[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?

                          ____________________