[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 16 (Thursday, February 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H662-H670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            AMERICA'S MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE: SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to address the 
discussion that has been going on here on the floor so far. I think as 
we see the floods all across America and the ice storm certainly that 
hit up in Maine, I know the folks in our district are willing to lend a 
hand, as well as in a lot of the other parts of the country.
  But as we begin this debate about a supplemental spending bill, that 
is spending outside the normal spending in Washington, I think it is 
very important that we do not just go and blow in the taxpayers' money; 
that we do not spend money without thinking where it is coming from.
  Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues who are involved in this 
conversation that they find other areas of government that are less 
important and in order to provide the funds, the very needed funds 
there in Maine and in some of these other places across the country, I 
would like to encourage my colleagues to find other parts of the budget 
that are less important. And Lord knows, there is plenty of wasteful 
spending in this budget.
  Find some of that wasteful spending, knock out the wasteful spending, 
and let us redirect those savings, the dollars we do not spend, into 
the programs that are necessary to help some of these people around the 
country. But for goodness sakes, let us not just go spend more money 
without knowing where it is coming from.
  The only thing many folks like myself would ask is that we 
reprioritize our spending to take care of some of these areas that are 
in need of help in view of some of the floods that have occurred, 
whether it be California or Florida, or the ice storm up in Maine. Let 
us do what they need, but certainly let us find other programs where we 
do not have to spend the money in order to make up for it, as opposed 
to just going out and spending more of the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn our attention to what I think is 
the most important issue facing America today, or at least one of the 
most important issues, and that is Social Security. I would like to 
dedicate a good portion of this hour to Social Security, how it fits 
into the big budget, and where we might be going to solve some of these 
problems facing our Nation today as it relates to Social Security.

                              {time}  1330

  First off, I think it is important that we understand the Social 
Security system and what is going on. For anybody out there in America 
or my colleagues, they are all paying taxes into the Social Security 
system. I think it is important that we understand how many dollars are 
coming into the Social Security system each year.
  What I brought is a chart that shows the total revenues in the Social 
Security system this year is $480 billion. The total amount that we are 
sending back out to our seniors in benefits is $382 billion.
  If you think about this like your checkbook and just for a second 
forget the billions on the end, if you have $480 billion in your 
checkbook and you only spend $382 billion or $382, that works out 
pretty well. In fact, you still have money left in your checkbook.
  The Social Security system today is working; that is, it is 
collecting more money than what it is actually paying back out to our 
senior citizens in benefits. The idea in this system is that

[[Page H663]]

they collect this extra $98 billion. They put it into a savings 
account. They put that savings account money aside, and it grows and 
grows and grows, because, eventually, and it is not very far down the 
road, the baby boom generation gets to retirement.
  When the baby boom generation gets to retirement, this top number, 
the revenues becomes smaller than the bottom number, the expenses. When 
the expenses are greater than the revenues, the idea was we were 
supposed to be able to go to this savings account, get the money out 
and make good on our promises to pay Social Security to our senior 
citizens. That is how the system is set up, and that is how it is 
supposed to work.
  Every year since 1983, the situation has been much like this one, 
where there is more money being collected out of the taxpayers' 
paychecks than what is being paid out to our senior citizens in 
benefits. As a matter of fact, since 1983, we were supposed to 
accumulate this kitty or this savings account of about $700 billion. 
That is how much is supposed to be in that trust fund right now, today.
  When I am out in Wisconsin and I ask the question does anybody want 
to take a shot in the dark what Washington has done with the $98 
billion, I always get a snicker in the audience. It does not seem to be 
any big surprise when we talk about what is going on here in this city.
  That $98 billion that is supposed to be going into a savings account 
to preserve and protect the Social Security system here is what is 
actually going on. They take the $98 billion; they put it into the 
government's general fund. You can think of that like the big 
government checkbook that they pay all their bills out of it.
  So they take the $98 billion. They put it in the big government 
checkbook. Then they write checks out of the big government checkbook, 
and there is no money left at the end of the year. As a matter of fact, 
until this year, every year they overdrew even this checkbook. That is 
what you have been hearing about, is the deficit.
  It is important to understand that when Washington says they are 
going to balance the budget, that that $98 billion that has been put in 
here from Social Security has been spent out of that checkbook.
  So the facts are the government is taking the $98 billion, putting it 
in the big government checkbook, spending all the money out of the big 
government checkbook. Of course, that means that at the end of the year 
there is no money left to go down here into the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  As a result, what Washington does is they simply write an IOU to the 
Social Security Trust Fund. When you hear Washington talking about 
whether or not the budget is balanced, that is this circle out here, 
and it is using that Social Security money that is supposed to be down 
here in the Trust Fund.
  In the private sector, if anybody tried to do this with pension 
funds, if anybody was running a pension where $98 billion or $9,800 was 
supposed to go into the pension fund but, instead, they put it into 
their regular checkbook, they would be arrested. This would be illegal 
in the private sector. In Washington, D.C., this is a practice that 
absolutely must be stopped.
  Before we are too hard on the people out here, let us understand that 
this idea of balancing the budget in this circle, even though it uses 
the Social Security money, even that has not been done since 1969.
  So what has happened in the last 3 years is a good step forward. At 
least they have got that part balanced. But it absolutely does not 
solve the problem as it relates to Social Security.
  Now, some have been hearing the President's State of the Union and 
some of the things that have been said since the State of the Union 
where they are now saying that that they are going to take all of these 
surpluses and dedicate those surpluses to Social Security. It is 
important to understand exactly what they are saying and what they 
mean.
  First off, the surplus is whatever happens to be left over in this 
checkbook at the end of the year. We will put $98 billion of Social 
Security money in there, and they call it a surplus if there is 
anything left over at the end of that 12-month period of time.
  What they are saying is that leftover is going to be used to preserve 
Social Security. In and of itself, that does not sound bad. It sounds 
like a good step at least in the right direction, albeit not what we 
ought to be doing.
  The problem is they are not even doing that. You see, this Social 
Security debt, this $700 billion of IOUs that are down here in the 
Social Security Trust Fund, that is part of the much larger debt, the 
$5.5 trillion debt that has been run up for our Nation. $5.5 trillion 
is about $5,500 billion. Seven hundred of that billion dollars belongs 
here.
  But when you actually look at what is being proposed, they are not 
actually saying they are going to pay off some of these IOUs and put 
real money down in the trust fund. What they are actually saying is 
they are going to pay off some of that other outstanding debt. In fact, 
not even the surplus gets down here to the Social Security Trust Fund.
  So the fallacy that somehow the surpluses are going to solve the 
Social Security Trust Fund problem is just baloney at this point in 
time. It is just plain baloney. I cannot think of any better way to 
describe it.
  Again, what is going on today, there is more money coming in than 
what is going back out to seniors in benefits. $98 billion is being put 
in the big government checkbook. All the money is being spent out of 
the big government checkbook, and they are simply putting IOUs down 
here in the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Now, lest anybody think that nobody in Washington is paying any 
attention, some of us are. We introduced legislation in our office. It 
is called the Social Security Preservation Act. It is H.R. 857.
  Here is what it does. It is very, very simple.
  It simply takes the $98 billion and directs it straight to the Social 
Security Trust Fund. It prevents it from going into the general fund. 
It prevents it, then, from being computed in the overall budget 
computations. It simply takes the pension money and puts it in the 
pension fund.

  When I am out in Wisconsin and say how many people think this is a 
good idea, I have not found a single audience anywhere where every 
single hand does not go up.
  You see, when we are working with the young people, like, for 
example, my son, who is 15 years old and mowed lawns last year, he 
earned $2,000 mowing lawns. He paid $300, roughly, into the Social 
Security system out of his $2,000 of earnings.
  Now, for a 15-year-old to be paying $300 into Social Security, that 
is pretty tough; and a lot of people think we ought to be doing 
something about that. But my point would be, until we actually get some 
real dollars down here in the Social Security Trust Fund so that our 
present seniors are safe and secure and the people that are in their 
forties and fifties get to a point where they can actually count on the 
money being there in Social Security, I do not think you can make the 
other changes in the system that many people out here in this city 
think are necessary and logical.
  I think most Americans would agree that it does not make a lot of 
sense for a 15-year-old to be required to pay $300 into the Social 
Security Trust Fund. But the problem with making that change today is 
it puts seniors in jeopardy because there is no money currently in the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  So where are we going with this Social Security issue and what do we 
really need to do to solve it?
  The first thing we need to do is pass the Social Security 
Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act would take the 
surplus funds that are coming in this year and put those funds 
correctly into the Social Security Trust Fund.
  I want to be a little bit technical for my colleagues as to exactly 
how this would happen. Today, those IOUs are nonnegotiable, 
nonmarketable Treasury bonds; and all we are suggesting is that, 
instead of buying nonnegotiable, nonmarketable Treasury bonds, we 
simply buy negotiable Treasury bonds, the same thing that any American 
citizen can walk into the bank and buy.
  Why would you do it that way as opposed to any other way? Well, a 
Treasury bond is a safe, secure investment.

[[Page H664]]

 When the shortfall occurs, when those numbers we looked at on the 
other chart turn around and there is not enough money coming in and too 
much money going out, when that shortfall occurs, we need to be able to 
sell the assets. A negotiable Treasury bond can be sold at any bank in 
America.
  So the idea is you put a negotiable Treasury bond into the Social 
Security Trust Fund. Now you have real assets in there so today's 
seniors are safe and secure. Then we can begin the discussion of the 
young people in this great Nation having some other options if they so 
desire.
  Again, I point to my 15-year-old who went out and worked his tail 
off, earned $2,000 and found out he owed $300 to the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  But first we need to make sure that we have real assets in that 
account so today's seniors are safe and secure.
  The bill, again, that I have introduced is the Social Security 
Preservation Act. It is H.R. 857. I would strongly urge my colleagues 
to join us in this. It is something that people from all over the 
country have called and talked to us about, and I am sure that is going 
to continue as we move forward. We have got about 90 cosponsors on it 
right now, and we would hope to see that number grow as this debate 
goes forward.
  I have one other chart here that, again, illustrates the President's 
discussion and what we are starting to hear out here. I encourage my 
colleagues not to be misled by the smoke and mirrors that has been put 
out of this city for years.
  Out of this city, for years, we have been telling people there is a 
Social Security Trust Fund. That is wrong. Day one when I got here, I 
knew that was wrong; and we started fighting to end this practice.
  Today the new smoke and mirrors game has put the $98 billion into the 
general fund. Spend all the money you want to out of the general fund, 
and whatever is left over they say is going to Social Security. But, 
remember, it is not coming into the Trust Fund. It is really simply 
going to pay additional revenues.
  I would just like to point out that, even under this system, any 
spending that goes out of this account effectively reduces the amount 
of money that is left over for Social Security. The reason I point that 
out is because, when we look at the proposal that is coming forward, 
and I am now talking about the President's budget, but let us make no 
mistake, this is not like it is a partisan thing that obviously one 
side proposes new spending. Any new Washington spending program 
effectively reduces the availability of funds for Social Security.
  I have a list here of new spending that is being proposed currently 
in Washington, D.C. These all happen to be in the President's plan, but 
I guarantee you will see people from both sides of the aisle supporting 
this new spending: their new child care program, $12.2 billion; new 
schools, $6 billion; new teachers, $5.1 billion.
  I know a lot of folks out there are going, hey, Mark, those things 
look like good things: new schools, more teachers, child care for 
working families. I mean, gosh, those are all good things. Do we not 
want to do those things in this country?
  We need to understand what is being proposed. What is really being 
proposed, and let us just take the new schools. That is a classic 
example. What is really being proposed is that Washington, the United 
States Government, reaches into the taxpayers' pockets. They bring the 
money out here to Washington, and then the people here in Washington 
decide where it is that we should build new schools in America.
  Would it not be better if, instead of Washington getting that money 
out here, spending 40 cents on the dollar in the bureaucracy, and then 
Washington making the decision of which school district is going to get 
help, would it not make a lot more sense to leave the money out there 
in the hands of the people in the first place so they get a dollar's 
worth of new schools for the dollar that they are paying in taxes?
  If a community needs a new school, then the parents and the teachers 
and the school board and the folks in the area ought to get together 
and build a new school.
  I know in the district that I am from that a lot of our school 
districts have done exactly that. In our home district, Janesville, I 
know they just built a new middle school. Burlington built a new 
school. The folks in our district care about education, and so do I.
  What I do not want to see happen is Washington, the government, 
reaching into the pockets of people, bringing the money out here to 
Washington and spending 40 cents on the dollar in the bureaucracy and 
then Washington making the decision as to who is going to get help and 
who is not going to get help. That is not the way it ought to work. It 
ought to be that the people make those decisions for themselves and the 
people in their local communities make a decision as to how many 
teachers they wanted or how many new schools they want.

  Let us just look at child care. Let us look at another way to deal 
with the child care issue.
  Would it not be much better if, instead of Washington taxing people 
and getting the money to Washington, that instead of that, getting that 
money out here and spending 40 cents on the dollar in the bureaucracy, 
would it not be a whole lot better if Washington just said we are going 
to tax all of our families less? The government says we are going to 
tax our families less, leaving more money in their homes.
  In fact, that is exactly what happened last year. Last year, in the 
tax cut package, the decision was made that, rather than develop some 
new program called Washington-run child care, that we would, instead, 
leave $400 per child under the age of 17 out there in the homes and in 
the families.
  So instead of Washington collecting the money, spending it on a 
bureaucracy and deciding where it should go back to, Washington simply 
said to the working families, for every child under the age of 17, keep 
$400 out there, and you decide whether that $400 is best spent for new 
shoes or whether it is best spent for child care.
  Instead of Washington making the decision after losing lots of the 
money in the bureaucracy, the people are making the decision. The 
families are making the decision. Is that not a much better way? I 
guess it all depends on who you believe is best prepared to spend the 
people's money, the people here in this city or the people out there in 
America.
  With that, I am going to switch. I want to stay focused just a little 
bit on what Washington means by a balanced budget, because that is 
absolutely essential in terms of understanding the problems that we 
have here in this city as it relates especially to Social Security.
  Washington's definition of a balanced budget is that the total 
dollars being collected from the taxpayers is equal to the total 
dollars that Washington spends. Remember, some of those dollars we are 
collecting from the taxpayers are for things like building roads.
  So when you fill your gasoline tank up and you pay a Federal tax on 
that gas tank, part of that money is dollars coming into Washington. 
Those dollars aren't even being spent to build roads. Part of that 
money is Social Security money.
  So when they add up all the dollars coming in and they look at all 
the dollars going out, if those two numbers are equal that is called a 
balanced budget in Washington.
  Now, as this relates specifically to Social Security, remember that 
part of those dollars in is $98 billion extra coming in for Social 
Security. So we need to be very concerned that we do not get confused 
of what we mean by a balanced budget or a surplus.
  I, again, am going to show the President's numbers since the other 
budgets have not been produced this year, but the other budgets are 
basically the same.
  The President's budget says in the next fiscal year that we are going 
to have revenue of $1,743 billion, and we are going to have expenses of 
$1,733 billion. That, of course, leaves a $10 billion surplus.
  But I want to show you the fallacy in talking to the American people 
this way. The fallacy is that, if you take Social Security out of the 
picture, the revenues are now $1,241 billion; and, remember, the 
difference in these two pictures is that we have set Social Security 
aside.

[[Page H665]]

                              {time}  1345

  When we take Social Security out, the revenues are $1241 billion, the 
expenses are $1337 billion, and instead of talking about a surplus, we 
actually have a shortfall of about $96 billion. The facts are that 
today when we talk about dollars in equal dollars out, that is the 
Washington definition of a balanced budget and before we are too hard 
on them, remember they have not even balanced the budget that way since 
1969, but let us also remember that we have a long ways to go before we 
start accepting this concept of new Washington spending programs. Let 
us remember that whenever there is a new Washington spending program 
initiated, that it is simply going to make that bottom line worse. We 
have a long ways to go in this great country of ours.
  I have brought with me a few more pictures here. I always believe a 
picture is worth a thousand words. Whenever I am out in Wisconsin, they 
would much rather have a picture than a thousand words. Most people do 
not want to listen to a politician give them a thousand words. These 
pictures help us understand some of the seriousness and severity facing 
our country. When I talk about this next chart I get very serious about 
it because this is a serious problem facing America. What I have on 
this next chart is how the debt facing our Nation has grown from 1960 
through 2000, including the projections through 2000. One can see, 
looking at this, from 1960 to 1980 that the debt facing our country did 
not grow very fast. But from 1980 forward it has grown off the wall. If 
we hope to have a future in this great Nation that we live in, if we 
even hope to have a future in this country, we have got to stop this 
growing debt. We are here on this chart right now today. It is a very 
serious problem facing our country.
  Now, I said 1980. I know all the Democrats out there are going, 
``Sure, that was the year Ronald Reagan, the Republican, took office 
and it is the Republicans' fault.'' I know all the Republicans out 
there are going, ``Those Democrats spent like crazy in the 1980s. And 
because they spent so much money it is the Democrats' fault that we 
have this picture to look at.'' I would like to point out that it does 
not matter whose fault it is at this point and whether you are Democrat 
or Republican, I think it is our responsibility as Americans to solve 
these kinds of problems facing this country if we hope to preserve this 
Nation for future generations.
  Looking at this picture, knowing that we are way up here on this 
chart, should encourage us to do the right thing as we look at the 
budgetary matters going forward. I also wanted people to see the actual 
number that is involved because it is a pretty staggering number. The 
United States government is now $5.5 trillion in debt. That is, they 
have spent $5.5 trillion more than what they were willing to collect 
from the American taxpayers in taxes, basically over the last 15 years. 
Let me translate that number, since that number is so big, into 
something that makes a little more sense. If we take that $5.5 trillion 
and divide by the people in the United States, we would find that every 
single American, man, woman and child, is now responsible for $20,400 
of debt. For a family of 5 like mine, I have 3 kids and a wife at home, 
for a family of 5 like mine the United States Government has borrowed 
$102,000. Again, basically this has all occurred over the last 15 
years. It is a staggering, staggering sum of money. The kicker in this 
whole picture is that we are paying real interest on this money. The 
real interest that we are paying amounts to $580 a month for every 
group of 5 people. It is being paid. It is being paid by collecting 
taxes from the American people. Every month every group of 5 people in 
America pays $580 to do nothing but pay interest on the Federal debt. 
It is an absolutely staggering number when we think about it. A lot of 
people do not think they pay that much in taxes. But the fact is every 
time you walk in the store and do something as simple as buy a pair of 
shoes, every time you do something as buy a pair of shoes for your 
kids, the store owner makes a profit on that pair of shoes and part of 
that money actually gets sent to Washington, D.C. in taxes. One dollar 
out of every $6 that Washington spends does absolutely nothing but pay 
the interest on this debt.
  It is interesting to look at and to think about how it is that we got 
to this particular situation. When we look back on the past, most 
Americans remember the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985 and the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings revision of 1987 and folks remember the budget deal of 
1990. They remember hearing all these different promises, how 
Washington was finally going to balance the Federal budget. Every time 
they heard the promise, their hopes got up. Then they found out 
Washington, the Government, did not balance the budget. They got 
another promise and their hopes went up again. They got another 
promise, their hopes went up again. They kept getting this demoralizing 
news that in fact Washington, our Government, had not done what it 
promised to do.
  I have a picture here of one of them. This is the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings Act of 1987. But they were all the same. The 1985 one, the 
1990 deal. They were all the same. This shows where the deficit was 
going to go to zero. In this particular bill the promise was by 1993. 
The red line shows what actually happened to the deficit. These 
promises were broken and broken and broken and the American people got 
very cynical, myself included. One of the reasons I ran for office in 
1994 is because of this picture. But this is not all of the picture. 
The folks looked at this picture and they saw that gap out there, that 
deficit of $200 billion, and the people in Washington said, ``We have 
got to solve this problem. This problem is serious.'' The only way they 
knew how to solve the problem was reach in the pockets of the American 
people and raise taxes. That is what they did in 1993. Some people 
remember Social Security taxes went up. The money was not even put in 
Social Security. Gasoline taxes went up by 4.3 cents a gallon. The 
money was not even spent on building roads. The bottom line is they 
reached into the pockets of the American people and they brought more 
money out here to Washington with the idea that if they just got more 
money out here in Washington, they could maintain the Washington 
spending programs and still balance the budget.
  What happened in 1993? The American people, got very, very upset in 
this country. They said, ``We did not want you to raise our taxes to 
balance the budget. What we wanted you to do is get spending under 
control in Washington, D.C.'' So in 1995, they elected a new group of 
people.
  In fact, at that point for the first time in a long time, we have 
Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, Republicans 
controlling the Senate, and a Democrat President. That is the situation 
we had in 1995, the first time in 40 years that we had that situation. 
The problem was, this stuff in the past with all these broken promises 
that made the people so upset, the problem was convincing the folks in 
Washington, D.C. that the right thing to do was control Washington 
spending as opposed to reaching into the taxpayers' pocket and taking 
out more money. So we laid out a plan. The plan was to control 
Washington spending and get us to a balanced budget. We laid out a blue 
line like they had done before saying we are going to get to a balanced 
budget in 2002. We made our promise. What did the American people do 
when they made that promise? They yawned. They said, ``It can't happen. 
We've been promised before. Why should we believe this group is any 
different?'' We are now in our third year of that plan, completed the 
third and into the fourth year.

  The facts are that we have not only hit our targets and projections, 
but we are far ahead of schedule. For the last 12 months running, the 
United States Government for the first time since 1969 did not spend as 
much as money as it had in its checkbook. Think about this. The first 
time since 1969. It is in the books. For the last 12 months running, 
our government did not spend more money than it had in its checkbook. 
What an amazing accomplishment, 3 short years in, and, I would point 
out, 4 years ahead of what was promised to the American people.
  There is a significant change in Washington, D.C. I know there are 
problems with Social Security that we talked about earlier. There are 
bad problems and they need to be solved. But to not recognize the 
difference in these two pictures using the same definitions, using the 
same Social Security

[[Page H666]]

money, to not recognize how much this city has changed in 3 short years 
would be a mistake. This is a monumental accomplishment to be at a 
point where we have actually reached a balanced budget and are running 
a small surplus. Albeit under a definition that I do not like very 
well, the point is it is still the first time since 1969 that this has 
been accomplished. I know that out there in America, every time I say 
this, I have all kinds of people say to me in our town hall meetings, 
you politicians are taking credit for our hard work. In fact, the 
economy is doing so good and it is doing good because we are out here 
busting our tails. As we bust our tails, we make more money, which is 
good, that is the American way, that is good. We make more money. Then 
we pay more taxes and with Washington having all that extra revenue how 
could you have possibly messed it up? Partly that is true. In fact, 
people are working very hard out there. They are being more successful. 
I am happy to say there are stories all across this country where 
people have lived the American dream and they are being successful. 
When they are successful they do pay more taxes and revenues are up in 
Washington, D.C.
  So a lot of the credit for this is because people have done the right 
thing, worked very hard, and in fact are paying more taxes, more 
revenue to Washington, D.C., which is why we can also reduce taxes, I 
might add. But there is another side to this picture that I think is 
important. Between 1969 and today there have been strong economies 
before. Every time there was a strong economy and extra revenues came 
into Washington, Washington very simply spent the money. They did not 
balance the budget. They have had this opportunity before. We have had 
strong economies between 1969 and today. And every single time we had a 
strong economy, Washington simply raised the spending to match up with 
the extra revenues. That is where this Congress should deserve some of 
the credit for changing that. This red column shows how fast 
Washington, or government spending was growing before we got here in 
1995. This blue column shows how fast Washington spending is growing 
today. In fact, the growth rate of Washington spending has been slowed 
from a 5.2 percent to a 3.2 percent. Let me even go one step further. 
When we look at the growth rate of Washington spending last year, for 
the first time in eons, with one exception, Washington spending grew at 
a slower rate than the rate of inflation. Translation. Washington 
actually got smaller in real dollars. Last year the growth rate of 
Washington, or government spending was lower than the growth rate of 
inflation. That is not the picture we had before we got here.
  What we really have going on right now today is we have two things 
happening simultaneously. We have a very, very strong economy, which 
generates additional revenues to Washington, D.C., that is the American 
people and they deserve the credit for it, coupled with a Washington, a 
government that has understood that what the American people want us to 
do is control Washington spending. We are bringing Washington spending 
under control in the face of this extra revenue.
  I want to challenge each one of my colleagues today to do something. 
I would like them to look back in our 1995 budget plan and I would like 
them to look at the projection as to how much money we were going to 
spend in fiscal year 1997. I always do this in a fun way out at my town 
hall meetings. I ask the folks which one do you think is most likely to 
happen. Do you think it is more likely for a Martian spaceship to land 
in your backyard, they come in, have coffee and head back to Mars, or 
Washington got $100 billion of unexpected revenue and did not spend a 
nickel of it? What happens is a lot of our folks go to the coffee pots 
to welcome the Martians because they do not think it is possible.
  But if my colleagues would take the time to look back at our budget 
plan that we laid out in 1995, we laid out our projected spending for 
fiscal year 1997, we actually underspent that number by over $20 
billion. At the same time the revenues that we expected were up by $104 
billion. So Washington got more than $100 billion of expected revenue 
and reduced spending from the plan by $20 billion.
  It is a minor miracle what has happened in this city. Where does that 
really leave us? It seems to me that leaves us with 3 very significant 
problems facing our Nation today. After we get the budget balanced, 
taxes are still too high. I find very, very few people out in 
Wisconsin, and I see my colleague from South Dakota has joined me. I do 
not know what he finds in South Dakota. Does the gentleman find there 
are a lot of people that think taxes are not too high out in South 
Dakota?
  Mr. THUNE. That is not what I have heard lately. I want to credit the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for the lead that he has taken on this 
important issue. Because clearly in this country, and we have seen the 
statistics of late that the tax burden in America is higher as a total 
than it ever has been since 1945, and secondly, each individual family 
pays higher taxes today than they ever have. To suggest for a moment 
that Washington has gotten spending habits under control would be a 
misnomer. We have some huge problems looming out there in the future. I 
think the approach that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and 
his legislation has taken on that is an important step forward in 
addressing not only the $5.5 trillion debt that we have already piled 
up out there and what is going to happen when the Social Security bills 
start coming due.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Those are the other two issues we have here. The 3 
problems we have, and the gentleman just mentioned the other 2, the 3 
problems we have left are taxes are too high. We still have a $5.5 
trillion debt staring us in the face and the Social Security issue 
which we discussed in great detail earlier here in the hour.
  We have two pieces of legislation, and I know he is a cosponsor on 
these bills. The first is the Social Security Preservation Act, which I 
spent a lot of time earlier in the hour, that simply says that the 
money coming in for Social Security gets put into the Social Security 
trust fund. It is very much a common sense approach.
  The second one, I know the gentleman is a cosponsor on this. Why do I 
not let him take it a little on the second. Go ahead.
  Mr. THUNE. I just happen to believe the approach the gentleman has 
outlined in his legislation is one that will give us the discipline, 
require us to have the discipline that is necessary, because frankly if 
we do not do something in the area of addressing the $5.5 trillion of 
debt, it is going to accumulate.
  As the gentleman mentioned earlier, we continue to borrow from the 
Social Security trust fund, which is a significant problem. Another 
issue which his first piece of legislation addresses, that we ought to 
keep those funds separate. That the dollars that come in ought to pay 
for future benefits and we continue to borrow against that and add to 
this already growing national debt, which means that every year as we 
go through the appropriations process, before we pay for anything else 
we have to write the check for interest, which is $250 billion a year. 
I might add if we sat down and figured that out, that is every personal 
income tax dollar collected west of the Mississippi River and then 
some. This is a huge problem. What he has done in his legislation is I 
think taking a very systematic approach, not only to addressing the 
$5.5 trillion of debt by saying that each year government cannot spend 
more than 99 percent of what it takes in, I think that is critical and 
based on current economic assumptions by 2026, we would have wiped out 
the debt, but also, secondly, to address the issue of Social Security 
and how are we going to, long term, deal with that important issue.
  The other thing that I think is very attractive about his plan is it 
puts two-thirds aside for those purposes, but then after having said 
that, it also allows that any dollars that are left over ought to in 
fact go back to the taxpayers. Of course, I have some ideas about how 
best to do that. But I want to credit him for the work that he has done 
in fashioning an approach which in a very systematic, deliberate way 
addresses the long-term problems that this country faces, because I 
think far too often we here in Washington deal with the short term, 
which is politically expedient, to the detriment of our children's 
future.

[[Page H667]]

                              {time}  1400

  And frankly we just cannot afford to wait any longer, and so I think 
your approach is the correct one and one which I hope we can debate 
here in the Congress and continue to build support in favor of.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Especially as it relates to Social Security. You know 
this is becoming a short-term problem as opposed to a long-term 
problem. We know that the numbers in social security, the dollars 
coming in versus the dollars going back out to seniors turn around by 
not later than the year 2012. So we know sometime between now and 2012 
there is a cash shortfall in the Social Security Trust Fund, and I see 
all the people in this city, and it has got to be shocking to you, too, 
as a first-termer here like it was to me last time, these people run 
around the city beating their chests saying those IOUs are backed by 
the full faith and credit of the United States Government, and it is 
absolutely fascinating to me that when they say that, it like 
dumbfounds them when you ask the next question because the next 
question that Americans would ask is where is the United States 
Government going to get the money to make good on those IOUs when the 
shortfall occurs?
  And there is no good answer for that question. The only answers that 
I can see is one of three choices. One is they could raise taxes, and I 
do not know how you feel, but I know how I feel. Why do you not tell me 
how you feel about raising taxes?
  Mr. THUNE. Well, again as you have noted, there are some solutions, 
none of which is very attractive and very palatable, and raising taxes 
is not going to be the solution to this because that is the solution 
that we have gone to in the past as a fall back, and what it has gotten 
us is bigger and bigger government here in Washington and less focus on 
the real problems that are out there. But we do. There is no question 
about the fact that actuarially this program just has to be dealt with 
because each year we start borrowing more and more from the trust fund. 
We fill it with IOUs and at some point the IOUs are going to have to 
come and, you know, have to be paid back, and the natural question for 
any average person is going to be, well, where do you get that? And the 
answer is we borrow more money from your future.
  Mr. NEUMANN. That is a second possibility, but if we borrow more 
money, that just keeps making our debt bigger and bigger, and if the 
debt keeps getting bigger and bigger, the interest payment keeps going 
up higher and higher, and what we are passing on is a legacy to our 
children and our grandchildren that is more and more taxes that they 
have to send to Washington to do nothing but pay interest on the 
Federal debt.
  So I sure do not like the idea of higher taxes, and I sure do not 
like the idea of borrowing more money, and the idea that somehow in 
Washington we are going to miraculously reduce spending elsewhere so 
that we do not have to raise taxes or borrow more money, that is just 
not going to happen.
  So when the Social Security IOUs come due, if we have not taken the 
action, and again let me make it very clear that if we do enact the 
Social Security Preservation Act, the Social Security Preservation Act 
puts real dollars into the Social Security Trust Fund so when the 
shortfall occurs, you go to the Social Security Trust Fund much as you 
would go to a savings account and get the assets out. You cannot do 
that today because they are IOUs, they are nonnegotiable, nonmarketable 
bonds.
  So the Social Security Preservation Act puts real money there so that 
instead of raising taxes or borrowing more money, I cannot hardly get 
that out of my mouth, it is so scary and so detrimental to our 
children's future that instead we have a different alternative. We have 
a logical planned approach to put money away in a savings account so 
when this occurs, and we know it is going to occur, that we are 
prepared for the occurrence instead of dealing with crisis management 
where we have to either raise taxes or reduce benefits to seniors, I 
guess, is another possibility. I will not do that either.
  Mr. THUNE. And if the gentleman would yield, that is the traditional 
Washington solution. It is again a view to the short term rather than 
the long term.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Right.
  Mr. THUNE. And we just have, we do not have any alternative, I think, 
at this point in time other than to say that we are going to enact the 
type of discipline that is necessary to ensure that when, in fact, 
these liabilities, responsibilities that we have, come due that we are 
prepared to cope with that, and I think that, again, the notion of 
building the fire wall between the Social Security Trust Fund and 
getting away from the timeworn Washington practice of trying to conceal 
and emasculate the total size of the deficit and the debt and 
everything else that we are dealing with here is something that is long 
overdue and certainly something I want to be a part of, and of course, 
at some point, too, I believe that, and your plan calls for having done 
that to the extent that we realize additional revenues, that it should 
not go into more Washington spending.
  And I think that is a false alternative that is being created by 
folks out there, including those at the White House that somehow this 
is about cutting taxes or saving Social Security. I think what we are 
saying is a matter of policy, that we agree that Social Security, the 
debt has to be paid back, but then to the extent that those additional 
revenues are generated because the economy is growing that we ought to 
give those back to the taxpayers, whose they are in the first place and 
who ought to have first claim to them, and I have already today been on 
the floor and talking about a proposal that I have that I think would 
do that in a fair, evenhanded way and one that is getting great 
interest back in my State of South Dakota.
  The taxpayers are paying attention, and I think the opportunity to 
get out there and do something, these are a few things that ran in the 
newspapers back home, and the Investors Business Daily as well wrote 
something here talking about real tax relief, tax relief that is broad-
based, not targeted, where Washington picks winners and losers and also 
leads us toward the goal of a new Tax Code for a new century, which 
should be our goal in a way that will simplify rather than complicate 
this enormous burden that we have placed on the taxpayers in this 
country, both individuals and families and businesses as well.
  But I appreciate the hard work that you are doing and look forward to 
working with you toward that goal.
  Mr. NEUMANN. You know we should, and I know we want to jump to my 
colleague from Michigan. I just want to wrap this part up by saying 
very specifically that the Social Security Preservation Act would 
require the Social Security dollars coming in this year be put into the 
Social Security Trust Fund. The National Debt Repayment Act, as it 
relates to Social Security, would look at the dollars that have been 
taken out of the Social Security Trust Fund over the past 15 years, and 
as we repay the Federal debt, it would also repay the dollars that have 
been taken out of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  So there are two separate pieces of legislation here. They are both 
needed. The Social Security Preservation deals with this year's Social 
Security money. The National Debt Repayment Act pays off the entire 
debt so that we can pass this Nation on to our children debt free. In 
doing so, it puts the money back in Social Security that has been taken 
out over the last 15 years, and like you mentioned in the National Debt 
Repayment Act, we take two-thirds of the surplus and dedicate it to 
debt repayment, including Social Security as a priority. The other one-
third is returned to the taxpayers.

  Mr. THUNE. That is commonsense legislation, and that is probably the 
problem with it in this city. But in any case I hope that these bills 
move forward.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I would like to yield to my friend and colleague from 
Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding. I cannot tell you 
the excitement that I feel to see first term Member, a second term 
Member, and it is my third term, and just reflecting back on when I 
came to Washington in 1993, if we had projected in 1993 that we would 
be approaching the point where we would be talking about what to do 
with the surplus and that we would be there by 1998 or 1999 people 
would have said you are crazy, because if you remember back.

[[Page H668]]

  Mr. NEUMANN. I just need you to stop for just 1 minute. I would just 
like to point out for my other colleague that makes him a senior 
Member.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. That makes me senior, that is right.
  But you know we came here in 1993, and within, I think, you know, the 
first 6, 8 months, the deficits were projected to be $200-$250 billion 
per year as far as the eye could see. The only way that we were going 
to stimulate the economy was by increasing Washington spending, and the 
only way to even try to get the surplus would not be by putting a 
discipline into Washington spending, but by increasing taxes because 
obviously Washington would know how to spend your money better than 
what you would. And now 5 years later, I mean, you know, Mr. Neumann 
came in and helped us take the majority.
  You are helping us and setting us on a new agenda or implementing 
this agenda where we are now close to being at surplus, and now what we 
need to do is we need to put the discipline in place and make it an 
institutional criteria that every year we will have a surplus and every 
year we will work on paying down our debt, reforming entitlements and 
reducing the scope and the influence of Washington government.
  But we, you know, made a major step on a problem in 1993. We thought 
we could not solve, $250 billion deficit, spending of about 1.6 
trillion per year, and people said you cannot get there from here or 
you got to have a 10 or a 15-year plan.
  Mr. NEUMANN. If the gentleman would yield for just a minute, you will 
recall that back in 1994, when we first got here, early 1995, and I 
know you worked with us on it, we did put a plan on the floor that said 
we can get there from here, and as a matter of fact, many of the things 
that were in that plan only got 89 votes that year, but many of the 
things in that plan have come to reality, and they are fact as of right 
now today.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. And I would propose that the same kind of focus and 
enthusiasm and energy that we have put behind the problem in 1995 of 
addressing this deficit and addressing the debt, we have come a long 
way and we got a long way to go, but we are on the right road, is the 
same kind of energy, enthusiasm and commitment that we need to put 
behind education.
  In 1993, the early 1990's, the deficit was identified and the debt 
was identified as critical long-term problems that if we did not 
address them we were going to give our children an America that was not 
going to be as good as the one that we got from our parents.
  Mr. NEUMANN. So does that mean we want more Washington programs or 
government run from Washington programs for education?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Well, I do not think so. We, you know, what I have been 
involved in and almost all of 1997, I think we have had 22 different 
hearings around the country. We have been in 14 different States taking 
a look at what works and what does not work in education. We have also 
taken a look at how our children are scoring on international tests. A 
study came out again this week. I think out of 21 countries we are near 
or at the bottom in a number of different categories.
  That is unacceptable. We cannot expect to compete on an international 
basis in a number of global industries if our kids are continuing to 
score at the lowest levels of any kids in the world.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I have got a question for the gentleman. You may not 
know this answer; I did not talk to you about this ahead of time. I 
apologize if you do not. But when that study came out, you said we 
scored it near the bottom in many categories in this 21-country study 
in education. Was there information regarding how much money is spent 
on education in America by comparison to the other countries?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I do not know if that study identifies how much money 
is spent per student in each of these countries. That was a question 
that we had asked, and we are going to go back and try to get that 
information because the question that we asked, is it an issue of 
money? You know, that if America just spends an extra $500 or $1,000 
per child, we will see better results.
  I can tell you as we have gone around the country, it is not an issue 
of spending more money. We have gone, and the best example is taking a 
look at what is going on outside of this building in this city where we 
in Congress really have control over the school system. We spend on 
average about $10,000 per student.
  Now I come out of west Michigan. We spend about 56, $5,700 per 
student. It varies throughout my district, but in that neighborhood. 
Here in Washington, D.C. we spend about $10,000 per student. And you 
say, wow, we must have some of the best schools, the best technology, 
the best buildings, the best teachers, and we ought to be getting great 
results in this school system here in D.C.
  It is not what is happening. We are getting terrible results. We are 
failing 60 to 80,000 children each and every year who are getting 
substandard education, and they are not going to be prepared to go out 
and compete. It is a huge problem.
  Mr. NEUMANN. So you are telling me then that the system that the 
Congress has the most influence over is one of the most high priced in 
terms of dollars per student and is producing some of the worst 
results. Would the logical conclusion be that maybe Congress should not 
have as much influence and that maybe education should be returned to 
the parents and control of education returned to the parents and the 
community and the teachers and the school boards out there locally, 
take the control out of Washington and put it back in the hands of 
parents where it belongs?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Well, let me give you another couple of statistics, and 
we can maybe reach a conclusion today. That was a question that we 
asked earlier in the process. We went out and we went to local schools 
and we talked to parents, we talked to teachers and we talked to 
administrators, and they said tell us what is working in your schools. 
And there are some phenomenal success stories around the country that 
schools are working well, teachers are doing a great job, classrooms 
are being effective.
  So you ask them why is your school working, and they give us great 
reasons: parental involvement, technology, and the answers vary from 
one school district to another because the needs in one school district 
and the students coming in are very different from one school district 
to the other.
  The interesting thing was nobody ever said this Federal program, and 
you would think that when you have 760 different education programs 
coming out of Washington, and you know that is maybe one reason you and 
I would say, hallelujah, it is a good thing we have got an education 
department so that we have got one place that coordinates all 760 
programs.

                              {time}  1415

  You take a look and say, whoa, no, that was the vision of the 
Education Department when it came out, that it would be the focal point 
of education in the Federal Government. But with 760 programs, they go 
through 39 different agencies, and they spend $100 billion per year out 
of Washington.
  This system also ensures that when your parents from Wisconsin send a 
dollar here to Washington, they would like to get it back. So to get it 
back, we develop all these programs and forums, and we send the 
programs back to Wisconsin. And guess what the people in Wisconsin have 
to do?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Fill out some papers.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. They have to fill out some papers. So they send fill 
out papers, and send them where?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Back to Washington.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Back to Washington. We go through them and say whoa, 
you might have been lucky and got it all through the first time. We 
say, it looks like Wisconsin is qualified to get X amount of dollars, 
so we send the dollars back to you and you can do what you want with 
them, right?
  Mr. NEUMANN. No, that is not right. Does it not cost money to have 
somebody fill out all these papers, first off, and to have Washington 
send them back to Wisconsin? Out of the tax dollar we are collecting 
and sending to Wisconsin, all you are describing so far is not doing 
anything to help the students back in Wisconsin.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I do not think the gentleman needs to worry about that, 
because we are fairly efficient here in

[[Page H669]]

Washington, because when you send that dollar to Washington and we 
figure out how to send it back to you, remember, also when you get the 
money, we do not let you just spend it. You have to send back to us a 
report on how you spent it.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Does that not cost money too?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. That costs money. We know you are probably not going to 
tell us the truth, so that means we have to send auditors into 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Does that cost money?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. It costs money, but it is not that much. Really, we 
have taken a look at it. When you sends a dollar and we send it back, 
for every dollar you send us, we only take 30 to 40 cents, to make sure 
you spend the 60 cents left in the way we want you to spend it.
  Mr. NEUMANN. In order to have a Washington-run education program, we 
are going to tax the people in Wisconsin one dollar, and, assuming they 
get a dollar back, they are only going to get 60 cents to help the kids 
in the classroom. The rest of that money is going to be spent on all of 
this paperwork that first applies for it, that gets reviewed by 
Washington, that gets corrected in the application. The money gets sent 
out, then they send a report verifying how they spent the money, 
Washington reviews that report and sends out some sort of administrator 
to enforce the report. That is costing 40 cents. It does not sound like 
this helps my kids at all. So the other 60 cents might get to the 
classroom.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Does the gentleman have a problem with that? I will 
yield.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I have a big problem with that. I know my colleague does 
too.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes.
  Mr. NEUMANN. It sure is frustrating to be in a system where we 
recognize that those tax dollars that are so important that they get to 
our kids to help them with the most advanced technology, to get the 
computers in the classrooms, to do what the President talked about 
doing, getting more teachers available in the classrooms, it is so 
important to get those dollars out there to help the kids. Why is 
Washington wasting them on all this bureaucracy? Why not leave the 
money in Wisconsin and let them decide how to handle it, so they get a 
dollar back for a dollar spent?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, the reason we do not is 
because we believe that bureaucrats here, and you and I had this 
discussion a couple of years ago when Wisconsin took the lead on 
reforming welfare, where in Wisconsin the legislature and the Governor 
said this is what we want to do, and people in Health and Human 
Services who had never seen a cheesehead said--
  Mr. NEUMANN. Hey, be careful with that.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I know, but the Lions are going to get you next year. 
But they said no, you cannot do that. And the people in Wisconsin are 
saying, wait a minute. If our Governor and State legislature want to do 
that, why are people in Health and Human Services saying no?
  We have the same problem with education. You have things you are 
experimenting with, trying to help the kids in Milwaukee and in your 
district, trying to get money into the classroom, and, like I said, 
when we have gone around the country, that is where the focal point is. 
That is where the rubber hits the road.
  You have got to get the money into the classroom to help the teacher, 
to get the technology there, to get the textbooks there. But that is 
the critical link. All of this other stuff, of the paper flying back 
and forth, has not helped one child one bit, and that is why I think 
the gentleman is supporting this, and that is why we passed the 
resolution last year.
  That is a step in the right direction. It does not get us where we 
need to be, but it was the Pitts Resolution that said we have to strive 
to get 90 of 95 cents of every Federal education dollar into the 
classroom, helping the teacher improve the skills of the child in that 
classroom.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Does that mean there will have to be less paperwork and 
less bureaucracy and less forms and less time spent on those forms and 
the paperwork and bureaucracy?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Absolutely. What we want is we want parents and 
teachers and local administrators deciding what they are going to do 
for their children and their school, based on their needs, and that is 
a very different vision than the vision that our President has of 
education. The President believes that the responsibilities for these 
types of programs need to be moved to Washington. This president wants 
to build our schools, and he want to build them according to Federal 
regulations, which means we cannot really get competitive bidding, so 
the price of construction goes up by 10 to 15 percent. He wants to 
certify our teachers.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Would the gentleman yield? We talked a little earlier in 
the hour about building schools. The price does go up by 10 to 15 
percent. Remember, when Washington collects these dollars, 40 cents on 
the dollar is lost just on the bureaucracy.
  That 10 to 15 percent is the cost of construction going up. So you 
not only have to collect extra dollars to pay the bureaucracy, you also 
have a higher cost in construction because of the Federal Government 
regulation red tape. We could be talking almost a 50 percent increase 
in cost before you are done.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is right. For education, we know that the Federal 
Government has to be defining the standards for our schools and our 
local districts, because we have never built a school before, right?
  Mr. NEUMANN. Right.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. How crazy that we would do that, and we would do it 
here in Washington and set the standards from Washington, when we have 
been building schools for years at the local level, and that is what we 
need to do.
  Mr. NEUMANN. What is also interesting in this school discussion, we 
have got school districts in our district that have just built new 
schools. So are we going to go into the taxpayers' pockets in 
Janesville, that just built a new middle school, get those dollars out 
of the Janesville taxpayers', even though they just built their own 
school pockets, get them out here in Washington, and spend 40 cents on 
the dollar on the bureaucracy?
  I can guarantee you Washington is not going to make the decision to 
return that money back to Janesville, because, after all, Janesville 
just built a new school.
  So what we are really saying is in those communities that have 
already taken the responsibility for education very seriously, like my 
hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, those communities are now going to 
be punished for making the decision they made, building the new school 
because that was right for education in their community. Because 
Washington is still going to collect tax dollars from those people, 
even in the communities where they built the new school, and then 
Washington is going to make its decision where to send the dollars. I 
guarantee you, it is not going to be back to them.
  So they are paying for a new school because they know how important 
education is. We did in our town, and we believe in education. So we 
are already paying higher taxes to pay for that school.
  Now, is it fair that we are also asked to send money to Washington, 
of which only 40 percent is going to bureaucracy and 60 percent to some 
other school district? That just does not seem reasonable to me, that 
we would be willing to do such a thing.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is why so often we are viewed as being 
controversial, that we cannot see the logic in this system. I drive 
through my district, and I have seen lots of new schools opening up. I 
am saying these people are taking the lead, and they will be punished 
for taking the lead. Next time they will be better off not solving the 
problem and waiting for Washington to come in.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I know we are getting very near the ends of the hour. If 
we started through a list of things that you and I think are wrong and 
we cannot understand the logic of, because we live out in the Midwest 
in Michigan and Wisconsin, and I know there are other states across the 
country with the same kind of common sense, but not here inside the 
Beltway, it seems, we could be here for the rest of the week, much less 
the rest of the hour.
  Would the gentleman like to close?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We do know what works in education. We do know that if

[[Page H670]]

we move responsibility back to parents, to the local level, the 
teachers and local administrators, we can make it work. Now we need to 
start implementing the steps to make that happen.
  I thank the gentleman for sharing his time with me today.
  Mr. NEUMANN. I appreciate the gentleman joining me for the hour.
  Just to wrap-up what we have talked about this hour, we have talked 
about Social Security and how much more money is coming into the system 
today than we are paying back out to seniors in benefits; and we have 
talked about how that money is supposed to be in a savings account, but 
in fact today is being spent as parts of the overall budget process.
  We talked about the Social Security Preservation Act, which would 
force our government to actually put the Social Security money aside in 
a separate fund, much like any pension plan in the United States of 
America.
  We have also talked about the problems remaining after we reach a 
balanced budget, the problems of taxes being too high, the problems of 
Social Security being repaid; because even when we start putting the 
money aside today, there is still the $700 billion that has been taken 
out over the last 15 years.
  We talked about the problem of the $5.5 trillion debt, and a second 
piece of legislation, H.R. 2191, called the National Debt Repayment 
Act, that literally repays our Federal debt, much like you repay a home 
loan.
  That bill addresses all three of the problems. It takes two-thirds of 
any surpluses that develop, and dedicates it toward debt repayment, 
prioritizing the money that has come from the Social Security Trust 
Fund. By doing this, we can restore the Social Security Trust Fund, we 
can pay off the Federal debt, much like you may off a home mortgage, 
and give this country to our children debt free. It takes the other 
one-third of the surplus and dedicates it to tax reductions, hopefully 
across the board. Hopefully we end the marriage tax penalty.
  But the bottom line in this thing is for our children, they get a 
debt-free Nation; for the workers, they get lower taxes; and for our 
seniors, they get the Social Security Trust Fund restored. That is bill 
number H.R. 2191, the National Debt Repayment Act.
  I would like to close today just by encouraging my colleagues to join 
us on each one of these bills so we can get them passed out of here and 
do what I think is common sense for the future of this great country we 
live in.

                          ____________________