[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8701-H8708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ISSUE OF PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
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. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak about a topic
I do not want to generally talk about on the floor. And to my
colleagues who follow C-SPAN on the afterhours quite regularly, I have
never spoken on this particular topic before, and frankly, I would
rather not speak on the topic, because I do not think we should even be
talking about this topic in the U.S. of America. It should be an issue
that was dealt with a long time ago. It should be an issue we do not
even need to talk about, because it is so simple and straightforward in
terms of how wrong it is.
Two years ago, three years ago, when the good people from
southeastern Wisconsin elected me to this office and gave me the
privilege of serving here in the U.S. House of Representatives, one of
the first things that happened out here in Washington, as I swore to
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, part of that
Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to
every American citizen.
When I think about the topic, and we dealt with this here in the
House today, and it is the reason for being here this evening to talk
about it, when I think about this issue and how it relates to our
Constitution, and equally more important is how it relates to the moral
values in the United States of America, and how we could let this
continue in this great Nation we live in.
So I rise tonight to speak on partial-birth abortions, and I am going
to spend a portion of the hour allocated here this evening on this
topic. Again, it is a topic that I would rather not talk about, because
I do not think the issue should even be discussed. It should very
simply be solved. There should be no partial-birth abortions in the
United States of America, or in any civilized society.
I think one thing that happens in our society is we take very
difficult topics and we say they should be shoved under the rug. We
would rather not see them and not know them, because if we do not know
them, we do not have to be upset about them.
To be perfectly honest, when I was sworn in 2 years ago, I had no
idea that partial-birth or live birth abortions were going on in this
great Nation we live in. Some people gradually from the pro-life
community forced me to focus on this particular topic. They forced me
to focus on what a partial-birth or live birth abortion actually was.
What happened to me as I learned about this topic and learned what
was actually happening is it became harder and harder and harder to not
specifically address the topic, because it is so wrong. We cannot turn
our backs on it. It does not go away by hiding the fact. It is an
issue. It is a fact that partial birth or live birth abortions are
going on in the United States of America today.
I have to say that if this was done to a dog or if it was done to an
animal, the Humane Society, the people that protest these sorts of
things, they would be standing out on the Capitol steps today
protesting that this was being done to animals. Yet, we continue to do
it in America to live babies.
I want to describe what a partial-birth abortion is. I want to show
Members just how outrageous this process is. Again, I know most people
in America do not want to know about it. They cannot believe this sort
of thing is going on thousands of times in the United States of America
each year. I think it is important, and it is something we as a society
cannot turn our backs on.
What happens in a partial-birth abortion is a doctor takes a forceps
and reaches into the womb of a pregnant woman. He finds the leg of the
baby or the ankle of the baby, and he literally pulls the ankles and
arms of the baby out of the woman.
At this point, with the ankle and the arms actually out of the woman
and the legs moving around, the doctor sticks a scissors or a forceps
in the back of the head of the baby, so just before the head is
delivered the baby is killed. That is what a partial-birth abortion is.
I have to tell the Members, back home when I talk about this topic, the
room gets dead silent. Any time I am in a room talking about it there
is dead silence, because people do not want to talk about it.
What is really amazing to me is they call me radical. I am willing to
say we should end this practice in the United States of America. I am
the one they call radical because I say this is wrong. Killing a baby
whose arms and legs are moving around, putting a scissors in the back
of the head of that child, makes me radical when I say that practice
should be stopped? What kind of a Nation is it that we live in that
would consider my position on this, that this practice should be
stopped today, as radical, and the people that say it is OK if we go
ahead and do this, for whatever excuse they want to, those are the
normal people in this country? Wrong. Those are the radical people in
this country.
It is about time it was brought to the attention of the American
people just exactly what is going on in a partial-birth abortion or
live birth abortion, and the process should be banned. I would like to
bring folks up to speed on what is happening on this particular issue.
We have brought a bill to the floor of the House of Representatives
to ban this outrageous practice. As a matter of fact, in the House of
Representatives we have from the State of Wisconsin nine elected
Representatives here in the House. Some are Democrats, some are
Republicans, some are pro-choice, some are pro-life.
All nine elected Members from the House of Representatives from the
State of Wisconsin voted to end this practice. Whether we were pro-life
or pro-choice, wherever they are on that particular discussion, they
all understand that this topic is far beyond normal, and it should be
ended immediately, and all nine of us voted the same way on this issue
again today.
{time} 1845
As a matter of fact, in the House of Representatives 297 out of 435
of us looked at this picture and said this is outrageous. I know there
are some others over there who said, well, we probably should end it in
most cases but maybe sometimes it is all right.
And again the bill did make the exception for the life of the mother,
but they want to add things like the
[[Page H8702]]
``health'' of the mother. We are not sure they are talking about
financial health or mental health or physical health. But they want to
make enough exceptions so that we can keep doing this in this Nation,
and that is just plain wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I point out, this is not just a pro-life/pro-choice
discussion. Looking at this picture, if this was an animal that we were
describing up here, there would be activists all over this Capitol
protesting this procedure. This is a life, a precious baby. I was there
when all three of our children were born, and I cannot imagine on our
worst day in this Nation that the good people in this country would be
willing to understand this process and not stop it.
So in the House, 297 of us voted to end the process. In the Senate,
the majority have already voted to end partial-birth abortions in
America. The bill is about to go to the desk of the President of the
United States, and he is expected to once again veto the bill. After
the bill is vetoed, it will come back to the House of Representatives.
When it comes back to the House, we will have another vote on it. We
need two-thirds, or 290 votes on it, to override the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, we had 297 votes here today, and we fully expect to
overturn the veto in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, they
are currently three votes short of the necessary votes to overturn a
veto by the President of the United States.
So this evening to my colleagues I have two messages. First, I would
like to encourage my colleagues to talk to the people in the House that
did not vote the right way today and encourage them the next time to
take a look at what a partial-birth abortion is. Get rid of the
political rhetoric. Get rid of the idea that we are going to be called
a radical if we vote to end live-birth abortion.
Mr. Speaker, the radical people are the ones who think it is all
right that if the arms and legs of the baby are moving around, that it
would somehow be acceptable to stick a scissors in the back of the
baby's head. That is radical, and it is about time somebody starts
calling those people the radical people that they really are and starts
understanding that the people that are fighting to stop this procedure
are the normal people and represent the masses of people in the United
States of America.
In the State of Wisconsin, people looked at this procedure the last
time this vote came around, and they actually started recall petitions
against the two Senators from Wisconsin who voted to allow this
procedure to continue. They were short. They accumulated 300,000
petitions. They were short of the number necessary to actually do a
recall.
Now, I do not know how I feel about recall elections; not real good
about them for the most part. But the idea that this many people got
motivated to do something about stopping this process, that says a lot.
I think it says a lot about the people of Wisconsin and nationwide,
because when people understand what a partial-birth abortion is, it is
going to become clear that the process should be stopped.
What I expect to happen in the not too distant future, I expect the
bill to go to the President of the United States, and I would expect
the President to veto this. And I would hope my colleagues would talk
to the President and with their friends on the other side of this body
and do everything they can to make sure this is not vetoed and that
this process is banned and outlawed in the United States of America.
I also hope when we get the bill back that we maintain the 290 votes
necessary to override the veto here in the House. And I hope that the
good Lord provides the wisdom to the Senators who voted for allowing
this procedure to continue to see the wisdom to changing their vote the
next time it comes back to them so that we can override the President's
veto.
Mr. Speaker, I very seldom talk on this topic. Most folks who follow
C-SPAN presentations know that I talk a lot about budget and budget
procedures and tax cuts and so on. But before I go to that topic, I
would like to go to another one that I have not talked about for some
time, and that is the Social Security system.
There are a lot of senior citizens in America today that rely heavily
on the Social Security system for their day-to-day living needs. In
Washington, we have been bringing good news to people. We have been
bringing the news that for the first time next year the budget will be
balanced, the first time since 1969. We are lowering taxes, the first
time in 16 years that has happened. Medicare has been restored for our
senior citizens.
But all the problems have not gone away, and we need to understand
that even after we balance the budget, the Social Security system
remains in jeopardy. So before I go into other budgetary matters this
evening, I want to talk briefly on the Social Security system and make
sure that we make clear what is happening in the Social Security and
what we need to do to solve the problem.
The Social Security system last year brought in $218 billion in
revenue. They went into the paychecks of working families and people in
America today and took out Social Security taxes. When they were done
collecting those taxes, they collected $418 billion. They wrote out
checks to our senior citizen of $353 billion. That is right, they
actually collected more money in taxes than what they paid back out to
our senior citizens in benefits. That is $65 billion, as a matter of
fact, that they took in more than they paid back out to our senior
citizens in benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is because the baby boom generation
is rapidly headed toward retirement. And when the baby boom generation
gets there, these two numbers are going to be turning around. There
will be less money coming in from taxes than money going back out to
our senior citizens in benefits.
The idea is, we collect the extra money now and put it into a saving
account, we let the savings account grow until the baby boom generation
reaches retirement, and then when these two numbers turn around and
there is not enough money coming in to pay the bills, we go to that
savings account, get the money, and make good on the Social Security
checks that have been promised to our senior citizens. That is what is
supposed to be happening.
It should come as no great surprise to anyone who closely follows
Washington that that is not what is going on. What Washington is doing
is, they are taking that $65 billion, they are putting it into the big
government checkbook. Think of this much the same as any household
checkbook. They are putting it in the general fund or the big
government checkbook.
When they are done writing checks out of the big government
checkbook, they have overdrawn the checkbook. That is the deficit. So
they write out more checks than what they have in the checkbook each
year. That is why we have had a deficit each year since 1969.
With no money left to put down in the Social Security Trust Fund, or
into that savings account, they simply at the end of the year write an
IOU to the Social Security savings account.
This is what is going on today. Instead of that money being put aside
in the Social Security Trust Fund the way it is supposed to be, the
money is going into the government general fund, the big government
checkbook. They spend all the money out of the big government checkbook
so there is no money to put in the Social Security savings account, and
they simply write an IOU to the Social Security savings account. Mr.
Speaker, that is wrong and needs to be stopped.
It is important to understand that when Washington says they are
going to balance the Federal budget, what Washington means by balancing
the Federal budget is, when they are done writing these checks out of
the government checkbook, there is an even or zero there.
Well, what that fails to take into account is, this $65 billion that
came from Social Security that is supposed to be down here in the trust
fund was put in the big government checkbook, and even if the big
government checkbook is balanced, they still have not put the money
down in the Social Security Trust Fund.
So even after we reach a balanced budget next year for the first time
since 1969, and let us not downplay that, that is important and good,
it is a great step in the right direction, but
[[Page H8703]]
even after that is done and we reach a balanced checkbook or a balanced
budget, they are still using the money that is supposed to be put in
Social Security to make it look like it is actually balanced.
So what are we doing about that? In my office, we have drafted and
introduced legislation. It is called the Social Security Preservation
Act. And this legislation does not take Einstein to figure out. I think
in most businesses across America today it is straightforward. It is
what you should be doing with your pension fund. It simply says that
the money collected for Social Security must be put directly into the
Social Security Trust Fund.
Again, this is called the Social Security Preservation Act, and it is
very simple. It simply says that that surplus money that is being
collected today for Social Security to preserve and protect Social
Security for our senior citizens must be put into the Social Security
Trust Fund.
It never fails to amaze me. When I am at a town hall meeting and say,
``How many people think we ought to be doing it this way?'' it is
virtually unanimous. Outside of Washington, everybody believes we ought
to be doing this, not just a few or one or two here or there. It is
pretty straightforward. If a business took the pension money, put it in
the checkbook and spent it and put an IOU in the pension fund, it would
be illegal and they would be arrested. There is no question about it.
So the second topic I wanted to deal with tonight before we get into
some of the other budgetary matters is the idea that this money for
Social Security needs to be set aside for the purposes of Social
Security.
The third topic that I wanted to go into, and, again, as we go into
this, it is important to note that we are going to hit the first
balanced budget for the first time since 1969 next year. We are going
to start running surpluses. So what we should be doing is restoring
that money for the Social Security Trust Fund.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we know that we have hit a
balanced budget for the first time since 1969. As we talk about these
tax cuts, the tax cuts are part of the surplus that is being
accumulated, and there is enough money in that surplus to both restore
the Social Security Trust Fund, keep a balanced budget, and reduce
taxes at the same time.
I am going to show why that is all possible in a few minutes, but
before I do I that, we should go through what is in the tax cut
package, because of everything else we have done out here in
Washington, D.C., this year, this is going to have the most immediate,
direct impact on the people who get up every morning and go to work for
a living.
What we are really talking about when we talk about tax cuts are
these folks who do get up and go to work for a living. Those folks,
instead of sending money to Washington, they get to keep it for their
own homes and their own families. That is what tax cuts are about.
Let us start with one that affects 550,000 Wisconsin families;
550,000 Wisconsin families alone will benefit from the $400 per child
tax cut next year.
The way the tax cut works is this: For all the children under the age
of 16, at the end of the year the folks figure out their taxes and how
much they would have sent to Washington, D.C., and subtract $400 for
each one of those kids. It is very simple to understand: Figure out how
much would have been owed, subtract $400 off the bottom line. This is a
tax credit, not a tax deduction.
But let me put this a better way. In January of next year, what
should happen is, those 550,000 families should go into their place of
employment and simply ask that they reduce the amount of money sent to
Washington by $33 per month per child.
So on January 1 of next year, I would hope that the Wisconsin
families and others like them all across America would go to their
place of employment and reduce the amount of money that is being
withheld for Federal tax purposes by $33 per month. The $33 per month
is $400, the total tax credit, divided by the 12 months in the year.
So I hope on January 1, if it is a family of five out there, three
young kids at home, 3 times 33, or roughly $100 a month that should be
kept in their own home instead of sending it to Washington.
Mr. Speaker, there is more to it. A lot of times people ask me about
education. I am a teacher by trade, and I think education is extremely
important for the future of this country. If our education system is
not strong and our young people are not well educated, there is no hope
for this country. I think the significance and the importance that we
place on education is seen in the tax cut package.
As a matter of fact, if he is a freshman or sophomore in college in
virtually all the cases, if they are paying $2,000 or more to go to
college, freshman or sophomore in college or tech school, they will get
to keep $1,500 more in their own home next year to help pay for their
college tuition. For freshmen and sophomores, it is basically $1,500 in
most cases, and for juniors and seniors, it is 25 percent of the first
$5,000 of cost, or roughly $1,000 in most cases. So when we talk about
college students or people going back to school for an education, this
is real dollar help.
A family of five in Wisconsin where one is in college and two of the
kids are still home, they will be keeping $2,300 a year more of their
own money in their own home starting January of next year. They should
literally increase their take-home pay by $200 a month.
A family of five, one in college and two kids still home, they get
$400 for each one of the kids still home, which is $800, plus $1,500
for the college tuition credit; $2,300 for a family of five, two kids
at home and one off to college.
Mr. Speaker, it does not end there. I had a person at one of our town
hall meetings ask me. She said to me, ``I am married without any kids,
and I am going back to school.'' This young lady apparently was working
full-time as well as going to school at the same time. She said, ``Does
this affect me?'' And the answer to that question is definitely yes.
As a matter of fact, to that young lady who asked me the question,
what happens for her is, the tuition that she pays to go back to school
while she is working full-time, if it is less than $1,000, will be
fully refunded by decreasing the amount of taxes she sends out to
Washington.
If we are talking about young people who are trying to get themselves
a better opportunity by improving their education, that education cost
will be deducted at the end of the year and will show up as a tax
credit for them.
So it is not just the college-age students that we typically think of
as college-age students. It is young people out in the work force,
going back to school to provide a better opportunity for themselves and
their family in the future.
One more thing. There are a lot of college graduates that take their
first job and then, while they are working, go back to school to get
their master's degree. That would fall under the classification of 20
percent of the first $5,000 of costs. So those folks that are back in
school getting their master's degree after they have already graduated
from either high school or college, they are eligible for this tuition
tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, our commitment to education, however, did not end there.
In addition to the college tuition credits, we have set up a program
where, if there are young children in the family, up to $500 a year can
be set aside for those young children, so that when they reach college
age there will be money available for them to go to college. It works
like this.
{time} 1900
They can put up to $500 per year into the account. The money
accumulates tax free until the child reaches the age to go to college.
They can then take the money out of that account and use it for
purposes of going to school.
Where I found that a lot of people are interested in this is that the
grandparents, a lot of times there is a lot of grandparents with
grandkids who wonder what they should get them for Christmas,
birthdays, whatever. We found a lot of grandparents that are interested
in using this educational savings account as a gift to the grandchild.
And what better gift than something that will help them with their
college education when they reach college age?
[[Page H8704]]
The tax cut package did not end there. A lot of young people asked
me, ``What about us? You have not talked about us yet.'' A lot of
senior citizens asked me, ``You really have not hit us yet in terms of
helping lower our tax burden.''
To them, if 74 percent of the seniors in Wisconsin own their own
homes, and lots of young families own their homes and are transferred
around the country from maybe a higher home cost area to a lower cost
area, the home sale tax code has changed. If it is their personal
residence and they have lived in the home for two years and they sell
it, there are no Federal taxes due on the sale of that home. That
impacts folks in a lot of ways.
We have people from California where home prices are higher than they
are in Wisconsin, transferring to Wisconsin for whatever job purpose,
to provide a job opportunity, for a better life for themselves and
their family, so they sell that home in California and they come to
Wisconsin where it is a little less priced for a home. Rather than
owing big amounts of money to the Federal Government for taxes on the
home they sold in California, there is no tax due on that sale.
It works also for senior citizens who used to have what is called the
55 exclusion. A lot of folks were very familiar with the one time age
55 exclusion. That is gone. A lot of our senior citizens took the one
time age 55 exclusion, sold their big home and bought a smaller home
that they plan to live out their retirement in. If they bought that
smaller home 10 or 15 years ago, they might have bought it for $40,000
or somewhere thereabouts, it has probably appreciated significantly.
Maybe now our senior citizens are ready to sell that home that they
bought at age 55 or age 56. So they took the one time exclusion 10
years ago, they are in this other home. If they would have sold that
home before, there would have been no exclusion, they would owe Federal
taxes on it. Under the new law when the senior sells their home for
whatever reason, there are no Federal taxes due provided they have
lived in the home for a two-year period of time.
Again, there is an upper end cap in this, but in Wisconsin it will
affect virtually none of the homes, and elsewhere in the country there
may be some effect. But foremost cases, there are no Federal taxes due.
The other ones that talk to me about it is people where all their
kids are grown and gone and they have left the home. Kids are saying
none of these things have affected me yet. There is also what is called
the Roth IRA. We have a lot of union workers in particular who say, ``I
am in a 401(k) so I cannot do anything more to save up for
retirement.'' The Roth IRA is available even if people are already in a
401(k) or some other kind of retirement plan.
The Roth IRA works like this. They put in after-tax dollars but the
money accumulates tax free to retirement, and when they reach
retirement and take the money out, it is absolutely tax free. This is a
dynamite way to save up for retirement. They put in after-tax dollars,
the money accumulates tax free. When they take it out at retirement, it
is absolutely tax free.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think the important point of all this is
there are a lot of different savings accounts that may work for a
family, but the emphasis is that the tax system as we have passed it
recognizes the importance of saving for the future. Right now I think
the consumer debt is something like $4 trillion nationwide. It may even
be bigger than that. But we as a society need to start saving money for
the future. And by implementing these new IRA type savings accounts,
that is what we are doing.
Mr. NEUMANN. Is it not great that instead of the government dictating
and mandating what kind of program is going to fit all the people in
America, instead of doing that, we set this plan up and we let people
decide which way they would like to save up for their own retirement.
The other great thing about the Roth IRA is that if they are a young
couple and they do not own their own home yet, they would like to save
up to buy their first home, they can put the money into the Roth IRA.
It earns interest tax free. They can take up to $10,000 to buy their
first home, or if that same young couple would later like to go back to
college and save up to go to college, they can take money out of the
Roth IRA for purposes of either the first home or going back to
college. It is really a good setup for an awful lot of people in this
country.
I have not mentioned the capital gains tax cut. Maybe Mr. Kingston
would like to go through a few of the details on the capital gains tax
cut.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
The capital gains tax rate has been 28 percent on items that a person
sells for a gain, the amount of money that they have made on it. Now,
it is ironic because there again we are taxing savings and we are
taxing money that has already had taxes paid on it.
The typical example that I see over and over again in my area, which
is a growth area where we have a lot of senior citizens, many of them
have saved all their lives. Now they are in their upper years and they
want to cash in maybe some of the stock that they have saved and maybe
use it for a medical emergency, maybe for some long-term care,
whatever, residential care, but they are taxed at this 28 percent rate.
Under our plan, depending on what their bracket is, they would be
taxed at 20 percent, possibly as low as 15 percent, depending on their
income bracket. Personally speaking, I would love to have zero capital
gains tax for people like that, but if we can start with that, I think
it will help seniors a lot and, again, encourage people to save money.
Our office went back to 1956 Treasury records and every time that the
capital gains tax rate was low, revenues from capital gains had
increased. But when the rate is high, people hold their assets and as a
result there is not much revenue from it. I believe that this is going
to be extremely beneficial, not just for the economy but for deficit
reduction.
The gentleman has been such a champion on deficit reduction, I almost
would be willing to predict that with the surge of new sales of assets
and so forth because of this capital gains tax reduction, that we will
potentially as soon as next year be able to balance the budget.
Mr. NEUMANN. I do not know if you caught the new numbers now being
talked about out here in Washington. We are looking at a $23 billion
deficit, the lowest deficit since the early 1970s. As a percent of GDP,
it is the lowest deficit we have had since the very early 1970s.
Mr. KINGSTON. Under the Neumann budget, which you authored and I
supported, had that passed, that deficit would have been zero probably.
Mr. NEUMANN. That is absolutely correct. Do you remember when we
first introduced that? I was three months here on the House floor. Our
leadership was kind enough to allow us to have a vote on our package.
We only got 89 votes on it. It would balance the budget by the year
2000. Everybody said we cannot possibly do this by the year 2000.
Here we are in 1997, and because of two things, the economy has
remained strong, but while the economy remained strong this body out
here, the people that are here now slowed the growth of Washington
spending. In the past whenever the economy was strong,
Washington spending exploded. They spent all those extra revenues.
I have a chart, if the gentleman would bring that chart; as long as
we are on that topic, I think it helps us to see. I think it is
important to be able to see a picture of what has happened with the
strong economy, with the strong economy at the same time revenues were
growing to the Federal Government.
The body that is here now since 1995, rather than increasing spending
as they always did in the past, we have slowed the growth of Washington
spending. Before we got here in 1995, back in 1993-94 spending was
growing at 5.2 percent annually at the Washington level. At the same
time revenues started growing very rapidly to the Federal Government,
we have literally slowed the growth of Washington spending. So it is
these two things together that have put us in a position where we can
literally get the budget balanced in fiscal year 1998.
[[Page H8705]]
I am not afraid to go on record, 1998-99, we will have the first
balanced budget since 1969. We can do all of this because of this
picture.
Mr. KINGSTON. Does the gentleman plan to reintroduce a budget next
year which will balance the budget by 1998-99?
Mr. NEUMANN. I believe that we should introduce a budget that is
balanced in 1998, yes. I think it would be inexcusable for this body,
short of some major change in the economy, to not get to a balanced
budget by 1999 at the very latest. The revenues are there. Our spending
growth has been curtailed. There is no reason in the world that we
cannot hit a balanced budget.
We keep talking about this in Washington language, a balanced budget,
and out there in the real world that does not always mean a lot. Let me
translate it because Alan Greenspan did a great job of it today. He
talked about the fact that if we could get to a balanced budget and
actually go past that and start running surpluses so we start paying
down the Federal debt, interest rates may drop another half to a full
point, so we could see lower interest rates.
That means something to families. When they are making their home
mortgage payment, if the interest rate is lower, they just keep more
money in their own home instead of sending it out here to Washington.
That is what this is about. It is about real people having the
opportunity to be able to afford to buy the American dream, a home or a
car of their choosing, because the interest rates have stayed low. And
when the interest rates stay low, when people buy those houses and
cars, others have to go to work.
We talked about welfare reform. We finally got welfare reform to a
point where able-bodied welfare recipients are required to go back into
the work force. If a person is capable of working in our society, they
cannot stay on welfare all their life. There is child care available,
there is health care help there, but they have to get a job if they are
able to work in this society.
Mr. KINGSTON. The way I always explain it, we get a lot of criticism:
Why are you trying to cut taxes? I say it is very fundamental. Middle
class people have more of their money, more of their own money in their
pocket because we in Washington confiscate less of it. Then what is
going to happen is they are going to spend more. They will buy not
necessarily a lot of glamorous things but lots and lots of very
important things in the economic chain: more CDs, more socks, more
pairs of shoes, hats, shirts, basketballs. When they do that, more
jobs.
Mr. NEUMANN. More jobs here in America for our kids so they can have
the opportunity to live the American dream.
Mr. KINGSTON. That is exactly right. Because what is going to happen,
the local drug store and the sporting goods store, the local
restaurant, local clothing store will all expand to meet the new demand
because American consumers have $300 or $400 more disposable income in
their pocket. And when they expand, they create those jobs. More people
are working, less people are on welfare, more people are paying taxes
and the revenues are going up. That is the situation that we are in.
Mr. NEUMANN. In the community I live in in Jaynesville, WI, we build
Suburbans and Tahoes there. And we can see the direct result of this
picture of the deficit coming down so the interest rates stay down low.
People can afford to buy Suburbans and Tahoes. That is job security for
our people.
It is a direct translation. Low interest rates mean people can afford
to buy the Suburbans and the Tahoes. When they buy those, they can
afford to make payments on it. When they buy those vehicles, that means
our people in Jaynesville stay employed. That is what this is about. It
is about job opportunities.
Mr. KINGSTON. Yet as we are discussing this, and with a lot of gleam,
I would say, to the degree that the deficit has fallen, the numbers are
roughly about $260 billion down to $23 billion.
Mr. NEUMANN. Actually I have a chart here. I have one that actually
shows where it was when we came.
Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is important. Let us show how much that
deficit has fallen.
Mr. NEUMANN. When we came here, many of our colleagues tonight are
playing basketball, so this is no pun intended. There is a good
spirited basketball charity game going on out here tonight, but if we
had all played basketball and not done our job, this shows what would
have happened to the deficit.
This is the deficit stream that we inherited in 1995 when we came
here. Remember 1993 was that big tax increase where they were going to
try to get this under control. Even after that big tax increase, this
is what we inherited in 1995 when I was first elected to office. The
gentleman is right. It was going all the way up to $350 billion, if we
did not do something about it. This is our 12 months work. Our first
year, 1995, our 12 months in office, we brought the projected deficit
down to this yellow line.
But at the same time we laid this green line into place. And just
like we had done before, we made a promise to the American people that
we would get to a balanced budget. Only this group is very different.
Before 1995, every time those promises were broke. But we made a
promise, too. It is this green line on the chart. The blue line is what
we are actually doing. I think it is so significant. We are now in the
third year of a 7-year plan to balance the budget but instead of the
broken promises before 1995, we are not only on track, we are ahead of
schedule to the point where we will get it done next year.
Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman has touched on a very important point. In
between the blue line of where the money actually is and the green line
of where the plan is, I am scared to death that even on a bipartisan
basis we will rush out and spend the money. I always say this is like
somebody who is on a six-month diet and finds out at the end of the
second month that they are ahead of projections, so instead of
finishing the diet, in three months they go out on an eating binge and
eat lots of ice cream and cake to celebrate. Are we going to do that?
Are we going to rush out and spend this money, or are we going to do
the right thing and apply it to the national debt?
Mr. NEUMANN. The ``rush out and spend it'' part? Over my dead body.
That really is the attitude of an awful lot of us out here in
Washington right now. We have had it with those past practices of
breaking the promises to the American people, and we have had it with
the 1993 concept of raising taxes.
{time} 1915
I do not know if the gentleman has had the opportunity to hear some
of our colleagues here on the floor tonight before us. During the 5-
minute portions this evening, they were talking about this big
conference that will go on in Japan where they are going to tax our
energy here in America but leave countries like China out from under
this tax. And they are going to tax energy as much as 60 cents a gallon
for gas. Has everyone forgotten what 1993 was like?
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield a second; also exempt
China, Brazil, maybe India, and a couple of others.
Mr. NEUMANN. North Korea.
Mr. KINGSTON. North Korea. Major U.S. competitors will be exempt from
this Clinton gas tax proposal. And why the administration thinks the
time is right to increase the gas tax 20 to 40 cents a gallon----
Mr. NEUMANN. Sixty cents a gallon is what they are projecting under
this proposal.
Mr. KINGSTON. Can my colleague imagine what that will do to the
economy, to small businesses?
Mr. NEUMANN. What amazes me is that in 4 short years, the amount of
time it has taken to turn this picture around, that we have actually
curtailed, slowed the growth of Washington spending, we have had these
changes from 1993, everyone has forgotten that in 1993 they raised
virtually every tax they could think of.
We have gone through the tax cuts here and we have had a good time
talking about finally how we are going to leave more money in the
pockets of the people. It is not a gift from us, it is their money. We
finally had a good time talking about the fact that taxes are coming
down for the first time in 16 years. Has everyone forgotten 1993?
The discussion was a Btu tax; 4.3 cents a gallon gasoline tax. They
did not spend the money to build better
[[Page H8706]]
roads, they just spent it on other Washington programs; a 2.5-cent a
gallon extension of another gas tax, and for senior citizens, the
Social Security tax rates from 50 to 85 percent. I cannot even get done
with all the tax increases they did.
Mr. KINGSTON. It is interesting because some of our colleagues right
now are really pushing a Federal takeover of local school construction.
They want the Federal Government to go in and build school systems.
Now, as the gentleman knows, bricks and mortar has always been the
domain of local school boards. And school boards in local communities
that have been responsible and have kept up with it, do not have the
problem.
But what is also interesting about this debate, this urge to go out
and spend the money that some of our liberal colleagues have, is that
when the gentleman and I talk about education, when the gentleman and I
talk about the strengths of education, when the gentleman and I reflect
back on our own educational history, we do not talk about, hey, I went
to this beautiful school; it was three stories tall, and the bricks
were so wonderful and the glass windowpanes were so special and the
light sockets were just out of this world. We do not talk about that.
We talk about, hey, I had Miss Jones, I had Miss Reynolds, and I had
Miss Musey, and I had Miss Smith, and they were great teachers and they
made a difference in my life. And not one of them would have been any
different in a different building.
Our children need to be in decent buildings, but the big problem in
education today is we need to put money into the teacher in the
classroom, not into the bureaucracy in Washington that is going to dole
out on a political basis bricks and mortars and make-work projects for
educational bureaucrats. It is ridiculous. Let us give the money to the
kids in the classroom and the teachers.
Mr. NEUMANN. That is really the fallacy of this whole thing. What
would lead anyone to believe that this Government, Washington, can
reach into the pockets of the American people. This money is not manna
from heaven. This money has to come from somewhere. So we will reach
into pockets of the working families in America, the working people in
America, and they will bring the money to Washington. They will pay
hundreds of bureaucrats to decide how to spend the money, and then they
will send 35 or 40 or 50, or whatever number they happen to get to in
this particular case, back to build new schools. And they will pat
themselves on the back because they collected $1 from the taxpayers and
sent whatever the number is, 50 cents, if we are in a good day, back to
build new schools with.
First off, why should Washington reach into the pockets of the people
in Janesville, WI, bring the money out here to Washington and then
Washington make a decision about who gets a new school? Why should that
not be the responsibility of the parents and the teachers and the
community to make those decisions? That is what it is all about.
Mr. KINGSTON. Can the gentleman imagine a Washington IRS-type
bureaucracy building local schools? I know to some liberals that is a
great deal.
It is interesting, as a matter of fact. Here is a copy of the
Washington Times as of last Tuesday where the President opposes citizen
oversight of the IRS. I mean is this the national Democratic Party now
that has come down to supporting the IRS and the fact that many folks
back home think it is time to overhaul the tax system, overhaul the
IRS, to stop some of the harassment of our citizens and the President
and the Democrats are defending the IRS?
It does not make any sense at all. I do not want an IRS-type
bureaucracy to run the local school construction projects.
Mr. NEUMANN. I think it is important that folks know that, in
addition to getting the budget balanced for the first time since 1969,
taxes coming down for the first time in 16 years, restoring Medicare
for our senior citizens, what is next on the horizon is a bill that has
been introduced that would literally sunset the entire IRS Code. We
would literally sunset the entire thing in the year 2001. And what that
would effectively do is force us to come up with a new, fairer, simpler
tax system.
When I describe this to folks in our town hall meetings, this is the
one thing that absolutely brings an across-the-board cheer because
everyone hates the complexity of the Tax Code.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield. I thought we were
together, on a bipartisan basis, on the IRS reform. I had no idea that
the administration was going to defend the IRS and try to make tax
reform a partisan issue.
But I will say this. If it is a partisan issue, the Republican Party
is going to be on the side of the American taxpayer for simplicity and
clarity, and let the President defend his 111,000 IRS employees.
Mr. NEUMANN. Would the gentleman hold that chart up. I had not seen
that before and I would very much appreciate seeing it. The White House
is now championing the IRS.
Mr. KINGSTON. This is not Republican propaganda. This is an actual
newspaper headline. The Washington Times, a well-respected newspaper.
The headline of it, Tuesday, September 30, 1997, ``White House
Champions The IRS. President opposes citizen oversight.''
I will read the gentleman the first paragraph. ``The White House
yesterday came to the defense of the embattled IRS, vowing to
vigorously oppose congressional efforts to create a citizen oversight
board to protect Americans from agency abuses.''
Mr. NEUMANN. There are a few things, I guess, that we really do think
an awful lot different between the President and ourselves. He did sign
the budget deal, and he did sign the bills that lowered our taxes and
that stuff but, my goodness gracious, there is a huge difference of
opinion in supporting the IRS or thinking we should come up with a new
Tax Code, something simpler, something easier, fairer for our people,
something they could actually fill out themselves instead of going to
an accountant every year.
I see the gentleman from Minnesota has joined us.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I saw the
gentleman here on the floor and he was talking earlier about the
budget. I do not know if the gentleman had a chance to talk a little
bit about it. The gentleman from Wisconsin and myself both serve on the
Committee on the Budget, and I know the gentleman from Georgia has been
interested in the budget, but I think sometimes we need to remind
people how well we are actually doing.
I do not know if the gentleman shared this number with the folks who
may be watching us in their offices, but when we passed our original 7-
year balanced budget plan, we said that in fiscal year 1996 we would
spend $1586 billion. Does anybody know how much we actually spent in
fiscal year 1996? The answer is $1560 billion.
Mr. NEUMANN. Say that again real slow so we get that.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. We said we were going to spend $1586 billion, but this
Congress actually spent $1560 billion.
Mr. NEUMANN. So we spent less money than what we said we were going
to spend. Washington actually spent less money than what we originally
said we were going to.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. The Republican Congress spent $26 billion less than we
said we were going to spend.
But that is just part of the good news. That at a time when revenues
actually increased by $20 billion more than we expected. Now, that is
good news. I guess the problem with the media seldom does good news
make the news.
But if I can share what happened in 1997, because the news gets even
better, and I think a lot of people have said, well, there really is
not much difference, but let me give one other quick number. In fiscal
year 1997, going back to our original 7-year balanced budget plan, we
said we were going to spend in fiscal year 1997, $1624 billion. We
actually spent, and, in fact, it may actually, when the final books are
closed October 1st, and we do not have the final numbers yet, but the
preliminary numbers of the Congressional Budget Office said we would
spend $1612 billion.
Mr. NEUMANN. If the gentleman will yield, it is down to 1602. The
most current numbers, we just got them yesterday, as a matter of fact.
I apologize for
[[Page H8707]]
not getting them out yet. It is down to 1602. So we are now $22 billion
under. This is less Washington spending than what we promised.
When I tell folks this, they absolutely do not believe it until I
actually show it to them. It is there in the budget. I challenge any of
our colleagues to go back to the budget resolution, check out what we
promised we were going to spend not more than and find out that when he
actually spent less than what was in the original plan.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. So if the gentleman's numbers are correct, in fiscal
year 1997, we took in over $110 billion more than we expected and we
spent over $22 billion less.
Now, here is the question. Here is the question for anybody who
happens to be listening to this, for any Member of Congress. Does
anybody really believe that Congress would have actually hit its
spending targets, in fact gone below its spending target, at a time
when revenue increased by more than $100 billion? Does anybody really
believe we would have spent less if the other party still controlled
Congress?
Mr. NEUMANN. The first night when I found these numbers, I called my
wife and said, ``You are not even going to believe this. I found out
that, when we go back to our 1995 promises, we had over $100 billion
more revenue coming in and we actually spent less money.'' She said to
me, ``Someone is giving you bad numbers.'' So my wife would not even
believe it at first.
I have gone through these numbers time and time again. I challenge
each and every one of my colleagues to take the time, sit down and look
at these numbers, and really understand just how far we have come as a
Nation when we could have over $100 billion extra revenue come in and
spend less money. Because what this really means is that we borrowed
less money on our children and our grandchildren's backs, and that is
what this is about.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield. Regardless of the deficit
reduction and potentially balancing the budget next year, we still
spend about $300 billion a year on interest on the $5.4 trillion
national debt. Now, that is the second or third largest single item on
the entire budget every year.
That is money that could be in the pockets of the American families,
the moms and dads out there for their children, or it is money that
could go to other projects, education, health care and so forth. But we
only begin the job when we balance the budget. And the fear that I have
is that because the revenue is so much higher than projected, what is
going to happen is we will have a lot of liberals coming out there with
new spending programs.
We are already hearing it on let us go out and build a new Federal
school program. And I am scared to death we will go back down the
donnybrook we were in in 1993 and 1994.
Mr. NEUMANN. That is exactly why it is so important that folks
understand that even after we get to a balanced budget we still have a
$5.3 trillion debt that an average family of five sends $580 a month
just to pay the interest on the debt.
That is what we are doing today. And even after we have a balanced
budget, that debt goes on. And that is why it is important that we have
introduced legislation to deal with that.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I know that this chart is too small for people to see,
but if people want to contact my office, I will certainly be happy to
send them a copy, but it says that for the last 20 years, the 20 years
from 1975 until 1995, on average, for every dollar that Congress took
in it spent $1.21. For fiscal year 1997 that number will be less than
$1.02.
So when people say we are not making a difference, we are actually
spending less than our original spending targets at a time when
revenues are exceeding our wildest expectations. And I think the real
good news, and the gentleman from Georgia is correct, balancing the
budget is not just an accounting exercise. Sometimes we have to even
remind people on the Committee on the Budget. It really is about what
kind of a future are we going to leave to our kids. It is about
generational fairness.
For a long time those of us out in the Midwest, and I do not know if
the gentleman has the same kind of feeling, I suspect he does in rural
parts of Georgia, but the American dream, to a large degree, was to pay
off the mortgage and leave the kids the farm. What Congress had been
doing for so many years is we had literally been selling off the farm
in small pieces and leaving our kids the mortgage. We all know that is
morally wrong. And we were going to consign them to a lower standard of
living.
So balancing the budget is good. I believe we will do it next year.
And that is just a start. We have a long ways to go. But it is really
about leaving our kids a better future.
Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman hit the nail
right on the head. What a lot of families do is pay off their mortgage
and hope to leave their children and grandchildren something other than
a mortgage to be paying off.
We have introduced legislation, I know that both gentlemen are
cosponsors, so we are doing this together, that would literally put the
United States of America on a mortgage repayment plan of that $5.3
trillion debt. Would it not be nice to think that we could actually pay
down that debt, much the same as a homeowner pays off their home
mortgage?
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say something else, if the gentleman will
yield, that ties into this. This week, for the first time in history,
the United States President used the line item veto and zapped out
about, I think something like 160 different projects for nearly $200
million in savings.
Now, those included Republican projects. Those included Democrat
projects. Those included some from just about every State in the
country. But that is what we had in mind with the line item veto. And I
think it is good that if I put a project in the budget that it gets
that extra scrutiny. I like the idea that it has to get through a House
committee, then through the full House, then a Senate committee, then
the full Senate, and now it is to the President of the United States.
Because the more scrutiny we put our spending under, the better fiscal
House we will have.
And with that in mind, if we think about what we could potentially do
with this line item veto to get to that last $23 billion, I urge the
President to keep using it and make sure that we, as Republicans, are
responsible, and that our Democrat colleagues are responsible for what
we put in the budget.
{time} 1930
Mr. NEUMANN. I have to tell my colleagues about my dream when we talk
about this, because this is my dream for my own personal future. My
wife dreams about going to Hawaii, and I think that is a wonderful
dream, too.
But my dream is, I wake up some morning and I get a phone call, and
the phone is sitting right by my bed, and it is the President of the
United States. And I do not care if it is a Democrat President or
Republican President. But he says, ``Mark, we are going to balance the
budget. I am giving you the veto pen. So get over here, line-item
enough junk out of this budget that is wasteful Washington spending,
get the budget balanced, here is the pen.'' That is my dream in life,
is that some morning I wake up and the President says, ``Mark, you've
got the line-item veto. Get over here and do it.''
I cannot agree with my colleague more. I was one of the original
cosponsors on line-item veto. And I would hope that the President does
use it more, not less.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I do want to say one thing
to keep in mind. The line-item veto only applies for deficit reduction.
So if, in fact, the deficit is zeroed out next year and the budget is
balanced, which we all hope that it is, we will effectively not have a
line-item veto.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] has sponsored legislation
which I have cosponsored, and my colleagues probably should look at it
if they have not, that says, even if there is no deficit, the President
would still have a line-item veto for the purpose of continuing to
ferret out wasteful spending.
Mr. NEUMANN. I think that it is important that he keep in mind that
even when we have no deficit, a ``Washington balanced budget,'' that we
are still using that money out of the Social Security Trust Fund. And
we need to address that problem.
What we have introduced is the National Debt Repayment Act. What
happens in the National Debt Repayment
[[Page H8708]]
Act is, after we get to a balanced budget, we cap the growth of
Washington spending at a rate at least 1 percent lower than the rate of
revenue growth.
I brought a picture to show what happens. The red line shows spending
going up, and too fast probably for the three of us, but spending going
up, but at a slower rate than the revenue line.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield, I think his assumptions
are that we would still increase Federal spending at faster than the
inflation rate.
Mr. NEUMANN. This is correct.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. So we are not talking about draconian cuts in any
Federal spending.
Mr. NEUMANN. Absolutely not. And I think my colleague and I would
probably not do that. We would not want it to increase faster than the
rate of inflation for sure. But even if it goes up faster, it has got
to go up slower than the rate of revenue growth.
By doing so, we create this middle area here. That is the surplus. We
take one-third of the surplus and supply additional tax cuts. And Alan
Greenspan today said, as we are going through this process, the
interest rates will come down, and that will promote a stronger
economy. And he suggested if we are going to do tax cuts, that we make
them across the board, reduce the marginal rate kind of thing. And I
think he is right there.
The other two-thirds of this surplus, we start making mortgage
payments on the Federal debt. When we pay off the Federal debt, the
money that has been taken out of the Social Security Trust Fund would
be returned, because that Social Security Trust Fund money is all part
of the Federal debt.
So under this plan, three things happen. First, the senior citizens
who are worried about their Social Security can rest assured that
Social Security would be restored. As we are paying off the debt, the
money taken out of Social Security would be put back. Second, the
people in the work force today would be entitled to additional tax cuts
each and every year as far as the eye can see. And third, and I would
say, to me, most important of all, we can look forward to paying off
the mortgage, as my colleague suggested earlier, and passing this great
Nation of ours on to our children debt free instead of giving them a
legacy of a $5.3 trillion debt.
That is what this bill is about. I think it is the right thing. I
know my colleagues are both cosponsors on it. We are working very hard
to get it to the floor of the House. I am optimistic that between the
senior citizens who want their Social Security restored and care an
awful lot about the future of this country, the people in the work
force who would prefer to pay less taxes and not more taxes, and, most
important, all of us who care about the future and what kind of a
country we give our kids, that we would bring this to the floor and
pass the bill.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I have
explained this program at town hall meetings in speeches around my
State district. And almost everywhere, in fact everywhere, we get
almost unanimous support for this plan. It is common sense. I think it
is what the American people want.
As I said earlier, it really is the American dream: Pay off the
mortgage, leave your kids the farm. That is what we want to do for the
next generation of Americans.
Mr. KINGSTON. One thing I would like to see discussion on, instead of
just straight more tax relief, perhaps move towards tax simplification,
with the intent of accelerating the debt pay-down, because if we can do
it this way in the year 2026, if we just change taxes to make it
simple, I believe many, many people in America, given the choice of
reducing their tax rate 5 percent versus going to a flat tax or a
consumption tax, they would probably say, give me this tax
simplification, because the extra money I am having to pay my
accountant and lawyer to file my taxes is a tax anyhow. So just give me
tax simplification.
I am very proud that the Republican party has taken the initiative on
that. I am proud that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] are going to be going around the
country having debates on consumption versus flat taxes.
I have not fully decided which route we should go in terms of the
folks back home, but I welcome the dialogue in the debate.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I want to
make it real clear, they are not mutually exclusive. We can balance the
budget, we can actually pay off the debt, and we can simplify the Tax
Code all at once. All it requires is the kind of discipline we have
demonstrated for the last 3 years.
I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] is putting up a
chart now. We have to continually reduce the rate of growth in Federal
spending. We have literally cut it almost in half in terms of the real
rate of growth, inflation-adjusted dollars, almost any way we want to
measure it.
And as the numbers I indicated before, in fiscal year 1997, Congress
took in over $110 billion more than we expected but we spent $20
billion less. It is that kind of discipline that will allow us to
balance the budget, pay off the national debt, and simplify the Tax
Code so that the average American can understand it.
Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, concluding tonight, isn't it
exciting to be here having this conversation? How different it is
currently than it was in 1993 when they were debating which taxes we
had to raise and how high we had to raise them because, after all, we
could not reel in Washington spending.
That was 1993, broken promises of a balanced budget and higher taxes.
But in our first 3 years here, we have literally slowed the growth of
Washington spending. We did not reach into the pockets of the American
people and take out more taxes to balance the budget. We slowed the
growth rate of Washington spending.
By slowing the growth rate of Washington spending, we are now in a
position where we are not only going to balance the budget 3 or 4 years
ahead of our promised schedule, but we are also lowering taxes on
families and workers all across America. Senior citizens, middle-age
folks, union members, all Americans are going to benefit from the tax
cut packages. Isn't it exciting to be here having this conversation?
What a changed America.
Again, I think we should point out the discussions that are starting
at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue again. When they are talking
about tax increases, it is almost like they forgot 1993. We are not
going to let that happen. We have got a different vision for the
future.
What is next? Next is, we abolish the IRS Code 3 or 4 years from now
so we have time to replace it with something that is simpler, fairer,
easier for our people to understand. We are going to put the Nation on
a mortgage repayment plan so that we pay off the Federal debt by the
year 2026, or sooner, so we can give this Nation to our children debt-
free. As we are paying off the debt, we restore the Social Security
Trust Fund. And, of course, we are going to continue to lower taxes on
the working folks in America.
People say we cannot do all those things. Three years ago they said
we could not do all these things either. If we just realized that
people in America can do a better job spending their own money than the
people out here in Washington can do spending it for them, that is what
this is all about. Slow the growth of Washington spending programs.
Keep the absolutely necessary programs, but slow the growth of
Washington spending so people can keep more of their own money. We can
do the right thing, start making payments on the debt, restore the
Social Security Trust Fund, and come up with a new, simpler Tax Code.
It is exciting to think about what possibilities lay in front of us,
how far we have come, and how far we still can go to make this a better
Nation for our children and grandchildren.
Mr. KINGSTON. Dwight Eisenhower said that, ``Once the American people
have made up their mind to do something, there is little that can be
done to stop them.'' I agree with that. I think the American people
have made up their mind. Congress has to keep their own feet to the
fire.
____________________