[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9792-H9798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE DEBT, THE DEFICIT, AND SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCollum). 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.


          Condolences to Family of Late Honorable Walter Capps

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also begin this night by 
expressing my condolences to the family of our colleague, Mr. Capps. I 
cannot count how many times my wife has said to me that she hopes that 
our 24 years of marriage will allow other folks around us to see that 
it is all right to find the right person in your life and to spend your 
entire life together. We also have 3 kids, and I am sure listening this 
evening, that Mr. Capps certainly provided a role model for many, many, 
many people not only in California but all across America. Married to 
the same woman for 37 years is something that many people should look 
to in this Nation for a role model. Again I cannot count how many times 
my wife Sue has said, ``Let's hope people see that it is all right to 
be married to the same person,'' that that is the way things should be. 
Again, my condolences to their family and to the kids that are involved 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, this evening I had reserved the hour primarily to talk 
about some budget matters. I guess last week we had a situation develop 
in our district where we were in dire need of some help from some 
folks. I gave my parents a call. My mom and dad said, well, we are 
going to be there instantaneously. They said they were going to drop 
everything they were doing.
  So to start tonight rather than start on the budget stuff, I thought 
I would talk about a matter that is of the utmost importance not only 
to my parents but to other seniors like them all across America. It is 
an issue that has almost been put on the back burner out here in 
Washington and many different fronts, and that is Social Security. I 
thought I would start tonight by talking a little bit about what is 
happening in Social Security and then go to a solution as what we need 
to do about it, first, what is happening in Social Security.
  I know many senior citizens rely on Social Security all across this 
great Nation of ours. The Social Security system in 1983 was set up so 
that it started collecting more money than what it pays out to seniors 
in benefits. The idea with Social Security was they would collect this 
extra money, put it aside in a savings account and then when the baby 
boom generation hit retirement, they would go to the savings account, 
get the money they need and still make good on the payments to our 
senior citizens. So it is kind of like you do in your own house where 
when you have got extra money coming in you put it in a savings 
account. Then when you overdraw your checkbook you go

[[Page H9793]]

to the savings account, get the money out and make good on it. That is 
how the Social Security system is set up.
  In fact, in 1996 the Social Security system collected $418 billion in 
taxes. That is, they went into the paychecks of working families all 
across America and they collected, they brought out here to Washington 
$418 billion. They only sent out checks to our senior citizens of $353 
billion. Again, this is a program that basically is working. They 
collected $418 billion, they sent out $353 billion in checks to our 
senior citizens, and that left $65 billion that was supposed to be set 
aside into the savings account. This program if it was run properly, if 
this is what would be happening and it would be run right, is working 
just fine. The problem, and it should serve as no great surprise, that 
out here in Washington when they got that extra $65 billion, here is 
what they did. We get the money out here in Washington, we put it in 
the big government checkbook, in the general fund out here in 
Washington. They have been overdrawing the general fund, that is the 
deficit, they have overdrawn the checkbook out here where this money 
has been put every year since 1969. So what they do is they get this 
$65 billion, put it in the general fund, then they overdraw the general 
fund or the checkbook so there is no money left to put into that 
savings account for Social Security. So what they do instead is simply 
put an IOU down here in the Social Security trust fund. What has 
happened out here is they have collected this extra money like the 
system is supposed to work, they have paid out the benefits to seniors, 
paid out less than they collected, but instead of putting the money 
into the Social Security trust fund the way it is supposed to be done, 
they have put it in the general fund instead, they spend all the money 
out of the general fund, then at the end of the year they simply make 
an IOU entry into the Social Security trust fund.
  We have developed legislation in our office, and to many of my 
colleagues this will not seem like it took Einstein to figure this out, 
it really did not, it is the same thing that every business across 
America does with any kind of a pension fund that is similar to Social 
Security. Here is what our legislation does. It simply says that this 
$65 billion that is collected in Social Security over and above what is 
paid out to our senior citizens in benefits be put directly into the 
Social Security trust fund. It is a very, very simple concept and it is 
what I used to do back when we had a business in the business world 
before I ran for office.
  Again, what our legislation would do, and it is called the Social 
Security Preservation Act, is simply take the extra money that is 
coming in for Social Security and actually put it aside in the Social 
Security trust fund. Let me be a little more specific. What we would do 
with this extra $65 billion is we would buy negotiable T bills like any 
senior citizen in America can go to any bank and buy right now today. 
So instead of having IOUs down here in the trust fund we would then 
accumulate these negotiable treasury bonds, a T bill, much like anybody 
in this Nation can go to the bank and buy. The idea in doing this would 
be to accumulate this kitty of money the way it was set up, the way 
this system was set up and designed to work. If we were to accumulate 
that kitty of money, Social Security would be safe all the way to the 
year 2029. By not accumulating that kitty of money, there is a 
shortfall in Social Security not later than the year 2012. Let me say 
that once more. If this money were collected and put down here in the 
trust fund the way it is supposed to be, instead of put into the big 
government checkbook, if it went straight to the trust fund, Social 
Security as we know it today would be solvent all the way to 2029. 
Under the current system where the money is put into the general fund 
instead of into the trust fund, and all the money is then spent out of 
that general fund and IOUs are put in the trust fund, that is the 
current system, Social Security is in serious trouble not later than 
the year 2012. We can see the urgency of this sort of activity.
  Again, this bill is called the Social Security Preservation Act. It 
seems very fitting tonight that we would mention that when we have 
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle supporting the Social Security 
Preservation Act.
  I would like to point out also how this impacts the budget process 
out here in Washington, because it is very important to understand. We 
are on the verge of having our first balanced budget since 1969. Every 
year since 1969, the people that have been out here in Washington have 
spent more money than what they had in their checkbook. That is, they 
overdrew the checkbook. When they overdrew the checkbook they went to 
borrow the money to make good on checks and they have been borrowing 
money every single year since 1969. Here is how the Social Security 
system relates to this budgeting process. In Washington, since this 
extra $65 billion is in their checkbook, they call their checkbook 
balanced even though they are using the Social Security money as 
opposed to putting it away where it belongs.
  Let me show that in picture form. When Washington talks about a 
deficit, and they were talking about a fiscal year 1996 deficit of $107 
billion, what they do not tell you is that in addition to that, there 
is $65 billion that has been taken out of the Social Security trust 
fund, so the real deficit for 1996 was $172 billion, not $107 billion 
that was reported to the American people.
  What does all that mean? Balancing the budget for the first time 
means getting rid of this blue area by Washington definition. When we 
say in Washington we are going to balance the budget by 2002, we mean 
the blue area is going to be gone. But in that year 2002 to get to a 
balanced budget, they are still taking, in that year it would be $104 
billion out of the Social Security trust fund. It is very important for 
people across America to understand that when Washington says they are 
going to get to a balanced budget, they will still be using the money 
out of the Social Security trust fund in their big general fund 
checkbook to make that checkbook look balanced. So even after we get to 
a balanced budget, we have a long ways to go to actually restore the 
Social Security trust fund.
  I am happy to say we have legislation currently pending that we have 
written in my office that will put this money that has been taken out 
of Social Security back into the Social Security trust fund. We have 
written the Social Security Preservation Act that will start putting 
the money away immediately. In addition to that, we have written what 
is called the National Debt Repayment Act. The National Debt Repayment 
Act looks ahead, sees that when we are going to have surpluses, takes 
the surpluses, one-third for tax cuts, two-thirds for debt repayment, 
and as we are repaying that debt the money that has been taken out of 
the Social Security trust fund would get put back in the Social 
Security trust fund and Social Security would once again be solvent for 
our senior citizens.
  I want to turn from there and address the bigger problem and look at 
just how far we have come in the last 2 years. I think it is very 
important as we talk about this to understand where we were in 1995 
when for the first time in a long, long time, 40 years to be exact, 
Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate. What I have got with me here is a chart that shows the growing 
debt facing this great Nation of ours. It is important to see that from 
1960 to 1980, the debt grew very little. But from 1980 forward, this 
debt has grown right off the chart. As a matter of fact, in 1995 when 
we got here, it was my first year in office, the debt was all the way 
up here. It was a very, very serious problem and it was growing fast.
  Just to take this out of the partisan realm, I realize that when I 
point to 1980 as the year this thing started climbing rapidly and it is 
very clear in this picture that that is the year it started climbing 
very rapidly, I understand that all the Democrats say, ``Well, that's 
the year Ronald Reagan was elected to office, therefore, it's the 
Republicans' fault.'' And I understand all the Republicans say, ``Well, 
it's that Democrat Congress that could not control their spending 
habits and therefore it's the Democrats' fault.'' The facts are it does 
not matter whose fault it is, it is our responsibility as Americans to 
solve the problem. We are here in this chart and it is time that we as 
Americans accept our responsibility and do what is right for future 
generations in this great Nation

[[Page H9794]]

that we live in and solve the problem. I used to be a math teacher. I 
guess it is fitting tonight to have another former professor here on 
the floor. I used to teach some college classes as well as junior high 
and high school. We used to use these numbers in our class to talk 
about how large the debt really is. We used to talk about these in our 
math class and use it for a number of placement discussions. This is 
the amount that the United States government has borrowed on behalf of 
the American people. This is our debt today. It is $5.3 trillion. 
Again, this is what we used to do in our math class. We used to divide 
the debt by the number of people in the United States of America and in 
fact we would find that the United States government has borrowed 
$20,000 on behalf of every man, woman and child in the United States of 
America. Let me say that once more because it is a pretty staggering 
number. The United States government on behalf of the American people 
has borrowed $20,000 on behalf of every man, woman and child in the 
United States of America. For a family of 5 like mine, that means they 
have borrowed $100,000. Let me say this a different way. That means 
they collected $100,000 less in taxes than what they spent out here in 
Washington basically over the last 20 years. For a family of 5 like 
mine, they borrowed $100,000. Here is the real kicker in this thing. A 
lot of people out in America go, ``So what? So what if the government 
has borrowed all this money?'' Well, there are a bunch of answers to 
the so-what, not the least of which this is our responsibility as a 
Nation to pay back, but the so-what is more immediate than that. A 
family of 5 like ours is sending an average of $580 a month to 
Washington to do nothing but pay the interest on the Federal debt. A 
lot of people out there say, ``Well, that's not us. We don't pay $580 a 
month in taxes.'' They forget that when they walk into the store and do 
something as simple as buy a loaf of bread, that the store owner makes 
a profit on that loaf of bread and part of that profit gets sent out 
here to Washington, D.C. An average family of 5 in the United States of 
America today is sending $580 every month to Washington to do 
absolutely nothing but pay the interest on the Federal debt. That is a 
very real problem. It is a problem that is taking money out of the 
pockets and the paychecks of workers all across America, and it is a 
problem that we as a Nation need to address.

                              {time}  2230

  This is where we were in 1995, and this is really the problem that we 
came into. I think it is important to understand how we got there. To 
point this out, I think it is important to think back to the late 
eighties and early nineties, what was going on, what sorts of promises 
were being made to the American people. Many folks remember the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings Acts. They did the first one in 1985, the second one in 
1987. Lots of folks remember the promises of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 
Acts. So I brought that with me tonight. This blue line shows what the 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act promised to do with the deficit.
  I think it is important to note by 1993, under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, 
they promised we would have our first balanced budget since 1969. The 
red line shows what happened. If I get upset when I talk about this, it 
is because this is what brought me out of the private sector and caused 
me to spend 4 days a week away from my family as opposed to home doing 
the things I normally do, living with my family in Janesville, 
Wisconsin.
  This red line shows what they did. They did not keep their promises. 
They promised we would balance the budget along this blue line, but the 
people here decided they could not control spending, and the red line 
is what they actually did.
  So we get out here to 1993, they see that they have broken their 
promises, and what do they do? They say, well, we can't control 
spending out here in Washington, so there is only one thing left to do, 
and that is raise taxes.
  In 1993, we got the biggest tax increase in American history. They 
raised the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents a gallon. The kicker with the 
gasoline tax increase, they didn't even spend it to build better roads. 
They spent it on Washington spending programs. So they got to 1993 and 
looked at this picture and said, well, this debt is really growing. We 
have to do something about it.
  The right answer, I am going into the pockets of the American people. 
We will collect more money out of their paychecks, get it out here to 
Washington, and surely, surely, that will lead us to a balanced budget. 
That was the 1993 solution.
  It was not only the gasoline tax. Senior citizens might recall that 
they increased Social Security taxes on the Social Security money they 
received. All sorts of tax increases were implemented as part of that 
1993 tax increase package.
  So this was the picture we were looking at in 1993. Promises of a 
balanced budget, that had clearly been broken, and the biggest tax 
increase in American history. The American people rose to the occasion 
and said enough of this. We are not going to tolerate this anymore. And 
they sent a new group of people to Washington.
  Well, we have been here for 3 years now. Came in with that group that 
came in 1994 and was sworn in in 1995. We have been here for 3 years. I 
think it is reasonable that the American people start asking what has 
that group done? Are they any different or just the same old thing 
doing the same old thing, breaking their promises like what was going 
on before 1995?
  The facts are, the American people should be evaluating this Congress 
and they should be asking the question have they done anything 
different?
  Well, I brought the chart with me to show what is going on. When we 
got here in 1995, we laid out a plan to balance the budget as well. 
This blue line shows the promises we made to the American people. In 
fact, the blue line shows we were going to get to a balanced budget in 
2020, and I have to tell you, when I went home to my district, and I 
said we are going to balance the budget by the year 2020, they all 
went, yea, sure, because they were accustomed to this and the broken 
promises.
  But the facts are we are now in the third year of our plan to balance 
the Federal budget. We are not only on track, but ahead of schedule. We 
are so far ahead of schedule, in fact, that we will have our first 
balanced budget since 1969 probably in fiscal year 1998.
  If everything continues the way it has during our first two years in 
office for one more year, we will in fact have our first balanced 
budget since 1969. We didn't do this while raising taxes. We, in fact, 
did this coupled with the first tax cut in 16 years.
  I want to spend a little time on the tax cut in just a minute. But, 
before I do, I wanted to talk about why this picture is possible, 
because when you look at this picture and you understand what led to 
the change in 1993 that was broken promises and raising taxes, then you 
look at this picture, and you see we are on track balancing the budget 
probably 4 years ahead of schedule, and at the same time reducing 
taxes, a lot of my constituents go, Mark, the economy is so good, you 
guys are out there trying to look good in the face of the great economy 
we are in. That is nice, but not entirely true.
  The economy is doing really, really well, but the reason this picture 
works is not just cause the economy is doing well. We have had good 
economies between 1969 and today. Every time in the past when the 
economy got good in the past, Washington saw extra money coming in, and 
this will not be hard to convince the people of, because it is so 
obvious. When the economy was good in the past and extra money came 
into Washington, Washington simply created a new Washington spending 
program and spent the money.
  It is important to understand that being in the third year of a 
seven-year plan to balance the budget, getting to balance four years 
ahead of schedule and lowering taxes the at the same time, partly it is 
the economy.
  But there is more to it than that. The growth of Washington spending 
before we got here was 5.2 percent annually. This is how fast spending 
was growing before we got here in 1995. This is how fast spending is 
growing now.
  This is a very different picture. In the face of a very strong 
economy, with more revenue than expected coming into Washington, this 
Congress said we are going to slow the growth rate of Washington 
spending. We didn't go out and come up with a whole bunch of new

[[Page H9795]]

Washington spending programs. Just the opposite. We are squeezing the 
growth rate of Washington spending at the same time there is extra 
revenue coming in. In fact, let me give you a couple very little known 
facts.
  In 1996, our first fiscal year, we actually spent $28 billion less 
than was promised. In our second fiscal year, we spent $25 billion less 
than was promised. I challenge each one of my colleagues to go and get 
the budget resolution that we passed back in 1995. Do not take my word 
for it, go and get it. Then see what was promised and see how we 
actually spent less.
  Again, when I am out with my constituents and I tell them this, I 
swear half of them get it and check it out, because they can't believe 
it actually happened. Washington said what they were going to spend and 
actually spent less money than they said they were going to spend. At 
the same time we were spending less money than we said we were going to 
spend, $100 billion plus of extra revenue came in. That is why we have 
the picture where we are able to both balance the budget ahead of 
schedule and reduce taxes at the same time.

  This picture is absolutely essential in understanding that it is not 
only the good economy, and the good economy is certainly part of it, it 
is also Washington slowing the growth rate at the same time that extra 
revenue is coming in. In fact, in real dollars, we have slowed the 
growth rate of Washington spending from 1.8 percent to 0.6 percent. The 
growth rate has been slowed by two-thirds in two short years.
  This is a monumental accomplishment, especially in the face of all 
the extra revenue that came in here that was unexpected.
  Now, I am going to go to the next item. With this picture still here, 
I am going to go to the next thing, that most of our constituents do 
not understand when I am talking with them out there. It is like you 
are going to cut taxes, Mark? Is that another political promise? Is 
that where we are at?
  No, that is not where we are at. The taxes have been cut. The bill is 
signed. For the first time in 16 years, people should start keeping 
more of their money rather than sending more of their money to 
Washington, D.C.
  Let me be specific. First off, this tax cut package is heavily 
weighted towards education, as it should be. Education is extremely 
important for the future of this nation. It is heavily weighted towards 
families. Let me start with the families.
  In January of next year, the families with children under the age of 
17, keep $400 per child more in their own home, rather than sending it 
out here to Washington. Translation: If you have a child under the age 
of 17 in your home, you should go to your place of employment and start 
keeping $33 a month more in your take-home pay instead of sending it to 
Washington, D.C. $33 a month, well, that is $400, divided up over the 
12 months. You can start keeping the extra money in January of next 
year.
  There are 550,000 families in Wisconsin alone eligible for this $400 
per child tax cut. But I have a fear. I have a fear that people will 
not believe the tax cut package is real and they will send all that 
money out to Washington instead of keeping it in their home.
  They will not make the effort in January to go in and actually keep 
the extra $33 in their own paycheck, instead of sending it out here. I 
am very much afraid of what is going to happen if Washington gets their 
hands on the money. So I would strongly encourage all of our 
constituents to go in and change their withholding, so they keep that 
extra money in their own home.
  Education. We would hope a lot of families, and I know I was talking 
with a family at church with three kids. I know the first thing they 
said to me is Mark, when I get that $400, I know exactly what I am 
doing. I am putting it into a savings account to save for my kids' 
education.
  Good news. We have established something called an education savings 
account that works much like an IRA. You can put up to $500 per year 
per child into an education savings account to save up for the kids as 
they are growing up for when they reach college age.
  Now, I a lot of times call this the grandparents account. There are a 
lot of grandparents that talk to me and say we wish we could do 
something for our grandkids. Well, the account is set up so that the 
grandparents could literally put up to $500 per grandchild away to save 
up for the kids' education when they reach the age of 18. What better 
gift from a grandparent to a grandson or a granddaughter?
  So the education savings accounts I think are very, very important. 
But we did not stop there. We understand that for many working families 
out there, when the first or second or third child goes off to college, 
paying those college tuition bills are very, very difficult and a huge 
burden on our families.
  So the tax cut package also contains a college tuition credit of up 
to $1,500 per college student. In the vast majority of the cases, if 
you have a freshman or a sophomore in college, next year you will send 
$1,500 less to Washington. You will keep it in your own home and use to 
help pay for the kid's college education.
  For a freshman or sophomore, you get the first $1,000, plus half of 
the second $1,000, or $1,500 total. For juniors and seniors, it is 20 
percent of the first $5,000, up to $1,000 total.
  It is interesting, with this $1,000 college tuition credit, I was out 
at a meeting, I believe in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and somebody came up to 
me and she said well, we are married, we are both working, and I am 
going back to school. Does the college tuition that I pay, this is now 
a young couple, does the college tuition that I pay qualify for a 20 
percent reduction in my taxes? Do I get my 20 percent back?
  The answer to that question is yes. The answer to that question is if 
you are a young married couple and one or both of the spouses has 
returned to college or tech school for purposes of bettering themselves 
and making themselves also qualified so they can get a job promotion 
and provide a better life for themselves and their family, if that is 
going on, does that college tuition cost qualify for the 20 percent tax 
credit?
  The answer is definitively, yes it does. I want to make it very clear 
here, we are not talking about a tax deduction. We are talking about a 
tax credit. You fill out your taxes, you figure out how much you would 
have paid in taxes, and you subtract this number off the bottom line.
  This is not a deduction, this is a tax credit. Figure out how much 
tax also you owe, subtract $400 per child.
  Let me put this another way. For a family of five, whether they be in 
Janesville, Wisconsin, or wherever in this great Nation of ours, you 
have two kids at home and one off at college, that family will be pay 
$2,300 less in taxes next year.
  This is real money. This is not a political promise. This is a bill 
that has been signed into law. The tax cut package is passed. A family 
of five, three kids, one is a freshman in college and two still at 
home, will literally pay $2,300 less in taxes next year.
  Translation: Instead of sending $2,300 to Washington out of their 
paycheck, you keep the $2,300 in your own home. I would like to have 
anyone stand up and explain to me why it is they think that Washington 
can spend that $2,300 better than that family of five out there in 
America, because that is what this is really all about. There are very 
few people that voted against the tax cut package on either side of the 
aisle, I might add.
  I had a call this morning, or yesterday, actually, and I was reading 
it this morning, from one of our constituents, that talked about how 
there is help all the way through government except for those hard-
working families struggling to make ends meet.
  Well, I would point out that the $400 per child, the college tuition 
tax credit, the education savings account, those are all aimed 
specifically at those folks.
  Let us try one more thing though for the young couples or for the 
young singles that are working, because I hear a lot about this, that 
there is nothing in this for a young couple or a single who is working.
  There are actually several things that impact that group very 
specifically. There is what is called the Roth IRA. You see, we find 
many of our young couples or singles that are saving for either future 
education or to buy their first home. In the Roth IRA, it works much 
like an IRA, you can put up to $2,000 per year per person into the

[[Page H9796]]

Roth IRA. If you do not take the money out between then and retirement, 
the money accumulates, the interest and dividends, whatever you have 
put it into, accumulates tax-free all the way to retirement, and, at 
retirement, you take the money out absolutely tax free.
  However, for those young couples or for those young singles in the 
work force, if you decide that you would like to buy a home, you can 
take out up to $10,000 out of this account specifically for the purpose 
of buying your first home. If you decide you want to go back to college 
and further your education or tech school and further your education so 
that you can qualify for a job promotion, a better life for yourself 
and your family, you can literally go into the Roth IRA, take the money 
out and use it.

                              {time}  2245

  So you put the money away into a savings account, the money 
accumulates tax-free, and then you can take it back out for a first-
time home purchase, for education, or if you do not take it out at 
retirement, you can take it out then absolutely tax-free.
  This is also a very important feature for many of the empty-nesters, 
the folks whose kids are grown and gone. Typically they are in a 401(k) 
at their place of employment already, and they are looking at this tax 
cut package going, saying, what is there available for me?
  The Roth IRA is the real answer. Even if you are in a 401(k), and 
this is very new as it relates to IRA's, even if you are in a 401(k) 
already you still qualify for the Roth IRA. You can start saving 
additional money for your own retirement. Remember, whatever 
accumulates in this Roth IRA, when you reach retirement, you take it 
out absolutely tax-free.
  A couple of other things in this tax-cut package that I think are 
worth mentioning, always keeping this picture in mind and understanding 
that the reason we are able to cut taxes is because we have slowed the 
growth rate of Washington spending at the same time the economy is very 
strong. It is this picture that has put us in this position where we 
can have this great discussion about the fact that the budget is 
balanced for the first time since 1969 and we are lowering taxes.
  For folks that own their own home and have lived in that home for 2 
years or more, and this affects many, many senior citizens, you may now 
sell that home and not owe any Federal taxes, in the vast majority of 
the cases. Let me say that once more. For your personal residence, if 
you have lived there 2 years or longer, in the vast majority of cases 
there will be absolutely no taxes due.
  This affects all sorts of folks in our society. If a person is in a 
place of employment and they have an opportunity to take a better job 
and provide a better life for themselves and their families, and they 
take this job transfer that requires them to sell their home, in the 
past they may have suffered a capital gains debt to the Federal 
Government when they sold their home. Now if they have lived in that 
home for 2 years, there are no taxes due.
  It also affects senior citizens in many, many, many cases. Many 
senior citizens took their one-time exclusion when they reached age 55. 
They then sold the bigger house that probably they raised their kids in 
and bought a smaller home, and they are still in that home. But since 
they have used their one-time exclusion, when they sell that home, that 
home has appreciated in value, and they would have owed taxes to the 
Federal Government on that appreciation.
  Not anymore. There is no more one-time exclusion at age 55. Even if 
you took the one-time exclusion, our senior citizens can now sell that 
home that they moved into after the age of 55 at the appreciated value, 
and pay no money to the Federal Government in taxes. This is a major, 
major change.
  Capital gains. We are finding today that more and more people are 
starting to save for themselves and their own retirement. The capital 
gains tax rate in most cases has been reduced from 28 to 20 percent. 
For the folks in the lower income bracket who have saved for their 
retirement, to take money out that has been in a capital gains 
situation, it has been lowered from 15 percent to 10 percent.
  So if you are in a $41,000-a-year income bracket and you take money 
out, that is treated as capital gains. The rate dropped from 15 to 10. 
If you are over the $41,000, the rate dropped from 28 to 20. The good 
news is it is going down to 18.
  I would be remiss not mentioning the changes for farmers and small 
business owners passing those businesses to the next generation. I 
cannot tell Members how many folks have talked to me in my district 
about the fact that when they want to pass a farm on from one 
generation to the next, but the tax burden is so great that they cannot 
possibly do it.
  Under the Tax Code, that has been changed, and 90 percent of all 
farms may be passed from one generation to the next without paying 
Federal tax on it. This tax break also applies to many of our small 
businesses.
  I have kind of stopped in the middle of this bigger discussion of 
what was going on back in 1993 and before: broken promises and not 
getting to a balanced budget, the tax increases of 1993, and how things 
have changed.
  In fact, we have slowed the growth of Washington spending in the face 
of a very strong economy, and that, in fact, has actually led us to 
both a balanced budget 4 years ahead of schedule and the opportunity to 
have these tax cuts that I just talked about. This is a wonderful, 
wonderful situation to be in in terms of a change that has occurred out 
here in Washington in 3 short years.
  The next thing I get from my constituents back home is, typically, 
``Well, Mark, it is not your doing. If you had done nothing, this all 
would have happened, anyhow.'' So I brought another chart with me to 
show exactly what would have happened if in fact when we got here in 
1995 we played golf and tennis or basketball and did not do our job.
  This red deficit line shows in my first year, this is where the 
deficit was going when I got here. This red line shows what would have 
happened had we not done our job. The yellow line shows where we were 
at the end of 1 year. So after a year of struggle we had brought this 
red line down to the location of the yellow line.
  But we had a dream. We had a dream that we could actually balance the 
budget and lower taxes at the same time, restore Medicare for our 
senior citizens. That was our dream. This green line shows that dream. 
That green line shows how we were going to get to our balanced budget 
by 2002. The blue line shows what is actually happening.
  Again, we can see what would have happened had we done nothing. What 
would have happened had we quit at the end of 12 months, what we hoped 
to do, that is the green line, and what is actually happening. Again, 
we are in the third year of this plan to balance the budget in 7 years. 
We are so far ahead of schedule that it would now appear that in the 
fiscal year 1998, we will reach our first balanced budget in more than 
a generation. I was a sophomore in high school the last time the 
Federal budget was balanced. So this is good news.
  I think it is important that we understand that we are winning. We 
are winning the battle of getting to a balanced budget, but I do not 
think we should forget the earlier conversation about social security. 
I began the hour this evening by talking about social security, and how 
the money that is supposed to be in that social security trust fund, 
that extra money that has been collected that was supposed to be set 
aside, has been spent on all sorts of different Washington programs, 
and how even after we get to a balanced budget, they are still using 
that social security money.
  I would like to now present the long-term solution to getting that 
money that has been spent back into the social security trust fund, and 
the bigger picture here is to not only get the money back in the social 
security trust fund, but to pay off that $5.3 trillion debt that has 
been run up so that our children can, in fact, leave this Nation 
absolutely debt-free. That is my dream for the future of the country. 
My dream for the future of the country and for the next 10, 15, 20 
years of our generation's time here serving our Nation, my dream is 
that we will actually pay down the Federal debt, restore the social 
security trust fund, and continue

[[Page H9797]]

to lower taxes on our working families and our workers all across 
America.
  Here is the plan. Here is how it works. It is called the National 
Debt Repayment Act. Remember, it has three purposes: for workers, lower 
taxes; for senior citizens, restore the social security money; and most 
important of all, for our children, give them a Nation that is debt-
free. Let our legacy to the next generation be that we have actually 
paid off the Federal debt, much like you would pay off a home mortgage 
in the business I used to be in, where we used to build homes.
  Here is how it works. After we reach a balanced budget, we cap the 
growth of Washington spending at a rate at least 1 percent lower than 
the rate of revenue growth. After we reach balance, that is this point 
in the chart, we cap the growth of Washington spending, that is the red 
line, at a rate at least 1 percent slower than the rate of revenue 
growth. That is the blue line. That in fact creates a surplus. It is 
pretty easy to see in this chart. If spending is going up at a slower 
rate than revenue grows, it does in fact create this surplus.

  We use the surplus in two ways. One-third of that surplus is 
dedicated to additional tax cuts for the workers. I might add while we 
are on this one-third, there is a bill introduced here that I am a 
strong supporter of and a cosponsor of that would literally sunset the 
IRS Tax Code as we know it today.
  When I went through all of these tax cuts, a lot of my constituents 
back home will say, Mark, that is very complicated to understand all 
that. They are right. There are 20 volumes of Tax Code today. There are 
20,000 pages of Tax Code. I challenge anyone to fully understand what 
is in that Tax Code.
  So as we talk about these tax cuts, as we talk about using one-third 
of this surplus and dedicating that to additional tax reductions for 
workers all across America, as we have that discussion, I think it is 
important that we throw in the mix that we would like to sunset the IRS 
Tax Code as we know it today and replace it with a system that is 
simpler, fairer, and easier for people to understand.
  The bill currently would sunset the Tax Code as we know it today in 
the year 2001. I think that is a great idea. Why 2001 instead of 
tomorrow? I think we need to have a discussion and come up with a 
system that is in fact simpler, fairer, and easier to understand.
  When I am out in our town hall meetings, a lot of my constituents 
start nodding their head with the ``Yes, sure,'' thing again. But the 
reality is if we can actually balance the budget 3 or 4 years ahead of 
schedule, if we can lower taxes for the first time in 16 years, and 
make that tax cut very, very real, is it that hard to believe that we 
can also change the IRS system so it is simpler, fairer, and easier for 
folks to understand?
  Certainly redoing the IRS code is easier than getting to a balanced 
budget. Certainly redoing the IRS code is easier than getting the 
people in this community to start spending at a slower growth rate. It 
has got to be easier to redo the IRS.
  It is going to get done. I am very optimistic as we talk about using 
one-third of these for tax cuts, it will facilitate that move to an 
easier, simpler tax system, a fairer tax system. The other two-thirds 
of this surplus, remember, we cap the growth of Washington spending at 
least 1 percent below the rate of revenue growth, that creates a 
surplus. One-third is dedicated to tax cuts. Two-thirds is used to 
repay the Federal debt.
  This works much like paying off a home mortgage. I used to be a 
homebuilder. When folks would buy one of our homes, the last thing we 
would do is go to a bank, and they would sign a mortgage on their home, 
and they would then start making payments on their home on a very 
regular basis. Over a 30-year period of time, they would pay off the 
mortgage.
  That is exactly what we are suggesting that we do with the Federal 
debt. In fact, under this bill, if we enact it the way it is written, 
cap the growth of Washington spending at least 1 percent slower than 
the growth rate of revenue, we would in fact pay off the entire Federal 
debt by the year 2026.
  It is a 29-year period of time. Folks are very familiar with the 30-
year home mortgage. So it is like you set up on a repayment plan of the 
home mortgage, and whatever is left over gets returned the people in 
the form of tax cuts. That is what our bill does. Again, it is called 
the National Debt Repayment Act.
  I think it is real important for us to understand that as we are 
repaying that Federal debt, as we are paying off the $5.3 trillion, 
part of that $5.3 trillion is the social security trust fund. So as we 
go through this plan and we actually pay off the Federal debt, the 
money that has been taken out of social security and spent on all kinds 
of other Washington programs in fact gets repaid to the social security 
trust fund. In repaying the money to the social security trust fund, 
social security once again becomes solvent for our senior citizens all 
the way to the year 2029.
  This has another impact, and it is a very, very real impact. Remember 
the $580 a month that an average family of five is paying to do nothing 
but pay the interest on the Federal debt? As we go down this road and 
we start paying down the Federal debt, each time we make a payment on 
the Federal debt, that means there is less interest due the next year.
  So the idea here is that as we go through this and we start paying 
down the Federal debt, each year we should be able to cut taxes even 
further, because there will be less interest that needs to be collected 
from our working families.
  Think about this for a dream for the future of our country. Think 
about a dream where we actually pay off the Federal debt, we leave our 
children a legacy of a debt-free Nation, we restore social security for 
our senior citizens, and each and every year as we go forward we take 
one-third of this surplus and we lower the tax rate on our workers all 
across America.
  People talk about the problem in Medicare. When I came here in 1995 
Medicare was scheduled to be bankrupt in the year 2001. No one in 
America, I cannot believe anyone in this entire country, missed the 
Mediscare ads that were run during the last 2-year period of time, 
where all sorts of misinformation was put out about the Medicare 
system. But the one thing that was true was that if absolutely nothing 
was done, it would have been bankrupt in the year 2001.
  We have restored Medicare for at least a decade, but at least a 
decade is not good enough for Medicare. I would like to point out that 
as we go through this program and we pay down the debt, the money that 
is no longer needed for interest we can use for tax cuts, but certainly 
we would prevent the Medicare system from going bankrupt after that 
decade that it has currently been restored for.
  So we can now count the Medicare program without going into the 
pockets of the workers, taking more money and raising taxes again. This 
dream for the future of this country, it includes a restored social 
security for our senior citizens, it includes Medicare for our senior 
citizens, it includes a Nation where our children inherit this country 
absolutely debt-free. It includes a legacy of a debt-free Nation.
  For the workers out there, they are not forgotten. For the workers 
out there who have borne this huge tax burden, taxes can come down each 
and every year as we go forward. Do not forget the other part of this, 
where we reform the IRS Tax Code. We dump the Tax Code we have right 
now, lock, stock and barrel, and put in a new tax system that is 
easier, simpler, and something that people can understand, and maybe 
they can even fill out their own taxes again.
  I would like to kind of wrap it up tonight by just summarizing what 
we talked about. I started the hour tonight talking about social 
security, and how the social security system is collecting more money 
than it is paying back out to our senior citizens in benefits each 
year, but that money is currently being spent on other Washington 
programs. That is wrong. That needs to be stopped.
  We talked about how this thing started happening. We talked about in 
fact how up through 1993 there had been promise after promise after 
promise, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bills, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings II in 
1993, the 1990 tax pledge, our balanced budget pledge, the 1993 
balanced budget pledge, promise after promise after promise of a 
balanced budget that never materialized.

[[Page H9798]]

  The past contained broken promises of a balanced budget, and the 
final straw came in 1993 when they raised the gasoline tax, and they 
did not spend the money in building roads; when they raised social 
security taxes. That was the final straw. People finally said, enough. 
We have had it with the broken promises, we have had it with tax 
increases. We want Washington to get their house in order and control 
the growth of Washington spending.
  We want a smaller Washington, less involved in our lives. That 
happened in 1994 when they put a new group in charge. We are now 3 
years into a 7-year plan to balance the Federal budget. I am happy to 
report that in the third year, we will probably reach a balanced budget 
this year, but certainly 3 or 4 years ahead of schedule. We are not 
only on track to balancing the budget, keeping our promise, but we are 
3 or 4 years ahead of schedule. We are going to reach our first 
balanced budget this year since 1969, and at the same time we are 
reaching that balanced budget we are providing the first tax cut in 16 
years.

                              {time}  2300

  A tax cut that is heavily weighed toward families and education. $400 
per child under the age of 17; $1,500 college tuition credit, freshmen 
and sophomores; $1,000 college tuition credit for continuing education 
beyond the freshman or sophomore year. The Roth IRA to save for 
education, for a first home, or for retirement that when investors take 
the money out, it is absolutely tax free. The money accumulates tax 
free, and when they take it out, it is tax free.
  Mr. Speaker, these are very, very real tax cuts; not a political 
promise. The tax cut bill has been signed into law. It is done. It is 
the law. Taxes are going down for the first time in 16 years. Think of 
this contrast. Broken promises of a balanced budget before 1995. Higher 
taxes, 1993. The biggest tax increase in American history. A balanced 
budget, first time since 1969. Three years into our 7-year plan we hit 
balance. Tax cut, first time in 16 years.
  Mr. Speaker, it is significant. It is real. It is done. What a 
changed place Washington actually is as we stand here. But we are not 
done. This is not the end of the picture. This is not over. We still 
have dreams for the future of this country and where we are going. Our 
dream is not only to get to a balanced budget, but to pay off that 
Federal debt. And in paying off the debt, we restore the Social 
Security Trust Fund. In paying off the debt, we put ourselves in a 
position to allow us to pass this great Nation on to our children 
absolutely debt free, a legacy of a debt free Nation for our children.
  Equally important, as we are going through that process we gradually 
reduce the tax burden on our working families and our workers all 
across America. That is our dream for the future of this great Nation 
that we live in.

                          ____________________