Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 137 (Monday, October 6, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 137 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8414-H8422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GOOD NEWS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

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. I rise tonight to bring some good news to the American
people.
I spent some time in my district on Thursday and Friday, and I had a
chance to talk with lots of folks and it occurred to me as I was
talking with the people back home that the concepts of the tax cut bill
actually being signed into law and the amount of taxes that people are
going to pay next year having actually gone down is something that the
folks back home did not understand very well yet.
So I thought I would start this evening with a little bit of
discussion of some good news for the American people, for people that
are working and paying taxes into this Government. Taxes are going down
and it is good news. It is the first time in 16 years it has happened.
It has happened at the same time that we have actually balanced the
budget for the first time since 1969.

{time} 2030

I thought what I would do to start this evening is just talk through
those tax cuts a little bit, because there is something in the tax cut
package that affects virtually every American citizen that is working
and paying taxes today.
I thought I would start with the one that is going to affect the most
families. In Wisconsin, the $400 per child tax cut affects 550,000
Wisconsin families. In all of our families back home in Wisconsin that
have children under the age of 17, next year, for 1998, they should
figure out how much taxes they would have owed to the U.S. Government,
or to Washington, and subtract $400 off the bottom line for each one of
those children.
Let me say that again, so it is crystal clear exactly what this $400
per child tax cut means. If there are children in the home under the
age of 17, the family would go through and figure out how much taxes
they would have owed to the U.S. Government, to Washington, and they
will then simply subtract $400 per child off the bottom line.
For a family with three kids under the age of 17, for a family of
five, like our family used to be, our kids are older now, but like our
family used to be, if you have three kids under the age of 17, that
family could subtract $1,200 off the amount of taxes that they would
have owed to the U.S. Government.
Let me put this another way. For that family of five with three kids
at home, they should in January of next year go into their place of
employment and reduce their withholding taxes, reduce the amount of
money that their employer is sending to Washington each month, by $100,
because, you see, that $1,200 for the 3 kids divided up over the 12
months is $100 a month.
Again, this bill is signed into law; this is not political rhetoric
or promises. I cannot count how many people in Wisconsin said to me,
``I will believe it when I see it.'' It is done; it is signed into law.
That family of five, in January of next year, should keep $100 more a
month in their own home instead of sending it out here to Washington,
DC.
A lot of folks say, ``What about education? There are other things
that you need to be doing in Washington

[[Page H8415]]

with that money that you are letting these families keep.'' Let me
first say that I think that these families in Wisconsin, all 550,000 of
them, can do a much better job spending their own money than they could
if that money was sent out here to Washington for Washington to decide
how to spend it.
But second, on the education front, I think it is very important to
know what was in the tax cut provisions to help with education, because
the amount of money that is to be provided for freshmen and sophomores
in college is a phenomenal amount in terms of many of the people going
especially to places like the technical college like MATC in Milwaukee,
WI, or Gateway Tech in Kenosha, WI, between Kenosha and Racine, or
Blackhawk Tech out in Jamesville, WI.
For a freshman or sophomore in college, they keep the first thousand
dollars of their college cost. That is to say, the first thousand
dollars they spend on college tuition, room, board, and books, the
whole shooting match; the first thousand dollars is fully refundable;
and the second thousand dollars is 50 percent refundable.
So let me translate that into English. If the listeners or if our
colleagues have a freshman or sophomore in college, and the normal
freshman or sophomore is paying more than $2,000 a year in room, board,
and tuition, you should figure out how much you owe the Federal
Government in taxes and subtract $1,500 off the bottom line, and that
money is designed to help pay for the college education. So for
freshmen and sophomores in college, the tax cut package provides a
college tuition credit of $1,500 a year.
For juniors and seniors, it is 20 percent of the first $5,000. So for
most juniors and seniors in college, they should keep a thousand
dollars more of their own money to help pay that college tuition. This
is a lot of money for a lot of families.
A family in Wisconsin with a freshman in college, two kids still at
home, again, I am back to that family of five, there are so many of
these families out there in Wisconsin and all across America, for a
family of five with a freshman in college and two kids still at home,
they keep $1,500 extra because of the freshman in college, the college
tuition credit, and they keep $400 for each one of the two kids at
home, or $2,300 more of their own money.
And make no mistake about this. This is not like Washington reaching
into the pockets of taxpayers, bringing the money out here to
Washington, and then Washington making a decision about who should get
this money back. It is very different than that. This is the families
out there who get up every morning and go to work for a living, they
work very hard, but instead of sending that money out here to
Washington, they simply keep that money in their own home. That is how
a tax cut should be.
So if you have got a freshman or sophomore in college and a couple of
kids still at home, we are talking roughly $200 a month more in the
take-home paycheck than it would have been if this tax bill had not
been signed.
Again, I want to emphasize, the tax bill is signed into law. The ink
is dry. This is not political rhetoric or political promises. This bill
has been signed into law, and it is good news for families all across
America.
The tax cut package did not end there; the tax cut package went on.
The tax cut package also reduced the capital gains tax from 28 percent
down to 20 percent, and then it goes to 18 in the year 2000. So capital
gains have been cut. If you are in the lower-income bracket but you
bought stocks or bonds or whatever and they have appreciated in value,
in the lower-income bracket, the tax on capital gains has dropped from
15 percent down to 10 percent.
So for the folks who have made investments in order to prepare to
take care of themselves in their own retirement and to take care of
themselves as they prepare to retire, the capital gains, the amount of
money that they will send to the Federal Government, has been decreased
from 28 percent down to 20 percent.
It did not stop there either. I have some folks say, ``Well, you
haven't talked to me yet, Mark. There are others of us out here.'' I
had a young couple, for example, where both spouses were working but
one spouse had returned to college on at least a halftime basis. She
did not go into exact details, but with both of them working, of
course, they had a significant tax burden to the Federal Government.
She said, ``Well, Mark, my parents are no longer paying my bills. I am
going back to college. This does not help me.''
Well, in fact, in this case, where we have got a husband and wife
working, there are provisions in the tax bill that would directly
impact them, because the money that was going to pay for her college
tuition would be reimbursed to them or subtracted off the bottom line
of the taxes they were due.
But there is another area that this young couple is very eligible for
under this provision. It is called the Roth IRA. The Roth IRA is
different from the old-fashioned IRA. The old-fashioned IRA, you put
$2,000 in per person and write it off your taxes this year. Under the
Roth IRA, you put $2,000 in but you do not get to write it off on your
taxes this year.
That may not sound like a good deal this year. But the difference is,
when you take this money out in retirement, all of the interest, all of
the accumulated value of this IRA, all of the money that is accumulated
because of the interest or earnings on it, you get that money tax free.
And for that young people that was there at this meeting on Friday
that I was at back home in my district, that young couple can put money
into the Roth IRA, let it accumulate, and then take out up to $10,000
to help that couple buy their first home.
So you see, that young couple with one in college and the other one
working, both working but one in college on a part-time basis, they
benefit from the college tuition tax credit as well as from the Roth
IRA that allows them an opportunity to save up and buy their first
home.
The Roth IRA, of course, can be used by many people in their thirties
and forties and fifties who are saving up to take care of themselves in
retirement as well. It is another major change in the tax code.

One other one that I want to bring to attention that is very
important: For anyone out there who owns their own home, in the past
they had this one-time exclusion at age 55, so that people had to wait
until age 55 to sell their home and then they could sell it one time.
Well, that is just plain gone; it is not there anymore. If you have
lived in your home for 2 years, and you sell your home, and it has been
your personal residence now for 2 years, there is no tax due to the
Federal Government. Under this new tax code, if you sell your home and
it has been your principal residence for 2 years or longer, there is no
tax due to the Federal Government.
I get through telling a lot of folks about these tax cuts and how
they impact so many people. I should talk on seniors, too. Seventy-four
percent of the seniors in Wisconsin own their own home. Many of the
seniors took the one-time exclusion at age 55 and then bought another
house and are ready to sell it again. And of course the new house has
appreciated in value 8 to 10 years later. So this tax cut as far as the
home sale is certainly very significant to seniors.
For seniors, also in this package, Medicare has been restored. So
they do not have to worry about Medicare going bankrupt, as it was back
2 years ago, 3 years ago. It has been restored for at least a decade
for our senior citizens.
I get done telling our folks back home about these tax cuts, and
especially the families, like one at college and two still at home,
that see they get to keep $2,300 more of their own money, and they go,
``It is a lot of money. It is a lot of money, Mark. Does that mean that
we are going to destroy the Nation? Does that mean we are going to pass
this huge burden of debt on to our children, we are going to start
deficit spending again? Does that mean we are going to wreck America to
do this?'' The answer to that question is ``No.''
I would like to now devote some of our time here this evening to a
discussion about why the answer to that question is ``No'' and what has
changed out here in Washington to get us to a point where that answer
is ``No.''

[[Page H8416]]

Before I go in that direction, however, I see my good friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), has joined us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Neumann) yielding to me.
I intended to do a 5-minute special order a little later on on the
U.S. Marine Corps and the commandant, Chuck Krulak, one of our great
commandants. But I am very interested in the expertise of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) in this area.
I think that particularly the homeowners' or home sellers' exclusion
from taxation that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) talked
about is a real release and a relief for literally hundreds of
thousands of homeowners in this country, because over the years they
have traded up as inflation increased, especially in areas like
California and, I am sure, the home State of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) too; and they are now at the point where, if
they sell that home, they have a very low basis and they are going to
pay massive taxes.
And now this $500 exclusion, up to $500 exclusion, has come in the
nick of time. They can use that money for their kids' education and,
incidentally, for buying houses for their children. And most children
today need some help from their parents to buy a house.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in Wisconsin that top-
end number is not totally relevant in most cases because most of our
homes are under that price.
And as a home builder, I worked with a lot of folks that were
transferring from Wisconsin, and I am sure some of our people came to
California, too. I have to sell our State and say how good the business
climate is there under our Governor Tommy Thompson.
But we have a lot of people transferring in from a higher-priced home
area, such as California, to a lower-priced area, such as Wisconsin.
And, of course, those folks are the ones that sold their homes in
California for lots more money and came to Wisconsin and bought a less
expensive home, and in the past, they would have owed a substantial
amount of money to the Federal Government in capital gains tax. That is
gone. They would no longer owe that money.
Is this not what America is about? It is not just about the money, it
is about the idea of people having the freedom to take that job
promotion to provide a better life for themselves and their family. It
is about the opportunity to live the American dream in our Nation again
and the tax policies freeing up people to do what they see as
opportunities to provide this better life for themselves and their
family. That is what this is about.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) would
continue to yield, I think he is absolutely right. I thank him for
yielding.
Mr. NEUMANN. I turn our attention now to the question that I get
asked quite regularly after I get done talking about the tax cuts, and
they are very concerned that we are not destroying this Nation to do
it.
I start tonight by talking about how we got into the situation we are
in today where we have a $5.3 trillion debt staring us in the face.
This chart I brought with me shows the growth of the debt and how from
1960 to 1980 it did not really grow very much, but from 1980 forward,
it has grown a lot. The chart ends in 1995. And we can see how fast the
debt climbed in particular from the late seventies and the early
eighties on through the year 1995. It has led us to a point where we
are $5.3 trillion in debt.
By the way, a lot of people look at this and say, well, if I am a
Democrat, I go, 1980, that is Ronald Reagan; it must be Reagan's fault.
If I am a Republican, I go, the Democrats controlled Congress during
all those years and they spent out of control, so it is the Democrats'
fault.
The facts of the matter are that it is an American problem. It is
time we put our partisanship aside and figure out how to solve the
problem for the good of the future of this great Nation that we live
in. It is a very real problem, and I think it is clear from looking at
this picture that this problem cannot be allowed to continue.
This picture is the reason I left the private sector, a very good job
in a very good business, providing job opportunities for people as a
homebuilder. I left the profession and ran for office because I knew
this would bring us down as a Nation if we did not do something about
it.
I brought a board along that shows the number, because a lot of folks
have never seen how big this number is. We are currently $5.3 trillion
in debt as a Nation. This next line shows, if we divide that debt up
amongst all the people so everybody pays just their share of the debt,
$5.3 trillion divided by the people in the country is $20,000 for every
man, woman, and child in America.
Let me say that another way. This Government, the people that have
been here in Washington since 1980, saw fit to spend $20,000 more than
they collected in taxes for virtually every single American man, woman,
and child in the whole country.

For a family of five, like mine, this Nation has borrowed on our
behalf $100,000. We are in debt $20,000 for every man, woman, and child
in America and $100,000 for a family of five like mine. And the real
problem with that is, this is a real debt; interest is being paid on
it.
A family of five, like mine, this year will pay $580 a month, every
month, to do nothing but pay the interest on that Federal debt. As a
matter of fact, one dollar out of every six that the Federal Government
spends, i.e., one dollar out of every six that they collect out of your
pocket in taxes, one dollar out of every six does nothing but pay the
interest on this Federal debt.
It is not just income taxes where they are paying that $580 a month.
If you do something as simple as walk into the store and buy a loaf of
bread, the store owner makes a small profit on that loaf of bread; and,
of course, when the store owner makes a small profit, part of that
profit is taxed, and it gets sent out here to Washington to pay
interest on that Federal debt. This is a very, very serious problem
that must be addressed in this Nation.
How did we get here? Well, each and every year since 1969, this
Government has overdrawn its checkbook. It is not a lot different from
your checkbook or any other family in America when they will do their
bills and figure out their checkbooks each month. The Government takes
in a certain amount of money and writes out checks. When they write out
checks for more money than they have in their checkbook, what they do
is borrow the money. And, of course, that adds to the debt each and
every year.
Since 1969, we have not had one single year where the Federal
Government did not spend more money than it had in its checkbook. That
is a pretty staggering statement. Since 1969, we have not had one
single year where Washington did not spend more money than it had in
its checkbook.
If that were our home or any home of any of the families across
America, the banks would certainly have foreclosed and stopped the
checking account before now.

{time} 2045

But in Washington, they have just kept borrowing and borrowing and
borrowing, and that is what has led us to the $5.3 trillion debt.
I think it is very significant to talk about what happened during the
1980s and the 1990s that led us to this position, and before 1995 what
happened to get us into this mess. Well, time and time again,
Washington laid into place a plan to balance the Federal budget, and
how many times did the American people hear that phrase, balance the
Federal budget.
The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill of 1995, and I have the 1997 one up
here, this blue line shows what they promised the American people. They
promised they would get to a balanced budget by 1993. The red line
shows what they actually did. When they promised the people they were
going to have a balanced budget and did this, the American people
became critical of Washington, and it is very understandable, that
criticism that was leveled against Washington, because they promised
one thing and did something different entirely, and that is why.
That is what led up to the change in Congress in 1994. That is what
brought the American people to change control of the House of
Representatives and change control of the Senate. I mean in

[[Page H8417]]

all fairness, what they did is turn the House of Representatives from
Democrat control into Republican control, and they changed the Senate
into Republican control, and in all fairness, they left a Democrat
President in this mix. So what the American people saw fit to do was
say, we have rejected this idea, we have rejected this group of people
that have promised us repeatedly to get to a balanced budget but did
something different every time.
So we got to 1993 and we were looking at this picture where, in fact,
they had not met their promise and the budget was not balanced. So
Washington made a decision about what to do. It is very different than
1997. In 1993, when they looked at this picture and saw that they
wanted to balance the budget, they raised taxes. They concluded that
they could not control Washington spending, so the only alternative, if
they were serious about getting to a balanced budget, was to raise
taxes.
So they raised the Social Security taxes on senior citizens. They
raised the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents a gallon, but they did not spend
the money for extra roads or infrastructure or to provide a better
mechanism to get product from one place of production to the
marketplace; they raised it by 4.3 cents a gallon and did not spend the
money on building roads. On top of that, they tacked on another 2.5
percent that would have expired, and that money is not actually getting
spent to build roads either.
Social Security taxes went up, marginal tax rates went up. I think we
are getting a pretty clear picture here. We have broken promises
because Washington could not curtail its spending, and we have raised
taxes as the logical solution, they concluded back in 1993, as the
right way to get to a balanced budget.
The American people in 1994 said, wrong, that is not what we want. We
do not want these broken promises and we do not want tax increases; we
want Washington to control its spending appetite. And they elected a
new group to Congress. In 1995 we laid out a plan and we promised the
American people again that we were going to balance the budget, and the
American people were skeptical, to say the least. But our plan is this
blue line. This is the deficit stream that we promised to the American
people.
We are now in the third year of this 7-year plan to balance the
Federal budget, and I think the American people should be asking, how
are they doing? They are 3 years in. Do they warrant our consideration
to allow them to stay, or should we throw them out and get a new group
in there too?
We are in the third year to balance the Federal budget. We are not
only on track to balancing the Federal budget, but we are so far ahead
of schedule from what we promised that we will probably have our first
balanced budget in fiscal year 1998, 4 years ahead of what was
promised.
This picture down here, on track, ahead of schedule, fulfilling the
promises made to the American people, is very different than this
picture up here. I would add that in the face of this picture, in the
face of Washington finally curtailing the growth of Washington spending
so that we can actually stay on track and get to a balanced budget
sooner, not later, sooner than promised, we have also laid this tax cut
package that I was explaining earlier in the hour on the table. So we
are not only reducing taxes, we are reaching a balanced budget ahead of
schedule.
So the answer to the constituents' question when they ask me, are we
wrecking America by cutting taxes, the answer is definitively no. If
Washington just curtails the growth of spending, we reach a point where
we can both balance the budget and reduce taxes at the same time, and
when we say reduce taxes, it is very simple. That means let the people
keep more of their own money instead of giving it out here to
Washington. That means we understand that the people can do a better
job spending their money than the people out here in Washington.
I have another way to show this same thing and it is a similar
statement here, but it is another way to look at it, to understand how
it is that we have been able to both balance the budget and cut taxes
at the same time. This red line shows how fast spending was growing
before 1995, before the American people put a new group in control of
the House of Representatives. In 1995, this red line started going up a
little slower. The spending growth of Washington started going up at a
slower rate. It is still going up, and to all our constituents that are
concerned that Medicare, Medicaid or some of those important programs
are going away, well no, spending is as a matter of fact still going up
faster than some of us would like to see.
At the same time, the blue line kept going up as fast or faster. So
when spending started going up at a slower rate and revenue started
going up at a faster rate, it is easy to see that we are going to start
running a surplus in the near term. Again, the good news is we will
have the first tax cut in 16 years, we have the first balanced budget
since 1969, and Medicare has been restored for our senior citizens.
There is another important chart to take a look at here, because it
really emphasizes how different things are. I had a lot of my
constituents say, well, you know, Mark, you guys are actually lucky.
The economy is doing so good that you all are going to look good no
matter what you do out there.
While there are a couple of things to think about in response to
that. First, the economy has done good between 1969 and today and it
has never led to a balanced budget. Every time the economy has
performed well in the past, Washington saw the extra revenues coming in
and acted very quickly to spend the extra revenues on every program
they could think of.
This Congress has acted very differently. In the face of a very
strong economy, we curtailed the growth in spending. This chart shows
how fast spending was going up before we got here, 5.2 percent annual
growth rate. This shows how fast it is going up under the new House of
Representatives, under Republican control, and it is important to note
that at the same time the economy has been very strong, the growth of
Washington spending has been curtailed.
This chart is important for another reason. A lot of folks say, well,
Mark, when you are curtailing or cutting Washington spending and they
call it cuts, it is important to note that Washington spending is still
going up. Again, I emphasize, too fast for some of our likings, myself
included. But Washington spending is still going up, but it is going up
at a much slower rate than it was before.
When Washington spending growth is curtailed, that means Washington
spends less money. If Washington spends less money, that means they
borrow less money, they overdraw their checkbook by less. When they
borrow less money out of the private sector, that leaves more money
available in the private sector, and from here it gets pretty easy.
More money available in the private sector means the interest rates
will stay down.
With the interest rates down, of course people buy more houses and
cars and they have a better chance of living the American dream. And
when they buy more houses and cars, I get excited when I talk about
this part, when they buy more houses and cars, of course that means
that there will be job opportunities for our kids, because somebody has
to build those houses and cars, and that means that my kids can have
the hope and dream of living the American dream right here in our
Nation. They will not have to go to a Pacific Rim country, China, or
someplace else to live the American dream.

When we see this sort of thing happening, Washington borrows less
money, more money available in the private sector means lower interest
rates, people again have the chance of living the American dream. When
they buy those houses and cars, that is job opportunities, and that is
what is going to keep our kids right here home in America where they
belong.
This chart, I cannot emphasize the significance and importance of
understanding that we have two things going on out here at the same
time that has allowed us to get to our first balanced budget since 1969
and lower taxes at the same time. The strong economy, coupled with
curtailing the growth of Washington spending, has led us to this point,
and it is a very nice spot to be at.
The next question I typically hear at my town hall meetings is, who
gets

[[Page H8418]]

credit for all of this stuff? The first answer to that question is very
straightforward. I learned in Washington that there is absolutely no
end to what we can accomplish if we are willing to give the credit for
doing it to someone else.
So my first answer to our constituents is I do not care who gets the
credit. This is so good for America, it does not matter who gets the
credit. It is the right thing for our country. A balanced budget, lower
taxes, Medicare restored, those are the right things, so it does not
matter who gets credit.
I also brought documentation here as to what was going on when we
came here in 1995 and what would have happened if we had come and
played golf, tennis, basketball and did not do our jobs. On this chart
we can see where the deficit was heading when we got here in 1995. This
red line shows what the deficit would be as we move toward the year
2002. Had we done nothing, this is what would have happened. The yellow
line shows what would have happened after our first 12 months.
In the first 12 months we made progress, and again, I think it is
important to remember those first 12 months. That was the 100 days,
that was the Contract With America where we did all kinds of things in
the first day, and those 100 days were many, many hours out here, lots
of disagreement from side to side as to what should be done. But what
it did do is it brought this projected deficit line down to this yellow
line.
Well, we boldly laid the green line into place and we boldly promised
the American people that even though we were looking at this picture,
we were going to make this happen. I am happy to report that when we
got done with it, we are now 3 years into the plan, and we not only
achieved our target, the green line, but we are far ahead of schedule
from what was promised.
Again, when we understand all of these pieces of pie put together,
curtailing the growth of Washington spending, more money available in
the private sector which keeps the interest rates down, people buy more
houses and cars, that is more job opportunities so they leave the
welfare rolls, when we see all of these pieces fitting together, it is
pretty clear how we can be here talking about the first balanced budget
since 1969, in addition to the first tax cut, and Medicare being
restored.
I have one more thing that I think is important to talk about,
because I have talked about the past and the present. I talked about
how it was before 1995 with broken promises and tax increases, and how
it is now in the third year of a 7-year plan to balance the budget
where we are on track and ahead of schedule, and we are also providing
the first tax cut in 16 years and Medicare restored. I think the
logical question is, what next? Where do we go from here and what kind
of problems do we still have facing America?
Well, first, even after we get to a balanced budget, we still have a
$5.3 trillion debt staring us in the face. I can see in the gallery
above me here this evening some young people. If we do not do anything
about that $5.3 trillion debt, it would be like the parents that are
sitting up there simply passing this debt on to their children. So the
first thing we need to think about after we get to a balanced budget is
get on a payment plan so we repay that $5.3 trillion debt.
We have drafted legislation in our office that is called the National
Debt Repayment Act, that effectively puts us on a home mortgage
repayment plan. It is not a lot different than the people who used to
build homes with us and when they got the home done, went to the bank,
borrowed the money and put it on a 30-year repayment plan. That is
effectively what we have done.
It goes like this: After the budget is balanced, we cap the growth of
Washington spending at a rate at least 1 percent below the rate of
revenue growth. I have a picture here that shows what happens. If the
red line, the spending line is going up at a slower rate than the blue
line; again, if the revenue line, the blue line, is going up faster
than the red line, the spending line, that creates a surplus, it
creates a little gap between those two lines, it creates a surplus.
Here is what our bill does. It says, recognizing that simply by
controlling Washington spending growth, we can create this surplus, we
are going to take two-thirds of the surplus and make a house payment.
We are going to make that payment on the $5.3 trillion debt. So we are
going to start making mortgage payments on this debt that has been run
up over the last 15 to 20 years.
If this plan is followed, two-thirds of the money, two-thirds of this
surplus will literally repay the entire Federal debt by the year 2026.
It does something else that is very important as well. When we are
repaying the debt, we are putting the money back into the Social
Security Trust Fund that has been taken out over the last 15 years. It
is important to understand that Social Security today is taking more
money out of paychecks of people than what it is giving back out to our
senior citizens in benefits. That extra money that is coming in is
supposed to be set aside in a savings account so that when the baby
boom generation gets to retirement, there is enough money there that
they can go to the savings account, get the money and make good on the
Social Security promises. It should come as no surprise so anyone that
has followed Washington that the money that has come in for Social
Security, that is supposed to be in the savings account, is not there.
It has been spent on all kinds of Washington programs, and the Social
Security Trust Fund is now all part of the $5.3 trillion debt.
The National Debt Repayment Act repays the entire Federal debt. So
when we are repaying the Federal debt, we are putting the money back
into the Social Security Trust Fund. So the National Debt Repayment Act
restores the Social Security Trust Fund for our senior citizens.
The other third of the surplus, two-thirds is going to make these
payments on the national debt, the other one-third is being used to
reduce taxes each year for our working families in America. So the good
news is we look to the future with the National Debt Repayment Act, our
seniors can rest assured that their Social Security will be safe
because the National Debt Repayment Act puts the money back in that has
been taken out of the Social Security Trust Fund.

{time} 2100

Our children can be assured that the entire Federal debt would be
repaid. Think of this legacy. We could pass this Nation on to our
children absolutely debt-free. For people in the work force today, they
can count on additional tax cuts.
Lord only knows I have heard enough different ideas of which taxes to
cut next. My personal preference is that we eliminate the marriage tax
penalty, and maybe have some across-the-board tax cuts beyond that. But
the good news is, think of the wonderful fight we are about to have:
which taxes should we reduce, and how far down should we take those
taxes, and how different that fight is from 1993 when the debate was,
which taxes shall we raise and how high we should raise them. This is a
good debate to have.
To all the folks upset about any portion of the tax cut plan because
it should have been a different way, I would simply remind us how
different this fight is from 1993, where how high we should raise taxes
and which one was the debate, as opposed to 1997, where we are having
this debate about which taxes to cut.
So the National Debt Repayment Act provides surpluses as we go
forward. Use two-thirds of those surpluses to make a mortgage type
payment on the Federal debt. The other one-third goes to tax cuts. If
enacted, it guarantees our children a debt-free Nation, a legacy of a
debt-free country. Our senior citizens' Social Security would be
restored, and the people in the work force today can look forward to
additional tax cuts as we move forward. Not a bad plan for 3 years into
this new Congress.
We have gone away from the broken promises of the past and the
raising taxes to the first balanced budget since 1969 and the first tax
cut in 16 years, and we are now moving forward to the next step, which
is repaying the Federal debt. We can look forward to passing this
Nation on to our children debt-free.
I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin, for his leadership on

[[Page H8419]]

the budget and tax issues. Because underneath what he is saying, and I
have heard him, as I have watched back in my office, allude to this
several times, that a lot of this is basically a matter of trust. That
is, who do we trust most with our incomes? Do we trust the people in
Washington, or do we trust the families, the parents, the individuals
around the country to make the decisions for their kids' future
education, for their kids' health, for their family decisions on
whether they are going to take a vacation with their family or whether
they are going to get a certain kind of winter coat or whether they are
going to bank it. Rather than have the people in Washington make these
decisions, we need the people back home in Indiana and in Wisconsin and
in other States to do that. That is in fact what we are doing.
If we do not get control of this deficit that has been mounting up,
particularly as it relates to things like the Social Security trust
fund, which, if we repay that in the debt repayment plan, well, if we
do not do that, not only will we not have short-term balanced budgets,
we will not have the income in our families to make those decisions,
but we will absolutely bankrupt this country as the baby-boomers, your
and my generation, hit the retirement system, which we have paid into
all of our lives, but all of a sudden there will not be any money
there.
So sometimes what we have to do is plan for the future, in addition
to the present. The gentleman is going one step beyond where the
current bill goes and saying, hey, look, we have to think out where we
are headed, or our kids will be saddled with a double whammy; that is,
no reserve, Federal reserve, to pay for our retirement, and having to
pay huge taxes and interest rates, because the debt has accumulated.
Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, is it not exciting to
be standing here having this conversation? We came in together in 1995.
Does the gentleman remember what it was like when we first sat in a
hotel not far from here as we were going through our original process,
and we were committed to getting to a balanced budget? The best hope
was 2002.
We talked about, could not our class be the one that would bring it
up; instead of 2002, why do we not do it by 2000, or maybe even sooner?
And it was just beyond imagination in this city that we could possibly
get a balanced budget before the year 2002. And to do tax cuts and the
balanced budget at the same time, it was almost like unheard of.
And the idea of actually curtailing and controlling the growth of
Washington spending, bringing that growth rate down by 40 percent in 2
years, it is phenomenal what has happened out here in 2\1/2\ or 3 short
years. It is just exciting to be able to stand here and talk about good
things. When I was elected to office I never thought I would go home
and say something good has happened in Washington, because so many bad
things had happened out here as we watched the broken promises, the tax
increases and more government regulation, and it just seemed like it
was going to be more and more and more Washington and less and less
control of our lives and our families back home in Wisconsin. That is
what brought me into this in the first place.
It is really exciting to be out here and have the opportunity to talk
about these families, the family with two kids at home and one off at
college that keeps $2,300 of their own money, instead of sending it out
here. That is just exciting to be able to talk about.
Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I
have some points I hope to talk about later tonight, where I am
concerned as we get near the end of the appropriations process that the
Federal Government is taking too much control.
What the gentleman has pointed out and what we have to keep in
perspective is the difference between where we were in 1993 and 1994
and what we are debating about today.
I have a grave concern about the guesstimating in the census, and
trying to gain power through that and through bringing in illegal
immigrants into our voting system without background checks. I have
grave concerns about national testing. I have grave concerns about the
desire to allow family planning money to be used for abortions
throughout this world. Those are grave concerns.
But we made an earth-shaking change in the election of 1994, when the
gentleman and I came in. That is, what we were so upset about in 1993
and 1994 is it seemed that in every category of American life the
Federal Government was in an aggressive, expansive mode; that we had
this tremendous pressure on the health care system, the greatest health
care system in the world. We had the Labor Department going after small
businesses and mid-sized businesses and large businesses, saying they
were going to turn OSHA into an enforcement agency, when what we were
hearing at the grass roots is that they were not concerned about the
health and safety of individuals, but rather, in harassment of job-
producing industries.
We saw in every category gun owners being restricted and being gone
after by the Federal Government. We saw a collapse in a lot of the
moral leadership of our country and, in particular, the type of laws
that were protecting unborn children and others. We saw a major tax
increase, the largest tax increase in the United States history. We saw
proposal after proposal that would have expanded the Federal
Government's role in every single appropriations bill in every single
category of this country.
Now, after the 1994 election, the whole debate has been turned. We
are still arguing over different points, important points. But the big
questions, was the deficit going to continue to spiral upward or was it
going to head down, were we going to give more money to individuals or
take more money from individuals, and we now are moving towards a
balanced budget this year; an amazing, amazingly low deficit this past
weekend, and maybe $23 billion for the fiscal year. We are looking at--
--
Mr. NEUMANN. Just a second on that point, Mr. Speaker. It will not be
long and CBO will be in our court, and they will actually admit that
the budget is going to be balanced next year, in fiscal year 1998, for
the first time in 30 years. They are slowly coming around to the
numbers that the gentleman and I have been working on and putting out
regularly over the last 3 months that do demonstrate we are going to
hit this balanced budget 4 years ahead of schedule.

Mr. SOUDER. An extraordinary achievement for our children and our
families, because our interest rates are staying low, our unemployment
rate is staying low. We are not only able to absorb all of the
immigrants who are coming into this country, but we have in parts of my
district at least 2 percent under what was considered full employment.
We are at 2 percent in some of the counties of my district on an
unemployment rate.
The consequences of this control of the deficit are huge in terms of
interest rates and keeping the employment rates up and the unemployment
rate down. But the tax cuts are important, because it will give the
maximum flexibility to the individuals. Those of us who are concerned
about the growth of the power of government, the best thing we can do
is give $500 per child to each family for each child, because what that
will do is let parents make the decisions they need to make for their
children.
By giving the capital gains changes, people can invest in their
homes, and senior citizens can sell off their homes for their
retirement income. By having education IRAs, by having family farms be
able to be preserved in the families and small businesses be able to be
preserved in the families, those are huge steps toward social stability
in this country, and toward the moral fabric and restrengthening in
this country.
We are going to argue about these other issues, important issues, but
we have to keep in mind that in the big picture we have made tremendous
strides in changing the entire national debate to how do we give more
power to families and individuals, how do we give more power to States,
how do we reduce the size of the spending and the deficit in
Washington.
Mr. NEUMANN. I know the gentleman made the point on the tax cuts. A
lot of times back home people do not understand how possibly could we
cut a family's taxes by $2,300, that family of 5 that I keep talking
about, a freshman in college and two kids still at home;

[[Page H8420]]

how could Washington possibly cut their taxes by $2,300 in a year and
not bankrupt the system.
What we forget in general is that Washington is collecting, through
all the parts of society, Washington collects $6,500 in taxes for every
man, woman, and child in the United States of America. On average, if
we take the total amount Washington collects and divide it by the
people in the country, Washington is collecting on average $6,500 per
person for every man, woman and child in the whole country. So when we
put the $2,300 tax cut in that perspective, it becomes pretty clear how
we have managed to do this and at the same time balance the budget.
Mr. SOUDER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, my understanding
of the gentleman's math, there is a family with two children, they
would be paying roughly $24,000 a year in taxes, roughly $26,000 a
year, and that is an extraordinary figure. It is not that the
government is actually starving. They have been starving out families.
What we want to do is get more of those dollars back to those families,
empower the families to make those decisions, and less out of
Washington.
If I can add one other thing, those tax cuts deserve a ton of credit
for the deficit reduction, because what it did by giving more dollars,
and the stock market knowing that more dollars were going to be in
individual hands, knowing that family businesses and capital gains and
inheritance tax changes were coming, it kept the confidence of the
consumers up, rather than having the confidence go down. Usually we
have these cycles. It was to a large degree the combination of
controlling our spending, but even more importantly, the tax cuts that
have revived and kept this tremendous economic growth engine going.
So a lot of the reason that we have this deficit decline that we have
is not just because of us controlling spending, but in fact, it is
because tax cuts gave the markets the confidence, gave the investors
the confidence and the individuals the confidence to continue to employ
people, to continue to build up inventories, to buy products. That has
kept the economy going in a remarkable way.
Mr. NEUMANN. I just want to reemphasize, and the gentleman from
Arizona has joined us, and I know the gentleman from California [Mr.
Hunter] would like time, but I want to reemphasize that working model
of curtailing the growth of Washington spending that is so important in
understanding what has happened out here.
Washington spending, before we got here, a 5.2 percent growth rate.
After we got here, 3.2, a 40 percent slower growth in Washington
spending. When Washington spending is less, that means Washington
borrows less money out of the private sector.
This was a theory in 1995: if Washington borrowed less money there
would be more money available that would keep the interest rates down,
and with the interest rates down people would buy more houses and cars.
Of course, that meant people had to build them. That is what has led to
the full employment, is those job opportunities that come as people
make decisions, the interest rates are down, they have the opportunity
to achieve the American dream.
It is this curtailing of Washington spending, coupled with the strong
economy, and they feed on each other, that has allowed this to happen.
It was a theory in 1995. It is now a proven commodity. It works and it
is being shown in the economy that we are in today.
I want to turn our attention to education. I see the gentleman from
Arizona has joined me, and I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I compliment both my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Neumann] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] for bringing out
and emphasizing for all of our listeners the importance of curtailing
spending. That is indeed critically important, I think, for the future
of this Nation, not just for the economic reasons, not just because the
government spending is out of control, but also because I think we are
discovering that government does not have all the answers.
When we give government too much in the way of resources, it just
grows and grows and grows, and not all of what it does is good. As a
matter of fact, as government gets bigger freedom gets smaller.
I did want to segue into the education issue. As I listen to you do
the math computation, I think, indeed, if certain proposals before this
Congress prevail, we could be the last Members of this Congress that
can do basic mathematic calculations.
Last week this issue came up. We are in the midst of a fight over an
issue called national testing. My colleague came to the floor last week
and pointed out that in the midst of that debate, there is a great deal
of misunderstanding. Many of my colleagues and friends back home in
Arizona say to me, why is it Republicans are against national testing?
Why is it you do not want to do the President's national testing idea?
I point out to them that there are grave dangers in the President's
proposal, because if we do national testing as the President proposes
with the Department of Education setting the tests, we are in serious
jeopardy of dumbing down America and America's math skills.
For example, I want to point out an article that appeared in last
week's Wall Street Journal by Lynne Cheney, in which she illustrates
this point.

{time} 2115

She cites a gentleman by the name of Steven Leinwand who sits on the
committee overseeing President Clinton's proposed national mathematics
exam. In this column she writes that Mr. Leinwand believes that it is
downright dangerous, downright dangerous, to teach students
mathematical skills like 6 times 7 is 42.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am a former math
teacher, and I think it is downright dangerous to listen to that kind
of advice from those kinds of experts.
Mr. SHADEGG. Well, it would be downright dangerous not to teach them
6 times 7 is 42. But Mr. Leinwand goes on, according to this article by
Lynn Cheney, and says we should not teach students basic computational
skills, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, because it
will anoint the few who master those skills and cast out the many who
do not.
This is a national expert who would be in charge of writing this test
saying we should not teach children those skills. I was so shocked at
his essay saying those things that I asked my staff to go get a copy of
the essay, and it is right here. In fact, Mr. Leinwand says, ``We
should be beyond teaching children basic mathematics skills. That is,
in fact, a bad idea.''
Indeed, he is not alone on this effort. There is a National
Association of Mathematics teachers who says specifically we should not
teach children certain knowledge and skills such as whole number
computation. And what is their reason? Because it will make them feel
bad.
What does that have to do with national testing? Why would we not
want national testing? The short and clear answer is, if we let people
like Mr. Leinwand write a national test which tests kids on thinking or
some other theory but does not find out if they can add or subtract or
multiply or divide, we are going to create a national disaster across
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I know that time is short.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time briefly, I think the
real question here is, who is going to control what we expect our
children to know when they graduate from school? Is it going to be the
people in Washington, this national test developer, or is it going to
be the people in our communities? And I want to reflect on an
experience in my background.
I was a math teacher, and in Milton, WI, I sometimes had people tell
me that my students did not know what they were supposed to know when
they graduated from high school. I found that personally offensive,
because in my classroom we worked very hard to make sure they had these
basic skills the gentleman is talking about.
So what we did in Milton, WI, is what I think we should be doing all
across America. We developed a survey, and we sent it out to the people
in Milton, WI, the parents, the teachers, the community. We sent the
survey out to them and said: What do you expect our

[[Page H8421]]

math students to know when they graduate from high school?
We got the results back and developed a curriculum and a test to make
sure that our students knew what our parents and our teachers and our
community wanted our kids to know. We found out that initially we were
having 70 percent of our students fail the test. By 2 years later, we
were performing in the 90 percent bracket, where our students were now
virtually all graduating with the skills that the community expected.
Mr. Speaker, this is how it should be done. It should be done with
the active involvement of the parents and the teachers and the
community, not by some group in Washington deciding what is appropriate
and what is not appropriate, because if we turn that authority over to
them, we take the parents and the teachers and the community even
further out of the education picture.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
think the gentleman is exactly right. This is the whole question about
who is going to write the test, who is going to decide what our
children learn. Like the gentleman from Wisconsin, I trust the parents
and the teachers and the administrators and, for that matter, the
students in my own school a lot more than I trust bureaucrats in
Washington.
Let me conclude on that point. This is an issue that is going to be
resolved in Washington very soon. The Senate has staked out a position
on the Labor-HHS bill which says, well, we will do national testing,
but we will assure that it is a good test, not one that has whole math
in it, not one that refuses to test children on their computational
skills; we will delegate the decision on writing the test to an
organization called the National Assessment Governing Board.
Lynn Cheney wrote a subsequent article pointing out that that assumes
that this National Assessment Governing Board will be immune from the
pressures to test whole math or to test some other radical theory. The
problem is not just who in Washington writes it; the problem is that it
should not be written in Washington.
The test to test our children's skills ought to be written at least
in our neighborhoods, in our schools by our school districts, by our
school boards, and by our State departments of education, and not by
national organizations who are so remote from those parents and those
children.
I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, I first want to thank Chairman Goodling for standing
firm on this national testing as we come to the final weeks of battle.
But I wanted to reiterate a couple of points about the danger of these
national tests.
We heard about the math. It is unbelievable that somebody could
oppose teaching 6 times 7, and particularly unbelievable that it could
be a national leader. What is so amazing about math is that that would
be a category you would think this would not happen.
Later, when Lynn Cheney wrote about history standards and some of the
other national standards, we had a college art association conference
warn faculty members not to teach women artists such as Mary Cassatt
because she frequently painted the women and children and thus
reinforced patriarchal thought.
We had a 1992 Smithsonian exhibit called ``Etiquette of the
Underclass'' that advocated a view of the United States so class ridden
that those born at the bottom could never hope to move up. One of the
materials accompanying the Smithsonian exhibition said, ``Upward
mobility is one of our most cherished myths.''
Mr. Speaker, we know that they have this problem with history
standards, which is why it was thrown out. We have problems with art.
We have problems with economics being national standards, because they
politicalize it. Now we have problems with math.
Mr. Speaker, I want to throw out one other thing. Bill Safire in a
column this weekend said that, ``The American tradition has been to
entrust such decisions to local school boards run, not always well but
usually democratically, by involved parents and teachers in that
community, with review by State authorities and with the Feds
intervening only when States fail to protect a student's constitutional
rights.''
Last Thursday morning, a lady whose son attends Casa Roble High
School in Sacramento, CA, gave me a test that was given her son in a
technology class on August 29, 1997, supposedly after we got by this.
This was not a national test. If this was a national test, we would be
in deep trouble. This was a local test. However, it is a local test
that spread to five States. But because it is a local test, we can
fight it at the local level.
But this is why we fear national tests. It was trying to look at the
students' values and things like: I donate to charities. I envy the way
movie stars are recognized wherever they go. Things that make us wonder
whether they are being too intrusive.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to read some questions that strike fear in
my heart.

Question Number 2: I will regularly take my children to
church services.
Question Number 11: I have a close relationship with either
my mother or my father.
Question 12: I have taught a Sunday School class or
otherwise been active in my church.
Question 24: I believe in a God who answers prayers.
Question 34: I believe that tithing, giving one-tenth of
one's earnings to the church, is one's duty to God.
Question 41: I pray to God about my problems.
Question 43: I like to spend holidays with my family.
Question 53: It is important that grace be said before
meals.
Question 59: I care what my parents think about the things
that I do.
Question 72: I read the Bible or other religious writings
regularly.
Question 78: I love my parents.
Question 82: I believe that God created man in his own
image.
Question 91: If I ask God for forgiveness, my sins are
forgiven.
Question 95: I respect my father and mother.

What business do schools have intruding in the religious life of
children and asking intruding questions about how students feel about
their mother and father? It may have been well-intentioned, but this is
scary. What if this stuff gets in the national tests? At least at the
local level we can fight it.
Mr. Speaker, how dare this President propose taking over our
children's lives through a national test when we have seen the pattern
here? We have seen it in economics, we have seen it in math, we have
seen it in history. At least at the local level, we have a fighting
chance to change it. If these people nationalize this stuff, it is
going to be a scary country to live in, because it is clear where they
are headed and this type of stuff scares me to death.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is this not what this
battle is about?
In 1993, they raised taxes so they could maintain all sorts of new
Washington programs like Goals 2000, like national testing, like all
kinds of things. They raised taxes so they could continue the growth of
Washington spending, making Washington and the people here bigger and
more powerful and more intrusive in our lives. Is that not what it was
all about?
Now as we curtail the growth of Washington spending, as we slow this
thing down, we are fighting to keep this sort of situation from
developing, where again Washington steps in and takes the
responsibility of parents and teachers and communities and Washington
decides what is appropriate to be on this sort of national test and
what is appropriate to ask our young people.
That is wrong. That is a responsibility of the parents and the
teachers and the communities. That should not be Washington's
responsibility. We see this fight in almost every time we turn a corner
in this city. Whether it be education or anything else, it is every
topic. They want more and more control of the lives of the people
instead of letting the people have more and more control of their own
lives.
We see that in the tax cut/tax increase debate as to, who is going to
control the money that the people earn, Washington or the people? In
education, who is going to control what our kids learn, Washington or
the parents and the teachers and the school district?

[[Page H8422]]

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, he is
absolutely correct. The people of Wisconsin have an independent
tradition and the people of Indiana have an independent tradition. And
the Founding Fathers knew, although Indiana and Wisconsin were not in
existence at the time, that we have inherited that belief that power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have a healthy
skepticism of a concentration of power.
Our Founding Fathers knew that we needed a balance. We needed
individuals with rights. We needed a Court, we needed a Congress, a
President. We needed strong States. A lot of people believed that going
to a Constitution as opposed to Articles of Confederation was
consolidating too much power.
Back then, they did not think about departments of education and
national tests. That was far from it. They were doing minimal Federal
Government. Our Founding Fathers had it right. They were fearful that
power concentrated, as it was in Europe, would lead to the type of
tracking in the education systems, would lead to the type of monarchy
dependency, that we would look to our capital city for all the
solutions rather than inside our souls and inside our own families and
look to government to fix the problems of the poor rather than
sacrificing our own time and money to reach out to those who are
hurting.
Mr. Speaker, that is indeed what is happening in America. We need to
stand up. And this budget deal and the tax cuts were an important first
step. Now we have to follow through on some of the details, because we
have the big picture right. We need to make sure that they do not back-
door us as we go through the actual appropriations bills.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would conclude my hour this
evening by wrapping up what we have been talking about. The discussion
has been about more Washington and more Washington control of our lives
versus less Washington and less Washington control of our lives, and
the integrity of this Government in general.
We started with the past. We started with before 1995. We started
with the broken promises of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill, how they
promised to get to a balanced budget but never got around to doing it;
how in 1993 the way they decided to get to a balanced budget was to
raise taxes on the people, and the people in 1994 said: Enough of that
stuff; We do not want any more broken promises; We do not want any more
tax increases. They elected a new group of people to the House of
Representatives.
They elected Republicans to control the House and Republicans to
control the Senate and left the Democrat President, in all fairness, to
complete this picture.
But from 1995 to 1997, things have been very, very different. We,
too, laid out a plan to balance the Federal budget, and we are in the
third year of that 7-year plan. We are not only on track but we are
going to have the first balanced budget in fiscal year 1998, the first
time in 30 years we are going to actually have a balanced Federal
budget; Washington is not going to spend more money than it takes in.
Mr. Speaker, how has this happened? It has been done not through tax
increases like back in 1993 but at the same time we lower taxes. It has
been done by curtailing the appetite of Washington spending.
It has been a battle; there is no question about it. Washington
spending is still going up, but at a much slower rate than what it was
going up before. It was going up almost twice as fast as inflation
before 1995. By slowing that growth of Washington spending, we are at a
point where we have both a balanced budget and lower taxes; first time
since 1969 for the balanced budget, first time in 16 years that we have
had a tax cut, and Medicare has been restored.
At the same time, we have to look forward to the future and ask
ourselves what is coming next. The next in the picture is, we are going
to put us on a plan to repay the entire Federal debt. As we repay that
$5.3 trillion debt, that puts us in a position as a Nation where we can
give to our children the legacy of a debt-free country.
At the same time we are repaying that debt, we are putting that money
back into the Social Security Trust Fund that has been taken out over
the last 15 to 20 years, so Social Security is once again solvent and
secure for our senior citizens. This plan entails keeping one-third of
our surpluses and dedicating it to additional tax cuts as we go
forward.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very changed discussion in Washington,
from past broken promises and higher taxes, to the present of promises
kept on track and ahead of schedule in balancing the budget, lower
taxes and a restored Medicare, and a future that includes paying off
the Federal debt with additional tax cuts, restoring the Social
Security Trust Fund, and, most important of all, as we repay that
Federal debt, we can give this Nation to our children absolutely debt
free.
What better legacy, what better hopes and dreams could we have in
this Nation than that plan for our future?

____________________