[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9989-9992]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          CONSTITUENT CONCERNS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) 
is recognized for half of the remaining time until midnight tonight, 
approximately 32 minutes.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I want to let the Chamber know and all of 
my colleagues that this special order is one that I secure every week 
on behalf of the majority, and so I would invite other Members who 
would like to run down to the floor here for the last 32 minutes to 
come join us on the floor.
  But I want to also mention and refer to a constituent of mine. Her 
name is Jessika, Jessika Fretwell. She introduced me to Flat Stanley. I 
got a picture of Flat Stanley here. She faxed the photo, a drawing of 
Flat Stanley. There is a letter that comes with it, and I would like to 
read that briefly. She wrote to me.
  She said, ``In school we read a book about a boy who got mashed by a 
bulletin board. His name is Flat Stanley. He wanted to go on a trip, so 
his family folded him up and mailed him to California. I am mailing 
Flat Stanley to you. Please take him somewhere and write me back 
telling me where he went. If you have pictures or postcards, please 
send them too. I will take Flat Stanley back to school and share his 
adventure with my class. Thank you for helping me with this project. I 
wish I could fold myself up and visit you. Love, Jessika.'' And Jessika 
spells her name with a ``K.''
  So there is Flat Stanley for Jessika. He is on the floor of the 
United States House of Representatives tonight, and we are proud to 
have him join us.

                              {time}  2300

  I am also pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from 
the great State of Arizona who is here to speak with us tonight. Many 
of our constituents write to us, not just Jessika but several others. 
We are here on the floor this evening to refer to some of the comments 
that have been raised by many of our constituents. We have received so 
many phone calls and letters in the last few days on the matters of 
taxes, on Kosovo, on environmental-related topics. I am just curious 
what kind of things the gentleman from Arizona is hearing about over 
the weekend and today from his constituents.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding. I am pleased that Flat Stanley joins us on the floor tonight. 
Usually people leave out the ``L'' when they describe me, although I am 
working on the diet.
  In all sincerity and seriousness, echoing the comments, though not in 
complete agreement with my friend from New York who spoke on the floor 
here earlier, even tonight as we speak, Mr. Speaker, a group of 
concerned citizens making up a citizens committee on juvenile violence 
meets in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. The committee 
includes clergymen, school administrators and former school 
administrators, current educators, teachers in the classroom, students 
in the classroom and parents together as they take a look at the Sixth 
District of Arizona.
  If there is one difference that typifies the two schools of thought 
here in the House of Representatives, it is that our friends on the 
left tend to look to Washington for solutions and put a trust in the 
Washington bureaucracy. I believe if given a choice between Washington 
bureaucrats and the people at home, I would choose the people at home. 
It is in that spirit that our friends meet, not as Republicans or 
Democrats but as Americans concerned looking for practical solutions to 
the problems they face.
  I think we would all concur that one thing we learn in our time here, 
whether it is through letters that we receive, and I have a few 
tonight, or through town hall meetings or just in our everyday lives 
when we return home to our district, I think we are all impressed and 
reimpressed with the fact that the people whom we serve in our 
respective districts have a lot of good ideas, and so it is the intent 
of our citizens committee on juvenile violence to take a look at the 
vexing problems that have plagued us and the recent tragedies at hand.
  I might also point out that I continue to receive e-mail, phone 
calls, faxes and letters concerning the extraordinary and disturbing 
transfer of technology and nuclear espionage carried on by the Red 
Chinese in this country. Indeed, there are those in my district who 
have said that it is as if we are living in a real-life Allen Drury 
novel, that there are those in this city and on the editorial boards or 
in the assignment editor chairs of various television networks who 
steadfastly refuse to take a look at the serious problems we have. Yet 
through investigative reports, such as those by Bill Gertz of the 
Washington Times and the new book that has been produced, the partial 
title being ``Betrayal'' which details what sadly has transpired and, 
according to the author, how some in the current administration have 
undermined our national security, that continues to be a main concern. 
And, of course, again the topic to which we always return is the notion 
of this government serving the people rather than the people serving 
the government. We have seen a disturbing reversal, if you will, in 
this century in terms of the fact that this government, it would seem, 
both in attitude and in the action of reaching into the pockets of 
hardworking Americans seems to ask for more and more and ask working 
Americans to get by with less and less.
  I received a letter from my friend Ryan in Apache Junction, Arizona, 
just on the border of Maricopa and Pinal Counties there at the foot of 
the beautiful Superstition Mountains.
  Ryan writes, movingly and with conviction:

       Every corner an American turns today has a tax waiting for 
     him or her. It's ridiculous and it's time that it was 
     stopped. I'm tired of paying income tax, property tax, 
     license plate taxes, sales tax, inheritance tax, Social 
     Security tax and capital gains tax. I find all of these taxes 
     unfair, oppressive and unAmerican. Does anyone remember why 
     we left our oppressors in England? Because of high taxes and 
     religious constraints. Where do we go now? When is enough 
     enough? Forty percent of one's wages taken out in taxes? 
     Fifty percent of someone's check taken out in taxes? Make me 
     proud and allow my family and I to live a better life through 
     tax relief.

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Your constituent has a good friend in one of mine from 
Fort Collins, Colorado, Robert Seymour, who wrote to me just last week:


[[Page 9990]]

       The administration's budget plan for next year was 
     presented to Congress on February 1. It imposes new taxes 
     that will make it harder for millions of American families to 
     save for their own retirement needs and will seriously 
     jeopardize the financial protection of families and 
     businesses. Providing for retirement and securing your 
     family's financial security should not be a taxing 
     experience. Americans are taking more responsibility for 
     their own financial futures and they have made it clear that 
     they oppose both direct and indirect tax bites that 
     jeopardize their retirement security and their ability to 
     protect their families. Congress on a bipartisan basis 
     soundly rejected a similar approach last year and I strongly 
     urge you to do the same this time around. Please oppose any 
     new direct or indirect taxes like those commonly referred to 
     as DAC, COLI and PSAs, the typical alphabet soup of 
     Washington, DC, all of these new taxes on annuities and life 
     insurance products.

  This is an individual who obviously is saving for his future and his 
retirement and is getting fed up, as many constituents are around the 
country, with the new proposals that we are seeing coming out of the 
White House this very day, to increase the level of taxation on the 
American people.
  My letters are similar to yours. We receive thousands of them on a 
week-by-week basis. I am glad to be a part of a Republican majority 
that is here to put the voice of the people ahead of the voice of the 
special interests that exist right outside these halls in Washington, 
DC and in Congress.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Speaker. As I 
hear him speak, I think about another tax that I continue to hear 
about, the death tax, what has been called by the Washington 
bureaucracy, the estate tax. That really seems to suggest something 
rather placid and pastoral when, in fact, it is the death tax where 
this government taxes you literally upon your death. My good friend 
from Colorado summed it up very succinctly with echoes of history, not 
unlike when Ryan pointed out the genesis of our Nation in opposition to 
our English cousins imposing taxation, my friend from Colorado, and I 
will quote him again because many an audience enjoys this statement, I 
am pleased to offer him the proper and full credit, unlike some others 
in American politics who take lines from time to time, Mr. Speaker, but 
according to my good friend from Colorado, ``There should be no 
taxation without respiration.'' I think that is especially appropriate.
  I think I have related the story in times past, recently in Winslow, 
Arizona, we were not standing on the corner but we were on the corner 
where the police station and the city hall is located and we were 
having a town hall meeting. It was in the middle of the day and a 
couple of young men from the high school who aspired to attend one of 
our Nation's military academies came to that town hall meeting. A few 
more honored citizens, senior citizens, if you will, were there and 
they were talking about the egregious nature of the death tax, how it 
affected their small businesses, how it affected their family farms and 
ranches, how it was driving families out of business. One of the young 
men heard us talking about this and then, with almost a military 
bearing, I mean the very flower of American youth, he stood there, 
``Congressman, sir, do you mean to tell me the Federal Government taxes 
you when you die?'' And the assembled citizenry there started to 
chuckle, knowingly, almost like our good friend Art Linkletter and now 
Bill Cosby with the television segment ``Kids Say the Darnedest 
Things,'' but, Mr. Speaker, that laughter soon faded, because there was 
nothing funny about the question. The sad fact about the death tax is 
this. For all the rigmarole, for all the hunting down and contacting 
heirs and business partners, the Federal Government procures roughly 1 
percent of its revenue from the death tax. Yet almost three-quarters of 
that 1 percent goes to tracking down the people who apparently owe the 
taxes through the convoluted structure that we have here.
  I have remarked in the past, Mr. Speaker, and I think it bears 
repeating, this country has been blessed with an outstanding group of 
individuals at its birth, Catherine Drinker Bowen made mention in her 
great work in 1966, ``The Miracle at Philadelphia,'' the assemblage of 
so many great thinkers and true patriots. One of those patriots, Dr. 
Benjamin Franklin, incredibly well-versed in a variety of different 
subjects, a man of letters, a printer, a diplomat, a scientist.
  Yet even Dr. Franklin, with all his prescience, I believe would be 
shocked to realize today that the republic which he helped to found 
would literally tax people upon their death, even with his saying in 
Poor Richard's Almanac, ``There are only two certainties in life, death 
and taxes.''

                              {time}  2310

  Understand that Dr. Franklin did not say there was a certainty that 
one would be taxed on their death, and this is one of the absurdities 
we see in our tax structure that my friend Ryan points out, that others 
point out, whether it is the death tax, or the marriage penalty, or 
other tax policies that seem to do their best to disrupt the family 
unit and continue to ask Americans to sacrifice more and more so 
Washington can allegedly do more.
  Those of us in the new majority and people in the Sixth District of 
Arizona, Mr. Speaker, say the opposite should be true. Washington 
bureaucrats should sacrifice so that individuals and families can do 
more with their hard-earned money in terms of saving, investing and 
building for the future.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. It is interesting that my colleague mentions Dr. 
Franklin, because when Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were working 
together over the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, there is 
a story that I have heard from a number of historians about how the two 
of them disagreed on one key point, a key phrase, and that was the word 
``unalienable,'' whether to use ``unalienable,'' which was Franklin's 
preference, or ``inalienable'' which was Jefferson's preference. And it 
is a key distinction.
  Ultimately Franklin won the debate, and the difference between 
``unalienable'' and ``inalienable'' is a matter of taxation in many 
ways. Historians suggest that they pronounce ``unalienable'' the 
following way: un-a-lien-able which means that one cannot place a lien, 
they cannot place some kind of claim from the government on any of the 
rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
  But we see this Federal Government and the people here in Washington, 
D.C. have found a way to abridge the desires of Dr. Franklin, to make 
it so that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are no longer un-
a-lien-able. There are, in fact, liens placed against life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness, and I will bring up another example written 
by a constituent of mine, this time in Ft. Morgan, Colorado. Kathleen 
Tarver wrote, and she is very frustrated. You can just hear the 
frustration in the tone of this letter. It says:
  ``This January I resigned my job and retired early at the age of 50 
to cut our taxes,'' she says. ``We are penalized for being married, and 
we have no children so you guys really sock it to us. Higher fees on 
everything we buy or use are higher taxes.''
  Says: ``We have been putting almost the maximum allowed into our 
401(k) to help cut our taxes. But I may not live long enough to spend 
the money because you look at my retirement dollars as your money,'' 
she is speaking about Washington in general, ``determining for me how I 
can spend it.'' She says that the era of big government seems to be 
back. Here at the end she says:
  ``I don't want to hear you guys in Washington say one more time, `We 
have to save Social Security.' Do it now, and do it right. We have 
saved Social Security five times now because you continue to steal from 
it. Give us our money. Stop stealing it.'' Cut our taxes.
  Very frustrated constituent, and I can tell my colleague I am on 
Kathleen's side, and I know the gentleman from Arizona is as well. We 
receive letters like that routinely, but it really speaks to the 223 
year origins of our great country, when these very noble gentlemen were 
meeting in Philadelphia at this miraculous time that you described and 
trying to chart a new course for our country, one that

[[Page 9991]]

is based on the realization that our rights come from God. They do not 
come from the crown, they do not come from the king, they do not come 
from some document, they do not come from people in the capital city.
  These rights come to us from God himself, and they are un-a-lien-able 
rights. They should be treated that way. Life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness should come as real liberties, as real rights. There 
should be no tax upon them. There should be no burden that one is 
saddled with if they want to enjoy living in complete freedom and 
liberty as America proposes to make possible for all Americans.
  Here is one more letter, another one from Ft. Collins. Russell Beers 
wrote to me. Says Republicans have a majority. Pass a tax proposal, and 
put it on Clinton's desk, and let him veto it. He says he would prefer 
a flat tax, but he underlines: Just do it. It has cost him $700 just to 
have someone figure his taxes for him this year.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, and I can certainly sympathize 
with his constituent. And I receive many letters, and they are not 
confined to April 15, by the way, because some folks get their 
extension to try and work out their taxes on through October 15, and it 
has become a particularly vexing problem for a lot of Americans.
  But let us address my colleague's constituents' concern because, Mr. 
Speaker, the American people deserve to know that these comments are 
not falling on deaf ears. Indeed, as the first Arizonan in history 
honored to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means, the 
committee with primary jurisdiction over the Tax Code and ultimately 
over tax relief, I am pleased to point out that it is our intention in 
July to sit down and write a massive bill of tax cuts, because again we 
believe this is very true, as the preceding letter my friend read from 
Colorado. We understand that in most American families both parents 
work not out of choice, but out of necessity, one parent working 
essentially to pay the incredible tax obligations that befall many 
families. Essentially for one salary in essence to be almost free and 
clear, the other spouse, the other parent, must work quite simply to 
pay the taxes.
  My colleague's constituent pointed that out in her letter. The 
subsequent letter that he read from the gentleman is a call to action, 
and it is our intent to move forward with a tax bill that is expansive 
because we believe over 10 years time we need to reaffirm the fact that 
this money does not belong to the Federal Government, that the tax 
burden and bite should not be so excessive as to force parents out of 
the home and into the workplace not because of career aspirations, but 
because of the necessity of paying the tax bill and dealing with the 
tax burden. And our notion is over 10 years time to return almost $800 
billion to the American people because it is their money to begin with. 
It does not belong to the bureaucrats here in Washington.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. It absolutely is. It is dollars that the American 
people work hard for, and in order to maintain a truly free and 
liberated Republic we have to do everything we can here in Washington 
to insist that those dollars are left in the pockets and in the hands 
of those people who work hard to earn them in the first place.
  Let me just reemphasize the point again with another letter from our 
constituent who lives in Loveland, Colorado, Toni Colson.
  ``Dear Representative Schaffer, I am your constituent from Loveland. 
As a business owner and grandparent, I'm very concerned about the 
serious economic problems facing our country. I feel our current income 
tax structure is having a very negative impact by taxing production, 
savings and investment, the very things which can make our economy 
strong.''
  Well, Ms. Colson has hit the nail right on the head. If you look at 
our tax policy, the graduated income tax structure that we have today, 
the harder you work and the more productive you are, the higher the 
percentage of taxation on your income. We actually punish hard work 
with the current Tax Code. As it stands today, we punish those who put 
money aside and try to save it, we punish people who make the right 
kinds of investment decisions that are not only in their own personal 
best interests as families, but provide the capital and the 
availability of capital on the market to create more jobs, to create 
more businesses and to expand the economy.
  As my colleagues know, I think often about the trillions of dollars 
in private capital that is locked up today. Alan Greenspan, the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, estimates that there is $11 
trillion in private capital that is locked up somewhere in America 
today because the owners of that cash are afraid to take it out and use 
it productively, and why? Because the Federal Government punishes those 
who act responsibly and help to move toward promoting a more vibrant 
and stronger economy.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Colorado is right. I would 
just amend this.
  We are looking, and I think we should reemphasize this, not at 
billions but trillions of dollars, and it is amazing to see what is 
locked up because of the disincentive to inject those funds into the 
economy, the disincentive to invest in businesses because of the 
excessive taxation.

                              {time}  2320

  In fairness, Mr. Speaker, we should be prepared and indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, there may be many within the sound of my voice or within this 
television signal who ask the question, but wait a minute; do not your 
friends on the left always offer the rejoinder, tax cuts for the 
wealthy?
  I would say to them, yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the tired rejoinder we 
hear. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it is all in how one defines who is 
wealthy, because the rhetoric has become so incendiary and so 
predictable that if there is a tax cut at all it must go to the 
wealthy.
  I would invite my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at an 
estimate that was prepared for all of us by the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked for 
this and, Mr. Speaker, this is not something that deals with the 
trillions of dollars, as my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, 
pointed out earlier. This is something that deals with the very human 
equation of average families in America.
  We should also point out that this process does not occur in a 
vacuum. Indeed, I was glad my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, 
joined me in his first term here in the 105th Congress, my second term 
but the first term on the Committee on Ways and Means, as we actually 
offered tax relief to families with first a $400 per child tax credit 
that increases to $500 and indeed we have found that a family of four 
earning $30,000 a year, in essence, pays really no income tax if they 
take advantage of the different deductions and tax credits available to 
them, an average family of four.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, just raise that income by $10,000 again a family 
trying to succeed, trying to get ahead, in raising that income to 
$40,000 for a family of four the tax bill is in excess of $2,000 for 
that family.
  So, again, Mr. Speaker, it is curious to hear the tired rhetoric of 
tax breaks for the wealthy because the sad fact is, apparently our 
friends on the left define wealthy as a middle income earner and a 
middle income taxpayer earning $40,000 a year.
  So that is one of the ironies and that is real life, the very human 
equation, not lost with mind-boggling figures of billions and trillions 
but just the simple challenge of an annual income for a middle income 
family. That is what we reiterate here, that this money belongs to the 
people, not to the Washington bureaucrats.
  The first three words of our Constitution are very instructive and 
they are as instructive as they are poetic. We, the people; not, they, 
the government, but we the people; all of us, Mr. Speaker.
  It is that responsibility which we find uppermost in our minds.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Listening to the people is something that we are 
certainly all about and want to do as often as we can.

[[Page 9992]]

  Here is a personal letter from Weston, Colorado, from someone who 
wrote on this very point, and again he is very critical of government 
and the Federal system. This is a paragraph I am reading from the 
middle of the letter from Dr. Owens, and he says, as you can tell, I 
favor smaller government and less interference with State and local 
governments who are in a better position to make decisions on most 
issues. You people in Washington have very distorted concepts of what 
really goes on out in the real world. Do not believe all you read in 
the polls. I have taught research and statistics and we have a saying 
in research: Statistics do not lie but liars often use statistics, he 
says.
  He is absolutely right. He says polls can show almost anything 
pollsters want them to, just as anyone can find a passage in the Bible 
to support almost any belief. These are both possible if one takes 
things out of context and ignores parts that do not suit them.
  He talks about the occupant of the building at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue as proof of the above and he says the people we 
know do not believe the approval ratings that we see with the things 
going on, again down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I have to amend the gentleman's letter a little bit to fit within the 
House rules about referring to the individual at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue directly, but again this is an individual from 
Weston, Colorado, who understands full well that it is the voice of the 
people that needs to be heard over and above those of special 
interests.
  Unfortunately, these average, regular, ordinary, every day citizens, 
they are counting on their Members of Congress to voice their opinions, 
to voice their concerns and be the ones who are the guardians of the 
public trust and a legitimate public trust.
  What they are up against, though, and the gentleman knows this as 
well as I do, is when we walk right outside the House chamber in these 
lobbies right outside the Capitol, there are legions of lobbyists who 
are paid by various special interests to come here and give us another 
viewpoint on what America looks like from the perspective of the banks 
of the Potomac. Fortunately we have the loud voices of people like Dr. 
Owens in Weston, Colorado, who take the time to write us letters and 
help us keep the Congress on an even center.
  I know the gentleman hears from many constituents who help the 
gentleman in that regard.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I do, indeed. I would also make the point that one of 
the ironies of serving here in Washington is that especially sadly on 
the left, a number of the special interest lobbyists are subsidized 
with taxpayer funds, which is one of the incredible ironies, something 
we have tried to change but the institutional inertia here, it is an 
uphill battle dealing with that. It is one of the curiosities.
  The gentleman mentioned the voice of the people and in addition to 
letters, and I brought a couple down tonight, but I just think about a 
variety of radio townhall meetings we have held lately and the subject 
that comes up time and again, Mr. Speaker, is our national security; 
for even as our Founders in that wonderfully practical and poetic 
preamble to our Constitution delineated that one of our constitutional 
responsibilities was to provide for the common defense.
  Again, we have serious problems here. Almost everyone I speak with 
during these radio townhalls in a district in square mileage almost the 
size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, say the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) has been working to prepare a bipartisan report. 
It was prepared in January or February. When will the House move to 
release that because the White House is reticent?
  We must move quickly to release that report.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Before the gentleman goes on to the point about the 
comment, let me just ask about these town meetings. I hold a town 
meeting in my district every week and hold several others on top of 
that when we are not in Washington, and it is a great opportunity to 
listen to thousands of constituents who show up and voice these same 
kind of concerns that I have read from some of the letters.
  I am curious about what the gentleman called a radio townhall 
meeting. Tell me how that works.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. The challenge in representing a district, really in 
square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is 
trying to get everywhere all the time.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The gentleman's district is that size?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. The district is that size. Although a rancher in Show 
Low said, here is a perfect slogan, a big man for a big district, I do 
not exactly think that is the case. Even I cannot get all the way 
around all the time.
  So several broadcasters in the area are willing to set up programs 
and quite often on a Monday or Tuesday will set them up where 
constituents from the comfort of their home or at work or via mobile 
phone, if they are out on the streets and byways, can call in and we 
can discuss issues and it actually invites everyone into the townhall.
  The past several townhalls I have had, Mr. Speaker, again and again 
and again and again, the question of national security comes up. It 
evokes evidence that we have heard from Dr. Owens that people are 
concerned. They believe that our national security has been frittered 
away. Indeed, we have read in the press that the technology transfers 
and the espionage carried out by the communist Chinese rivals that of 
the Rosenbergs in the 1950s.
  While we see the drips and drabs and the old spin game going on at 
the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we must move as a House, if there 
is reticence in the executive branch, to release this report.
  I would point out for the record, Mr. Speaker, that President 
Clinton, following receipt of the report from the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), in 
a bipartisan fashion, could have released the report immediately. While 
there are legitimate national security concerns in terms of not 
exposing our sources and means of procuring our own information through 
counterintelligence, there are still serious concerns that the American 
people need to know about.
  Again Mr. Speaker, I would renew the call that this House, if the 
reticence, if the stonewalling, if the dribs and drabs and endless spin 
continue from the administration, that this House should take every 
action necessary, including meeting in a closed session, if that is 
necessary, to vote out this report so the American people can 
understand the extent of the problem we confront.

                              {time}  2330

  Because whether we worry about security in the home, security in the 
school, Social Security for our seniors in generations yet to come, 
undergirding all of that is our very existence as a constitutional 
republic and our national security. This House took steps tonight to 
bolster our national security, not bullet-for-bullet or bomb-for-bomb 
in the Balkan theater, but to try and avert the danger of returning to 
the days of the hollow force, and it is in that spirit we continue to 
work in this House.

                          ____________________