly, I think the National Debt Repayment Act we need to go very 
strongly on. I am hoping we will not need a sponsor, because it is 
going to pass the House and it just needs Senate votes. I am sure there 
are Senators who may hear and read about this and will actually want to 
be the gentleman's Senate sponsor. I will pursue that with the 
gentleman further after this special order.
  From my point of view, Mr. Speaker, I think my constituents who have 
heard about the National Debt Repayment Act and the quest to get the 
balanced budget think that Washington is finally listening to what they 
have been saying back home. This is not a Washington idea, this is an 
at-home idea. The people back home want to make sure we spend less, we 
regulate less, we tax less, and we let them keep more of the money, 
power, and influence that should be kept in our neighborhoods and our 
communities.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I think that is a good lead-in to wrapping this hour up 
this evening. We have dedicated the hour to my dad and others, people 
like him across America that are so responsible for giving us the 
opportunity to be here and change this great Nation.
  When we look back to before 1995 and see the broken promises of 
moving to a balanced budget, and the promises that they were going to 
get there, and as the deficit escalated, they raised taxes back in 
1993.
  If we look at how far we have come in the last 2 or 3 years, we are 
to a balanced budget, not as promised, but 3 or 4 years ahead of 
schedule; we are going to balance the budget for the first time in 
fiscal year 1998 since 1969, when I was a sophomore in high school, the 
last time the budget was balanced. Taxes are coming down for the first 
time in 16 years.
  What a phenomenal contrast from 1993 to 1997, the tax increases 
versus the tax cuts of 1997. Medicare has been restored to our senior 
citizens, to my dad and to my parents, to the senior citizens out 
there. Medicare has been restored, and we are now moving rapidly 
forward.
  We look at the future. We have our first balanced budget in our hands 
and our first tax cut. The ink is dry, it is passed. As we look to the 
future, we realize that even after the budget is balanced, we still 
have a $5.3 trillion debt.
  The next move is to pass the National Debt Repayment Act, which will 
pay off the Federal debt much like we pay off a home mortgage over the 
next 30 years. That means that we can give this Nation to our children 
debt-free. It means that the money that has been confiscated out of the 
Social Security trust fund will be returned so Social Security is safe 
and solvent once again for our seniors. In that bill, one-third of the 
surpluses are dedicated to additional tax cuts as we move forward.
  So as we look at the past, the present, and the future and where we 
are going with this great Nation, things have changed since 1995. It is 
truly a pleasure to be able to bring to the American people how 
different this great Nation is today than it was 3 short years ago, and 
how those changes

[[Page H8130]]

can lead to a better future for our children and our grandchildren, 
because that is what it is all about, giving those kids hope for 
opportunities to live the American dream in this great Nation.

                          ____________________