[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1284-H1291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             ISSUES FACING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a variety of issues today I 
would like to talk about.
  First, I would like to talk about a major change that has occurred 
that probably will not make sense to a lot of viewers in America, but 
has a lot of meaning out here in Washington, D.C., because the 
Republican Party in the change that has taken place since 1995, was 
being severely tested during this past week.
  We heard we were going to propose a supplemental spending bill. A 
supplemental spending bill means we are going to spend money that was 
not otherwise planned during our budgetary process, spend money on 
things like Bosnia that had not been budgeted for; the Iraqi problem 
that had not been budgeted for; things like the ice storm in the 
Northeast, and some of the other catastrophic happenings around, 
emergency spending type situations around the country.
  They had decided they were going to spend money on these areas that 
had not been included in the budget. Since 1995, every time this kind 
of a proposal had been made, the Republicans have gone elsewhere in the 
budget process, found lesser important items, and offset the new 
spending by eliminating items that were of lesser import. But during 
this past week, for the first time since 1995, for the first time they 
started talking about just spending this new money, without going and 
eliminating spending elsewhere of lesser important items.
  I am happy to be here today to say congratulations to the Republican 
leadership and to my colleagues that encouraged them to make the 
decisions to find offsets for the spending in the supplemental spending 
bill. We are not just going to go out and spend and spend more of our 
children's money. When we spend this new money, we are going to go and 
find other programs that are less important to eliminate. We will not 
spend on these lesser important programs, so we will have the money 
available for the expenditures that, in all fairness, whether we agree 
or disagree with them, have already been made; things like the Bosnian 
situation, Iraq, and the catastrophic happenings around the country. 
Those items are going to be paid for.
  The money in Bosnia, whether we agree or disagree, and I disagree 
with our troops being there, but the fact is our troops are there, for 
the money to pay for those troops we are going to find offsets, find 
lesser important items. We are going to eliminate those lesser 
important items so we can afford to spend in the new areas.
  This is a monumental change from where we were a week ago. A week ago 
the money was just going to be spent. As of today, we are hearing our 
leadership promise us that we are going to find offsets, find lesser 
important things. That is a tremendous move forward. It should not go 
unknown or unnoticed by the people in this great Nation we live in when 
those sorts of changes are made.
  The other very significant issue that is being discussed out here 
right now is called ISTEA. What that is is reauthorization of money to 
build roads and infrastructure all across America. We are hearing this 
proposal for ISTEA is spending more money on infrastructure than what 
people had anticipated in the past. It is more money than some budget 
hawks, myself included, might originally like to see.
  I think we have to look at the whole package and understand that this 
money, too, that is being spent over and above what was originally laid 
out and projected, it is being offset from areas that are of lesser 
significance and of lesser importance than solid roads and 
infrastructure for this Nation.
  I think to fully understand how this came about and what is happening 
here, we need to understand what has happened since 1995. When we got 
here in 1995, the budget deficit was $200 billion, as far as the eye 
could see. Even after the tax increases of 1993 the projected budget 
deficits were significant, as far as the eye could see.
  When we got here, we controlled Washington spending. We actually got 
the spending growth rate in Washington to be lower than the rate of 
inflation for the first time in eons. By controlling the growth of 
Washington spending, that meant that Washington did not go into the 
private sector and borrow that $200 billion out of the private sector.
  It is pretty simple from here. When Washington did not take that $200 
billion out of the private sector, that

[[Page H1285]]

meant there was $200 billion extra floating around in the private 
sector. When there is more money available in the private sector, that 
typically means interest rates come down. That is exactly what 
happened.
  Typically, when interest rates come down, the business cycle grows 
dramatically. That is exactly what we have seen happen. That means 
there are lots more job opportunities, people buy more houses, they can 
afford to buy cars, and so when they buy houses and cars, of course, 
people have to build those houses and cars. That is job opportunities.
  Typically what happens in the business cycle is when we get near the 
end of the business cycle, the interest rates come down. As the 
government borrowed less money, the interest rates came down. When the 
interest rates came down, people bought the houses and cars and there 
were job opportunities.
  Typically, when those job opportunities develop there is a huge 
demand on our labor force, and the labor availability gets very tight. 
That means dramatic increases above and beyond the rate of inflation 
and wages. When that happens, that is called inflation. Typically this 
inflation heats up. When inflation heats up, the interest rates go back 
up and that ends the business cycle.
  This business cycle is very different. It is different because of 
what has been done out here in Washington over the last couple of 
years. When we got to this point where there were more and more job 
opportunities available, because of the fact Washington is not taking 
that money out of the private sector, there is more money available, 
lower interest rates, businesses expanding, creating job opportunities, 
right at the point where there were more job opportunities available, 
welfare reform was passed.
  What welfare reform did is it required that able-bodied recipients 
get a job. Right at the time when the business cycle was booming and 
demanding more and more man-hours to produce the products, because 
business was booming, right at that time welfare was reformed, 
requiring able-bodied recipients to go back into the work force.
  I brought with me just some statistics from the great State we live 
in. Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin has been out ahead of the 
Nation on this particular issue. He started way back in 1986, realizing 
that when people were on welfare for generations, that they were 
trapped by the government into understanding that the only way they 
could get an increase in their take-home pay, their welfare check, the 
only way they could get an increase in that was if government gave it 
to them.

  He realized and recognized that that was not good for the people that 
were on welfare, so way back in 1986, since 1986 the overall welfare 
caseload in Wisconsin has dropped by 80 percent. There has been an 80 
percent reduction in welfare in the State of Wisconsin.
  This month there are only 1,100 Wisconsin families remaining on AFDC. 
The State public assistance caseload, AFDC plus those receiving 
assistance under W-2, currently stands at 14,391, down from over 
100,000. That is an 85 percent decrease from where we were. So we have 
taken over 100,000 families and dropped it to under 15,000 in just a 
few short years, under Governor Tommy Thompson's leadership.
  The W-2 program, it is called Wisconsin Works, it requires that every 
able-bodied welfare recipient goes to work. They can work at one of 
three different levels.
  Of course, the first level here is a private sector job, with the 
opportunity to receive a promotion, earn more money, and have a better 
life for their family. That is certainly the top priority.
  But the Governor and the State of Wisconsin recognized that everybody 
would not be able to get private sector jobs. Even as our business 
cycle was booming, it would take a transition period of time. So our 
Governor also provided the opportunity for some public-private sector 
jobs, so those that could not get a private sector job could get into 
this public-private relationship, where they could, at least on a 
temporary basis, work in a job where there is both public and private 
together. So we had a lot of folks leave with that particular option.
  The last resort, as a last resort, if you cannot get a public-private 
job or a private sector job, then there is a public sector job 
available, so everyone was guaranteed the opportunity to work under the 
Wisconsin Works program. Under W-2, families not only earn a paycheck 
but they receive high quality child care, they receive health care and 
transportation assistance and other assistance needed, again with the 
idea that as people leave the welfare rolls and take their first job 
and start earning a paycheck, we understand these other needs are out 
there. We understand health care and child care and so on are out 
there. We are helping them transition out of public sector and public 
support and into a position where, in the private sector, they can take 
care of themselves.
  We are very optimistic, and we have seen case after case in Wisconsin 
where these people that have taken their first job, maybe at a $5 an 
hour and still needing some public assistance, have been promoted and 
are now in their second, third, or fourth job, and earning 
significantly more money than they would have earned under welfare, and 
now have the opportunity to live a better life for themselves and their 
families. They feel, frankly, much better about themselves.
  Under Governor Tommy Thompson, he has helped more than 83,000 
families leave welfare, and approximately 172,000 children in the State 
of Wisconsin are no longer under the welfare trap.
  I bring up this welfare discussion as it relates to ISTEA because we 
need to understand this whole picture as to what is happening as it 
relates to infrastructure. As these 83,000 Wisconsin families left the 
welfare rolls under Governor Tommy Thompson's direction, as they left 
the welfare rolls they went into jobs. As they produced things in these 
jobs, the goods and services that they produced, those goods and 
services have to get to the marketplace. The only way they can get to 
the marketplace is with appropriate infrastructure.
  Let us talk about what is really happening here. We are taking a look 
at money that used to be spent on welfare, and we are saying we are 
going to redirect that social welfare spending into things like 
infrastructure, so as the people leave the welfare rolls, get a job, 
start producing a good or a service, that the infrastructure will be 
available to deliver that good or service to the marketplace so this 
whole cycle can continue. Once the goods and services are sold in the 
marketplace, that creates more job opportunities, and more people can 
then leave the welfare rolls.
  In fact, that is exactly what ISTEA is about. The ISTEA bill that is 
being proposed right now is going to be offset out of an area called 
mandatory spending. Mandatory spending includes things like the welfare 
rolls. So as we see this dramatic reduction in the number of people on 
welfare, some of the money that the government was going to spend on 
welfare checks is now being redirected into this ISTEA bill to do 
things like provide the infrastructure necessary to get those goods and 
services to market, and that is a very, very significant happening 
under the ISTEA bill.
  The other thing that is happening, as we reauthorize this, and this 
is also very significant, but it should also be a heads-up to our 
senior citizens, we are also about to wipe out someplace between $15 
billion and $20 billion of the Federal debt. This may be the first time 
that ever we can find this actually happening here in Washington, D.C.
  Highway transportation has a trust fund much like the Social Security 
trust fund. As part of this agreement in ISTEA, in the future, every 
time that is collected as taxes on gasoline, so when you fill up your 
car with gas at the local gas station every nickel that is collected 
for purposes of road building will now be spent on road building.
  But as part of this overall agreement, they are wiping out some of 
this old debt that used to be there on the books that related to the 
Highway Trust Fund. So it is basically like starting with a clean 
slate. From this day forward, every dollar coming in that is being 
collected for taxes for road building goes to road building.
  Some people would have rather seen, and I might add that under the 
bill we introduced here ourselves last year

[[Page H1286]]

called the National Debt Repayment Act, that entire Highway Trust Fund 
would have been repaid and used for road and infrastructure 
construction. But under this arrangement, what is going to happen is 
that debt is going to be effectively wiped off the books.
  Assuming all the things that we have been told out here about the 
bill so far come true, that the new spending is offset, that the new 
spending is offset from social welfare savings because recipients are 
going to work, and other savings in the mandatory spending area, 
assuming those are the things that happen in this bill, and assuming 
that the $15 billion to $20 billion is wiped off the debt, this looks 
like a great provision for the future of this country. It looks like we 
will have solid, strong infrastructure for years to come in this 
country, and it looks like they have done a pretty good job of getting 
us to a point where that will be true in the future.
  Again, if I had my druthers, I might do things a little different. I 
might just, for example, take the 4.3 cents a gallon tax increase from 
1993 and just wipe it out, or I might give it back to the States. But 
under this agreement, at least the vast majority of the money being 
collected from any State is now going back to them.

  I understand under the House proposal that the great State of 
Wisconsin, for the first time, perhaps, will no longer be a donor State 
and will get a dollar back for every dollar they send to Washington in 
road-building money. I think that is pretty important.
  So we had a couple things here that are very good news and very much 
in line with what I believe we ought to be doing for the future of this 
country. In supplemental spending, that new spending bill is going to 
be offset from spending reductions from elsewhere in the budget. The 
ISTEA bill that is going to spend more money than was originally 
planned again is going to be offset with savings from other areas. We 
have seen a dramatic reduction in the welfare rolls, and some of that 
savings from welfare can be redirected into highway and transportation 
money.
  I think the other thing that should be recognized as the savings 
continue to mount from the reduction in the welfare rolls is that we 
should start looking for tax reductions as well.
  I mentioned before that I had a series of issues that I wanted to 
talk about. I want to get to Social Security, and I want to tell why 
there is a heads-up that should be paid attention to in the ISTEA bill 
as it relates to Social Security.
  But before I get to that issue, there is one other issue that I think 
is very important. I have heard it in our town hall meetings. I heard 
it as recently as Monday of this week when I was in Kenosha, Wisconsin. 
Somebody told me about their 6-year-old child that had just come home 
and started talking about a series of things that I am not sure when I 
was 6 I even knew what they were. There are issues that relate to the 
president.
  Right now there are a series of people that have made accusations 
against the President of the United States. Somebody is lying. Either 
the people making the accusations are lying, or the President of the 
United States is lying, but somebody is clearly lying.
  I would like to just take today, this moment, to encourage our 
parents to take time out of their busy schedule and sit down with their 
kids and talk to them about what is being discussed out here in 
Washington. Tell them that lying is not acceptable, and it is not 
something that is good and right, no matter who does it. If it is the 
President that is doing it, then the President is wrong and he should 
be reprimanded for it. He should resign. If it is the other people that 
are doing it, then they are wrong.

                              {time}  1530

  Our kids need to hear from our parents directly that lying is not an 
acceptable practice in the United States of America. I would strongly 
encourage my colleagues----


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The Chair urges the gentleman to 
address the Chair and not reflect a personality against the President.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think of the exact words to 
express the feelings of so many of the people in our district that are 
so real, from these kids under the age of 6, because these feelings are 
very real.
  I have been in two high schools. I have been in two colleges. Mr. 
Speaker, I have to tell you, this is one of the toughest issues that 
this Nation has faced in a long time. These kids are hearing these 
issues. These kids are hearing about what is going on in Washington. 
These kids are understanding that somebody has lied in this situation, 
and the kids understand that there has been an extramarital affair 
here, or at least that is what is being discussed in this city. It is 
very, very difficult for our kids to understand how our Nation's 
leadership can do these things, and somehow it is translating back to 
them that it is acceptable.
  What I am doing here is encouraging my colleagues as parents to sit 
down carefully with their kids and explain to them that lying is wrong, 
explain to them that an extramarital affair is wrong, and anybody who 
knows anybody who has been involved in an extramarital affair or 
watched a marriage that has been affected by an extramarital affair, 
they know it is wrong. They know there is a great deal of pain. For 
this now to somehow be conveyed to our teenagers, and believe me, they 
are watching, and to the extent that we in Washington as the Nation's 
leaders remain silent on this issue, we are making a huge statement to 
our teenagers.
  I am encouraging my colleagues to take the time and the effort to sit 
down with their kids and the kids in their district and explain to them 
that this is not acceptable in our eyes, what is going on. No matter 
who it is that is telling the falsehoods here or the lies here, it is 
not acceptable practice in our Nation. I think it is time that we as 
the Nation's leaders with the vested responsibility to represent our 
constituents do start speaking out on this so that our kids have at 
least heard someone stand up and say, this is not acceptable. They need 
to hear that because they right now are struggling.
  I found that the people in our age group, my colleagues here and our 
constituents in my age group, this is not an issue for them. This is an 
issue for the kids. It is an issue to help the kids. It is an issue 
that the kids are trying to decide the difference between right and 
wrong. That is why I am encouraging my colleagues to take the time to 
talk to their kids about the issues that are out here.
  I will move on so that the Chair does not have to reprimand me again 
for speaking of someone by name or referring to that particular 
individual. But the facts are this is very important for the leaders of 
this Nation to address the kids and to let them know what they think 
and what they believe.
  I will move on to the Social Security issue. Social Security for our 
senior citizens, Social Security for our folks in the work force, it is 
a very, very important issue.
  I would like to talk about what is going on in the Social Security 
system today, and I would like to talk a little bit about how it 
relates to the ISTEA bill. My colleagues might be interested in 
watching this very closely because the debt that is about to be written 
off in the ISTEA bill, as it relates to highways, is exactly the same 
as the debt that is held in the Social Security Trust Fund. My point is 
here we need to come to understand that many people in this community 
do not view the Social Security trust fund as real money.
  The Social Security issue, I would like to begin by explaining 
exactly what is happening with Social Security. To understand this 
whole Social Security discussion, it is important to understand that 
this year the United States Government, out of the paychecks of my 
colleagues, our constituents' paychecks, they are going to collect $480 
billion in Social Security this year. They are going to pay back out to 
our senior citizens in benefits $382 billion. That leaves a surplus 
being collected this year of $98 billion. This should not be confused 
with the budget surplus. This is Social Security alone.
  To put this in perspective, I always talk to my constituents this 
way, if you think about having a checkbook, forget the billions for a 
minute because that is hard to understand, but if you think of a 
checkbook with $480 in it, you write out a $382 check, you have got $98 
left in your checkbook. That is exactly what is going on in Social 
Security right now this year.

[[Page H1287]]

  The idea, in collecting more money than what they are paying back out 
to our seniors in benefits, the idea is that extra money should be set 
aside so that in the future, as the baby boom generation gets toward 
retirement, and this number, the dollars being paid out to seniors, is 
bigger than the amount of money coming in, the idea is that much like 
in your own home, if you wrote out more checks than you had in your 
checkbook, you would go to your savings account and get the money out 
to cover it. So the idea with this $98 billion is it is supposed to be 
set aside so that when there is not enough money coming in and too much 
money going out to our seniors, that this money that has been set aside 
then becomes the savings account that we can go to get the money and 
make good on the Social Security checks for our seniors.
  I would like to also clarify something that is generally not 
discussed appropriately from Washington. These two numbers turn around 
in the year 2012, and perhaps sooner. There is a lot of discussion 
about Social Security is fine until the year 2029. Well, that is true 
if this $98 billion is actually sitting in a savings account and 
waiting to be used.
  When I am out with my constituents, I always ask them, anybody want 
to take a shot in the dark what Congress is doing and the President is 
doing with that $98 billion? Most of them get it right right away. When 
I ask the question, with this extra 98 billion that is coming in, what 
is going on with it in Washington, they always get it right. That $98 
billion is going directly into the big government checkbook, and if you 
think of this circle as the big government checkbook, the government 
then spends all the money out of the big government checkbook. When 
they are done spending money at the end of the year up until this year, 
they have always had a deficit; that is, they have spent more money 
than what they had in their checkbook. As a result, since that $98 
billion is in the checkbook and they have spent it, there is no money 
to put down here in the Social Security Trust Fund. So in the past what 
they have always done is simply written an IOU to the Social Security 
Trust Fund. This IOU is called a nonnegotiable Treasury bond. It is a 
nonmarketable, nonnegotiable Treasury bond. It has been referred to as 
an IOU by virtually every organization that takes a close look at it. 
What it really is is a promise that when this money is needed, the 
United States Government will pay itself the money.
  If that sounded confusing, it is, because you ought to be asking the 
question, and we here in Washington and Congress ought to be asking the 
question, when these IOUs are needed, where will the United States 
Government get the money to make good on the IOUs? Again I go back to 
this other picture. Today we have got more money coming in than what we 
are paying out to our seniors in benefits. When these two numbers turn 
around, by the year 2012 and perhaps sooner, when these two numbers 
turn around, how do we make those IOUs into liquid cash so that we can 
keep Social Security solvent?
  In this city you should understand what is happening going on out 
here in Washington, they all pound themselves in the chest and say, 
look, those IOUs are backed by the full faith and credit of the United 
States Government. Generally they pound their fists on the table when 
they say that. But the question has to be asked, when those IOUs come 
due, where is the United States Government going to get the money to 
make good on the IOUs so Social Security can remain solvent?
  The answer to that question is only one of three possibilities. They 
can either raise taxes on working Americans, think about that for a 
second. That means that the folks that are on Social Security are going 
to accept that their children and their grandchildren should start 
paying more taxes. I do not think that is a very good idea. The second 
possibility is they reduce the benefits to seniors so the IOUs do not 
come due as soon. I do not think that is a very good idea. The third 
possibility is they go out and borrow the money. That means effectively 
that we are going to pass more debt, more of a debt legacy, on to our 
children and grandchildren.

  So if you do not raise taxes, you do not put off on the IOUs come 
due, and you do not want to put more of a debt burden on our children, 
what do you do? That is what I am glad to show the solution here. We 
have introduced this legislation from our office. It is called the 
Social Security Preservation Act. It does not really take Einstein to 
understand the Social Security Preservation Act because virtually every 
company in America with a pension fund is already doing exactly what I 
am proposing in the Social Security Preservation Act. It simply says 
that the $98 billion that is being collected over and above what is 
being spent on Social Security be put directly into the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  Again, let me be very specific. I have got several of my colleagues 
that have been in discussions with me over the last few days. Let me be 
very specific how we would put this money down here in the Trust Fund. 
Instead of buying nonnegotiable, nonmarketable IOUs that cannot be 
sold, and when the money comes due you have to raise taxes, instead of 
doing that, we would buy a Treasury bond, the same type of Treasury 
bond that any senior citizen in America can go down the street and buy 
and put on deposit in their portfolio of investments. So we would 
simply buy a negotiable Treasury bond.
  Okay. So we get to the year 2012. We have passed the Social Security 
Preservation Act, and we have actually put negotiable Treasury bonds in 
here. So we get to the year 2012 or whenever this shortfall occurs. 
There are negotiable Treasury bonds, Treasury bonds like you buy and 
sell at your local bank, if that is what is in the Social Security 
Trust Fund at that point where we need the money where we need to make 
good on this in order to keep Social Security solvent. We simply go 
sell one of those Treasury bonds, much as any senior citizen in America 
would sell a Treasury bond if they ran short in their retirement or 
wanted money for a vacation or whatever else it is that they might want 
to do in their retirement.
  So this bill, the Social Security Preservation Act, it would 
effectively require that the surplus dollars being collected today for 
Social Security simply be put into the Social Security Trust Fund. That 
bill number again is H.R. 857.
  We have had several of my colleagues discussing, because of the 
number of phone calls they have been getting into their office, 
discussing signing on as a cosponsor. I would strongly encourage that 
my colleagues in response to the large number of phone calls that are 
coming in from across America take a serious look at this bill, and I 
would make myself available for discussions on it.
  Having said that, I would like to talk about some of the rest of the 
problems. No, Mr. Speaker, I know I cannot talk to the public, so I was 
not going to do that. So I kept the conversation directed at our 
colleagues, who I would hope join us in cosponsoring the legislation 
H.R. 857. It is fair to say that many of our colleagues have signed on 
to this because they have received a large number of calls from all 
across our country.
  Having said that, I would like to talk about some of the other 
problems facing America. I brought a chart that I have been showing to 
people for a long time. It talks about how fast the debt is growing and 
helps folks understand why a person like myself would leave the private 
sector and come out here to serve in Washington.
  Before 1995, I had never been elected to any elected office. As a 
matter of fact, I ran a pretty successful building company that we had 
started in the basement of my home. I am happily married. We have got 
three wonderful kids. We were literally living the American dream at 
that point.
  This picture helps explain why I left the private sector to go into 
public service. From 1960 to 1980, to this point in this chart, the 
debt facing America was not very big. This chart shows how it started 
growing from 1980 forward.
  A lot of people say 1980, blame Ronald Reagan. If you are a 
Republican, you do not like that very well. All the Democrats say, 
blame Ronald Reagan. If you are a Republican, you say no, no, no, it 
was not Ronald Reagan. In fact, Reagan was the one who reduced taxes, 
which generated higher revenues. The problem is Washington just plain 
spent too much money. So all the Republicans blame the Democrats. The 
Democrats all blame the Republicans.

[[Page H1288]]

  I would like to point out that today we are up here on this chart. It 
is an American problem. We need to solve this problem as Americans, put 
aside partisan politics, and get down to the business of solving this 
problem. In fact, that is what has been going on for the last few 
years.
  This debt today stands at, and for those who have never seen this 
number, it is a pretty staggering number, the debt today stands at $5.5 
trillion. That is how much money the United States Government has 
borrowed on behalf of the American people. That is 5, comma, 500, and 
then 9 more zeros after that. It is a pretty staggering number to 
really look at.
  I used to be a math teacher. And someone looked at my chart earlier 
and said there is way too many numbers on that chart. You will have to 
forgive me for being a math teacher in the past, but what we used to do 
in our math classes is divide that debt by the number of people in the 
United States of America. That is, if each man woman and child in the 
United States were to pay off just their fair share of the Federal 
debt, each one would have to pay $20,400. The United States Government 
has spent $20,400 for every man, woman, and child in America more than 
they have collected. This is the legacy that we are about to pass on to 
the next generation if we do not solve the problem. For a family of 
five like mine, for our family, they borrowed $102,000.
  A lot of people say, well, so what? But the real problem with this 
picture is down here. That is the amount of tax dollars that Washington 
has to collect to do absolutely nothing but pay the interest on this 
debt.
  For a family of five like mine in Wisconsin or anywhere in America, 
the United States Government today is collecting $580 a month every 
month to do absolutely nothing but pay interest on the Federal debt. 
That number again, $580 a month.
  A lot of people say, well, I do not pay that much in taxes. It must 
be them rich people paying all the taxes. It really does not work that 
way. You see, when a family does something as simple as go into a store 
and buy a pair of shoes, the store owner makes a profit on that pair of 
shoes, and part of that profit comes out here to Washington, D.C., in 
the form of taxes.
  One dollar out of every six that the United States Government spends 
today, $1 out of every 6 does absolutely nothing but pay interest on 
the Federal debt.
  I think it is significant to look at how it is that we got into this 
mess. I think it is important to look at how different things are today 
versus where they were just a couple short years ago.
  What I have got on the top of this chart is one of the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings bills. This blue line shows the promise under the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings bill of 1987. The red line shows what actually happened 
to the deficit after this promise had been made to get us to a balanced 
budget by 1993.
  I only have one of the pictures shown here, but the reality is we 
could have Gramm-Rudman-Hollings of 1985 here. We could have the budget 
deal of 1990 or 1993. Any one of those would show effectively the same 
thing as what this picture shows.

                              {time}  1545

  A promise made to the American people to balance the budget and a 
deficit that ballooned out of control.
  Now, this happened time and time and time again until we got to 1993. 
In 1993, the people up in Washington made the decision that this 
problem had to be solved. We were on the brink of bankruptcy in this 
Nation if this problem was not solved. The solution of 1993 was to 
reach into the pockets of the American people and collect more taxes.
  It is not hard for most Americans to remember 1993. It was the 
biggest tax increase in American history. The gasoline tax went up by 
4.3 cents a gallon, and they did not even use that gasoline tax for 
building roads. They taxed Social Security benefits to our senior 
citizens, and they did not even use it for the Social Security Trust 
Fund. They just plain raised taxes. And they thought if they raised 
taxes enough, that somehow they could close this gap from here to here.
  What happened next is not particularly surprising. The American 
people looked at this '93 solution and said, we have had it with the 
broken promises. There were at least four direct, significant broken 
promises: Gramm-Rudman-Hollings of '85, '87, the '90 deal and the '93. 
And the people looked at this and said, we have had it with them; and 
they elected a new group to represent them in Washington, D.C.
  In 1995, when I was first elected, along with 72 other Members in the 
House of Representatives, changing control of the parties for the first 
time in 40 years, we laid out a blue line to get to a balanced budget, 
too. We laid out a plan to get to a balanced budget.
  People should be asking, is there anything different? Is there 
anything different between this group that got here in '95 and the 
group that was here before or are they out there doing the same thing 
as those broken promises in the past?
  It is a good question. This blue line shows our promise to the 
American people. The red line shows what has actually happened. We are 
not only on track to balancing the budget for the first time since 
1969, we are significantly ahead of the promises that were made to the 
American people.
  Let me say this next part very slowly, because it is the first time 
since 1969 that this could honestly be said to the American people.
  For the last 12 months running, the United States Government spent 
less money than it collected in taxes. For the first time since 1969, 
the United States Government spent less money than it collected in 
taxes. It is a statistical fact that, at this point in time, the United 
States budget is technically balanced, under a Washington definition.
  Now, I qualify it in that way because this is all good news, and we 
absolutely should not take anything away from what has been 
accomplished. When I show this out in my district and I start talking 
to my constituents, immediately what happens is they say, well, the 
economy is so good how could politicians in Washington possibly have 
messed it up? Well, the fact is the economy has been good, but there is 
more to the story than that.
  Between 1969 and 1998, the economy has been good before; but, in the 
past, every time the economy was good and more money was sent to 
Washington, Washington simply spent the extra money. So I think it is 
important to note in this picture that not only has it been a strong 
economy that has brought us to this balanced budget, but it is also a 
very different response from Washington.
  This red column shows how fast spending was going up in the 7 years 
before we got here. It went up an average of 5.2 percent a year. This 
blue column shows how fast spending was going up in our first 3 years 
in office. The difference between how fast it was growing before and 
how fast it is growing now is, in fact, what has put us into a position 
where we can both balance the budget and lower taxes.
  Make no mistake about it, if this blue column were the same size as 
the red column, we would not have a balanced budget and we would not 
have been able to reduce taxes for the working families all across 
America. So I think when we talk about this balanced budget, we talk 
about how much things have changed, we talk about completing the 
promise to actually balance the budget after four or five very 
significant broken promises of the past, that it is also important to 
note that the reason this has been brought about is because, in fact, 
Washington spending has been brought under control.
  There is a little known statistic out there that I would like to 
bring to the attention of the American people and my colleagues. Last 
year, for the first time in a very long time, the United States 
Government spending grew at a slower rate than the rate of inflation. 
Now, this is very significant because what that means is, in real 
dollars, Washington's spending actually shrunk last year. That is a 
monumental change from where we were going before, and that is how we 
are going to get this thing under control to a point where taxation can 
be reduced.
  As we think forward to the future in this country, it would be nice 
if we could continue to control the growth of Washington spending, 
allowing us to

[[Page H1289]]

continue tax reductions for the American people, allowing us to make a 
payment on the Federal debt and allowing us to put the money back into 
the Social Security Trust Fund that has been taken out over the last 15 
years.
  When we think about where we are at, then, I strongly encourage folks 
to think about these remaining problems financially facing our country.
  First, I believe genuinely that taxes are still too high. Today, the 
average American pays 37 cents out of every dollar they earn in taxes 
in one form or another. Between State, Federal, local, property, sales 
tax, literally 37 cents out of every dollar that is earned in America 
is paid in taxes in one form or another.
  Let me give my colleagues a vision for the future of America as it 
relates to taxes. I have a vision that a generation from now that tax 
rate has been reduced from 37 cents out of a dollar down to not more 
than 25 cents out of the dollar. It would be a nice thought if we could 
look at tax rates, Federal, State, local and property, and literally 
reduce them from 37 cents out of the dollar down to not more than 25.
  I was in a meeting someplace and one of the constituents stood up and 
said, 25 cents is the goal? She said, we tithe the church and God only 
gets 10 percent. Why is it 25 for the government?
  I had to chuckle at that response from one of my constituents, that 
even 25 is a high number. But we need to remember we are up at 37 cents 
out of every dollar being paid in taxes today.
  So vision for the future, as we talk about taxes being too high, let 
us get the tax rate down by at least a third from where it is and let 
us look at all levels when we talk about this tax rate.
  Second significant financial problem facing America today: Social 
Security. This system will be bankrupt before the year 2012 if 
something is not done.
  We discussed earlier in this hour the Social Security Preservation 
Act. It is bill number H.R. 857. To solve the Social Security problem, 
let us start putting real money or real dollars into the Social 
Security Trust Fund as soon as possible. We can do it this year.
  The third problem is, even after we get this under control, even 
after we get to a balanced budget, we start putting Social Security 
money away and we start lowering taxes, we still have this $5.5 
trillion national debt staring us in the face. So I want to talk about 
a second piece of legislation that we have introduced. It is called the 
National Debt Repayment Act. It is bill number H.R. 2191. The purpose 
of this legislation is to literally pay off the entire Federal debt 
over a 30-year period of time, much as we would pay off a home 
mortgage.
  I come from the home building business. After I left the math 
teaching profession, we started building houses. We started a business 
in the basement of our house. Eventually, it got pretty successful; and 
we were selling about 120 homes a year. This is really the American 
dream, commitment to faith and family and building a business from the 
ground up in our own home.

  Anyway, when we sold those 120 homes a year, virtually every one of 
our clients signed into a mortgage. So when we had closing on that 
house, they would go to a bank and sign a mortgage with a banker; and 
they would pay off their home loan over a 30-year period of time.
  The National Debt Repayment Act pays off our national debt much the 
same as a homeowner anywhere in America would pay off their home 
mortgage. Here is what it does. It looks at the surpluses. It takes 
two-thirds of the surpluses and dedicates them toward debt repayment. 
It takes the remaining one-third and dedicates it toward lower taxes. 
So what it does for the future of America is it gives us this vision 
where we can both pay off the Federal debt so our children's legacy is 
not a $5.5 trillion debt but our children's legacy is a debt-free 
America.
  In paying off the debt, there is one other side benefit that should 
be brought up. This money that has been taken out of Social Security 
over the last 15 years, that is all part of the Federal debt. So when 
we look at this Federal debt of $5.5 trillion, about $700 billion out 
of the $5.5 trillion is money that has been taken out of the Social 
Security Trust Fund. So as we are repaying the Federal debt, under the 
National Debt Repayment Act, we are also putting the money back into 
the Social Security Trust Fund that has been taken out basically over 
the last 15 years. The third component of this, of course, the 
remaining third gets used to reduce taxes.
  So when we think about this plan, this vision for the future of 
America, we do three things: First, we pay off the Federal debt so our 
kids inherit a debt-free Nation; second, we put the money back into the 
Social Security Trust Fund that has been taken out over the last 15 
years; and, third, we start down that path of reducing the overall tax 
burden on Americans from 37 cents out of the dollar down to 25 cents 
out of the dollar.
  This bill, if passed, really gives us a vision that we can look for 
and work for in this country with lower taxes, stable Social Security 
for our senior citizens, and a Nation that our kids do not have to look 
forward to paying $580 a month to do absolutely nothing but pay 
interest on the Federal debt.
  I want to just finish with one other item that we seem to still not 
have a full understanding about across America, Mr. Speaker. And I talk 
to my colleagues about this and I talk to my constituents about this on 
a very regular basis, and that is the tax-cut package that was passed 
during the last cycle.
  The amazing thing to me is, when I am out in public in our district 
and all over the great State of Wisconsin, how many people it is I talk 
to that are still not aware of the fact that taxes have, in fact, come 
down. I will go through a few of these.
  Families with children under the age of 17, next year when they 
figure out their taxes and get down to the bottom line and they figure 
out how much they would have sent to Washington or had withheld from 
their paycheck for Washington, they will literally subtract $400 for 
each child under the age of 17 off the bottom line of their taxes.
  For parents of college kids, and, believe me, I have seen the college 
bills. I know a family in Janesville with one in college and two at 
home, and it is tough to pay the college bills when kids head off to 
school. The college tuition credit is $1,500. And, again, a parent with 
a freshman or sophomore in college, they figure out how much they would 
have sent to Washington, D.C., and they literally subtract $1,500 off 
the bottom line.
  This is not an idea where Washington grabs money in taxes out of 
taxpayers from all across America and then Washington decides who to 
give it back to. This is a situation where if a parent, a middle-income 
parent, has got a student in college, a freshman or sophomore, they 
literally keep $1,500 to help pay that college tuition bill.
  If they have a junior, senior, grad student or adults currently 
involved or enrolled in either a tech school or college, it is 20 
percent of the first $5,000 of room, board, tuition, books, et cetera.
  I have talked to a lot of adults that are going back to college. They 
are bettering their education so they qualify for a better job for 
themselves and their family. Those folks get to claim 20 percent of the 
cost of that college tuition as a tax credit next year.
  Some people say, well, I earn too much money; and I do not qualify 
for those things. And I say, first off, great. This is America. We are 
happy people are earning money. It is a great country when people are 
in a position to earn enough money to provide a very fine life for 
themselves and their family.
  And, by the way, I want people to get that job promotion. I hope they 
earn more money in the future. Because this is a great Nation, and we 
like to see people succeed in this country. That is not bad, evil or 
rotten; that is good and right in America.
  For those folks that are in that position, most of them are heavily 
invested into stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Now, I have asked around 
rooms, again, I have been in rooms full of people, 200 people in a 
room, and I will ask how many people own a stock, a bond or a mutual 
fund or are involved in a pension plan, and virtually every hand in the 
room goes up. In the past, when people made a profit on a stock a bond 
or a mutual fund, 28 cents out of every dollar got sent to Washington 
as part of that profit.
  And, by the way, if I forgot to say it, I sincerely hope that when 
people invest, they do make a profit. Again,

[[Page H1290]]

that is what this is all about in this country. We like to see people 
be successful in America. This is a great country where these sorts of 
things can happen.
  But, in the past, 28 cents out of every dollar was sent to 
Washington. That capital gains tax rate has been reduced from 28 down 
to 20.
  If someone is in a lower income bracket and still has what it takes 
to make these investments to take care of themselves and their own 
retirement and take care of their own future, if they are in a lower 
tax bracket and they make a profit, the tax rate has been dropped from 
15 cents on the dollar down to 10.
  The next question I usually ask in a room is how many own their own 
home; and, again, virtually every hand in the room goes up. I ask if 
they know that when they sell their house there is no longer any 
Federal taxes due when they sell their house. And it is amazing how few 
people realize that, because of the tax laws passed last year, that 
there is no longer any Federal taxes due on the vast majority of the 
sale of virtually every home in America.
  The last tax cut, or another tax cut, is the Roth IRA. Again, this is 
an opportunity for people to save and take care of themselves in their 
retirement. The Roth IRA is kind of the reverse of the old-fashioned 
IRA.
  In the old-fashioned IRA, an individual could put up to $2,000 per 
person in and could get a tax deduction this year. Under the Roth IRA, 
it is kind of the opposite of that. If they put $2,000 in this year, 
they do not get a tax break this year, but all of the interest, all of 
the earnings that accumulate on that between now and when the person 
retires, those earnings in retirement are absolutely tax free.

                              {time}  1600

  When we think of people in their thirties and forties and fifties 
looking forward to retirement and trying to save up for their own 
retirement, this is a phenomenally beneficial change in the tax code 
for those people trying to save up for retirement. It is much better to 
get the deduction in retirement than it is in the initial year in terms 
of building equity over a long period of time.
  So for those folks that are saving for retirement, I have a lot of 
empty-nesters, and they say to me, I am already in a 401(k); do I still 
get to get in a Roth IRA to save this money up that will not be taxed 
when I am in retirement, the answer to that question is yes. Even if 
they are in a 401(k) or some other retirement plan, they are still 
eligible for a Roth IRA.
  I want to finish on one more tax cut because I think it also reflects 
some of the other changes that are going on in attitudes in the United 
States of America. We found that if a middle-income family in America, 
for whatever reason, found they could not have children of their own 
and they would like to adopt a child in the United States of America, 
adoptions were costing $10,000 per child because of the legal fees and 
all the red tape that is involved and that $10,000 was too much for 
many of our middle-income families to afford. So what we did was we 
changed the Tax Code so that if a middle-income family would like to 
adopt a child and could not afford it, there is now a $5,000 tax credit 
to help that middle-income family afford the adoption if that is what 
they so desire.
  An amazing thing happens when we are out in public, and I talk 
through all of these tax cuts and how beneficial they are. I talked 
about some friends of ours, where they have got three kids in the 
family, one off at college and two still at home, and how this family 
earning between 40- and 50,000 a year next year is going to keep 
$2,300, $400 for each one of the two kids at home and $1,500 for that 
freshman college tuition, how this family that is earning between 40 
and $50,000 a year is going to keep $2,300 more in their own home and 
that family smiles and they are all but cheering, and inevitably 
somebody gets up and says, ``Mark, you just made the Tax Code harder. 
You made the Tax Code more complicated.''
  And to those folks I simply remind them back to 1993, where they made 
the Tax Code harder and more complicated but they did it by raising 
taxes on the American people. Any change you make in this complicated, 
complicated Tax Code that we have today is going to make it even worse 
in terms of complication. But if we change the Tax Code and we have our 
choice between 1993 and raising taxes and 1997 and lowering taxes, 
virtually every American will take the lower taxes versus the higher 
taxes and that kind of puts things back in perspective.
  We have introduced legislation to sunset our Tax Code as we know it 
today and replace it with something that is simpler, fairer, and easier 
for people to understand. I am optimistic that this year we will see 
that legislation pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my good friend the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked me a moment ago if I 
wanted some time on his special order and I declined. But having 
remained in the Chamber and listened, I do want to add a couple things.
  First of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Neumann), Mr. Speaker, for his dogged determination to get us to the 
point where we are in the budget today. As a member of the Committee on 
the Budget, and I remember being in on the discussion back in 1995 
which led to the gentleman being added to the Committee on the Budget, 
also he is a very fine member of the Committee on Appropriations, and 
it is people like the gentleman from Wisconsin and others like him who 
have gotten us to the point where we are.
  We certainly are not everywhere we need to be in terms of tax relief, 
in terms of shrinking the size of the Federal Government. But I did 
want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin 
and to say that I believe, Mr. Speaker, he has quite a few more years 
of effective service for the taxpayers of the United States of America, 
not just of his own State of Wisconsin.
  The gentleman mentioned tax relief and the $400-per-child tax credit. 
A lot of Americans do not realize that they do not have to wait until 
the filing time of 1999. As a matter of fact, if a family wants to, 
they can go down and file with their personnel office at the place of 
their employment and begin having their withholding changed right now 
and enjoy the benefits of this $400-per-child tax credit even now.
  The other point that I was going to make, the gentleman mentioned the 
Roth IRA, and accountants back home in my district and in my State tell 
me that this has become one of the most effective tools already for 
encouraging savings and formation of capital.
  So I just commend the gentleman for his efforts in this regard and 
for the special order that he has entered into today.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I encourage my 
colleague to fill the viewers and our colleagues in on exactly how they 
would go about getting that $400 now instead of last year, $400 divided 
over the 12 months of 1998.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, if I 
could give the gentleman an example.
  A middle-income family, for example the Wilsons in the First District 
of Mississippi, might have 3 children under the ages of 17. That 
entitles the Wilsons in 1998 to claim a tax credit of $400 times 3, or 
$1,200, or a tax credit of $100 per month. Now that is not a tax 
deduction. It is better than a tax deduction. It is actually an 
additional $100 per month added to their take-home pay.
  So a wage earner in that family would simply need to go to the 
personnel office wherever he or she works and fill out a form saying do 
not wait until 1999, adjust my withholding right now, and that family 
can begin to see here in 1998 the benefits of our tax cut from the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Reclaiming my time, that would also apply to things like 
the college tuition tax cut. I had some experience with this. I 
addressed a college with about 800 students and I told them all about 
this, and some of their parents wanted to try and adjust their 
withholding; and what happened when they went and tried to adjust their 
withholding is that the people at this tax office and place of 
employment said, we never heard of this.
  I would like to reassure my colleague that this bill has passed, this 
tax credit is real, and even if his employer or his place of employment 
or the person that

[[Page H1291]]

handles withholding has never heard about it, it does not matter, it is 
still real, it is passed and the ink is dry.
  There is a new withholding form, a new W-4 form, that is available 
that does address the $400-per-child portion of it. But even that form 
does not address the $1500 college tuition tax credit, my colleague 
mentioned a family from Mississippi miss. If I go back to my family 
from Wisconsin with two kids at home and one in college that gets to 
keep $2,300 next year, that is almost $200 a month they get to keep. 
What they would have to do is go in and literally increase the number 
of dependents that they are claiming on their tax form until they get 
to a point where literally their take-home pay returns by 200.
  I would encourage folks to understand that that many of the employers 
and people that handle payroll around the country, at this point in 
time they are not even aware that this tax cut passed. It passed late 
last year. It is very real. If they have got a college student, their 
tax is going down by roughly $1,500 for a freshman or sophomore. For 
most juniors or seniors they are going down by $1,000. If they 
have kids under the age of 17 at home, they are a middle-income family, 
their taxes are going down by $400 for each one of those kids. This is 
very real, and it is a lot of money to a lot of families in the great 
State of Wisconsin.

  We know in Wisconsin we did a study, 550,000 families in Wisconsin 
have kids under the age of 17 that will benefit by the $400 per child. 
Two hundred fifty thousand college students in Wisconsin alone benefit 
from the college tuition tax credit. So this is a lot of money for a 
lot of families.
  Now one problem that we have is most of the families are not doing, 
as my colleague and friend from Mississippi suggested; most of them are 
saying, well, I wait until the end of the year. I am not sure I trust 
Washington and everything they are saying anyhow. So I am going to wait 
until the end of the year. So if I get it back, great, that is a bonus; 
and if I do not get it back, I did not believe them anyhow.
  The problem with that and the problem of not taking advantage of it 
right now is that means that those families are sending a heap of their 
money out here to Washington. That family from Wisconsin I was talking 
about with a college student and two kids at home, they are sending 200 
bucks a month roughly out here to Washington. That is their money, and 
not only could they be earning interest on it but the problem is we get 
that 200 bucks out here, and I am sure my colleague from Mississippi 
knows what happens next, when we see the money sitting out here, what 
happens is the people in this community want to spend it. So it is a 
huge, huge fight for us out here to keep them from spending that money 
that should actually be out there in those Wisconsin and Mississippi 
homes in the first place.
  With that, I am going to wrap up my special order today by reminding 
us of the different bills that we have talked about and where we have 
been and where we are going to. The supplemental we now understand is 
going to be paid for. This is a monumental change. It is new spending 
in Washington is what a supplemental is. We understand they are now 
going to find offsets, or lesser important programs, to pay for the new 
spending as opposed to going out and spending the money. This is a 
monumental change for Washington to actually offsetting new spending by 
finding other spending that is less important and offsetting it, as 
opposed to just spending the new money.
  The ISTEA proposal also is going to be offset. We are happy to say 
that we are seeing the results of welfare spending because the welfare 
rolls are shrinking as people are getting jobs in this very strong 
economy we have. Because the welfare roles are going down, some of the 
spending in social welfare programs is going down and some of that 
money is being redirected to infrastructure.
  The idea of welfare recipients going to work, producing goods and 
services, and those goods and services needing to be able to get to 
market through a strong infrastructure system, that makes perfect sense 
to me. And I am glad to say we are not going to go out and spend new 
money for the infrastructure system, but again we are reducing one 
program and reprioritizing or respending that money in a different 
program as opposed to simply going out and spending more money.
  Again, if I had my druthers, we might just reduce the spending, 
period. But certainly it is much better to offset the spending by 
finding lesser important programs than to just go and spend the money.
  Social Security, we have a long ways to go. The Social Security 
Preservation Act, H.R. 857, would force Washington to stop spending the 
Social Security money right now this year and start putting real assets 
aside so our seniors can again be safe and secure.
  H.R. 2191, the National Debt Repayment Act, is where I close today. 
H.R. 2191, the National Debt Repayment Act, literally restores the 
Social Security Trust Fund, puts all the money back into the Social 
Security Trust Fund that has been taken out; pays off the Federal debt 
so our children could inherent a debt-free nation; and reduces taxes on 
working families all across America.
  I cannot think of a better thing that we in this Congress could 
possibly do than restore the Social Security Trust Fund, reduce taxes, 
and give our kids the legacy of a debt-free Nation.

                          ____________________