Mac Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, April 14 marked the second anniversary of the Black Hawk shootdown, an accident which claimed the lives of 26 international servicemen. Among the victims was Capt. Patrick McKenna, the son of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. McKenna of Columbus, GA. Captain McKenna was among an elite group of brave men and women who sacrificed their lives to complete a mission of selflessness in the face of tyranny. Their bravery and courage epitomize the strength of the human spirit and the dedication of those who give their lives to defend others. To commemorate this heroism, the Eagle Flight Detachment Memorial Monument was constructed at the Giebelstadt Army Airfield in Giebelstadt, Germany. This memorial provides a tangible reminder to the victims' families and friends that their loss will never be forgotten. I commend all parties involved who had a hand in making this project a reality. There are still many unanswered questions concerning this accident, yet one thing is certain. These men and women died for the honor and glory of giving to others. This is an example from which we can all learn. In remembrance of this tragedy, I would like to once again express my heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of those lost. May they all rest in peace.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I know the intent of the gentleman from Florida is to take politics out of the appointment as much as possible, but I am concerned, too, that we may form some internal politics within the agency itself if we are not careful. That is where I want to make sure that no one is culled out from being considered as a nominee or as an appointee for the particular office, services, U.S. marshal. We have in the central district of Georgia in the past, we have actually had a deputy marshal appointed as U.S. marshal. I know and I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. But any good law enforcement officer should be considered for this appointment, and I want to assure that that will be still available.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. That also would include any formal law enforcement official.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and my purpose for the colloquy is to be assured that there is nothing in this legislation that would prohibit any law enforcement officer who resides in the jurisdiction of the Marshals Service where the appointment will be made from not being considered for the employment. What I understand we are doing here is we are changing the appointment process from that of a nomination by Senator and a confirmation by the Senator as recommendations of the President. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the health care reform legislation now under consideration by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives draws a dramatic contrast against the health care reform legislation considered by Congress in 1994 under a Democrat majority. The legislation of 1994, crafted by President Clinton and introduced by the Democrat leader, Mr. Richard Gephardt, would have created a new bureaucratic government agency with authority over most of the health care choices each private citizen makes. This year, however, under a Republican-controlled House, we are considering health care reform legislation that avoids the explosion of government bureaucracy. This legislation is a direct response to the views and concerns expressed by American citizens during the 1994 health care debate when we defeated the Clinton socialistic health care proposal. This year's reform legislation will provide greater access to health care without increasing government bureaucracy. It will eliminate permanent preexisting condition limitations; ensure greater insurance portability so those who change jobs will have access to coverage; offer greater tax fairness for individuals; provide tax deductible contributions to medical savings accounts targeting those middle-income individuals and families without health care; streamline administrative costs and procedures; combat fraud and abuse in the health care industry; invoke medical malpractice reform that discourages unnecessary litigation currently driving up the cost of health care; and above all preserve the quality and freedom of choice that exists in our current market-based system. One of the most important and unique components of this health care reform legislation is the creation of medical savings accounts [MSA's]. This provision will allow individuals and families to purchase a high deductible health plan and make tax deductible contributions to MSA's for the purpose of saving money for health care expenditures. In addition, contributions by employers on behalf of their employees will be excludable from taxable income. This proposal will finally provide an ideal way for young individuals and young families just starting out, to obtain affordable, quality health care coverage. Estimates indicate that at least 1 million people will open medical savings accounts. Approximately 650,000 people who earn between $40,000 and $75,000 per year will choose MSA's; while 120,000 people who earn between $30,000 and $40,000 per year will join. The vast majority of those benefiting from the MSA will be middle-income families who, in today's market, face the most difficult challenge in obtaining coverage. MSA's create more fairness for small employers and their employees by eliminating barriers to coverage. As a small business owner, I know first hand what kind of limitations small businesses face when trying to establish health care coverage for their employees. Often, providing health care becomes too complicated or too expensive for these employers. MSA's will be an ideal way for small businesses to assist employees in obtaining health care coverage. MSA's may very well mean the difference between those employees who have no insurance and those that have access to affordable health care. MSA's will provide the maximum degree of portability for employees. When an employee leaves, he or she will take the MSA to the next job. MSA's will ultimately reduce the long-term care expenditures of medicare and Medicaid by promoting the purchase of long-term care insurance. The provision will allow individuals to make a tax-free withdrawal for the purposes of paying long-term care insurance premiums. Long-term is among the largest expenditures in entitlement health care programs. Encouraging citizens to purchase coverage in the private markets means reduced costs to the taxpayers. MSA's will provide the maximum amount of choice for health care consumers. Individuals and families will have the maximum amount of control over the choices they make in their health care. Maximizing the ability of the consumer to choose means increased competition and cost savings for that individual or family purchasing health coverage. MSA's have a long history of bipartisan support. In 1994, the Democrat party leader, Representative Gephardt, endorsed MSA's. In 1994, Senator Paul Simon introduced legislation to establish MSA's. In addition, States have passed State-level legislation that exempt MSA deposits from State-level taxes. Mr. Speaker, the MSA provision is one of several very important health care reform components of the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act. The health care debate began during the last Congress (103d). Today, in the 104th Congress we are fulfilling the commitment to enact common sense health care reform that will provide greater portability and accessibility of health care for all Americans.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the previous debate, one of our colleagues said the scum of the Earth uses these weapons. I say to my colleagues, let us get rid of the scum. But let me say something, the scum will use anything to kill with. Let me tell my colleagues about a couple of them in Georgia. We had one who shot a police officer with a shotgun, let him bleed to death. We got rid of that scum, we executed him. I witnessed it. Let me tell about another scum who took a club and beat a woman's head to a pulp. We got rid of that scum. We executed him. We got over 100 scums waiting on death row with the same punishment. Let us get rid of the scum, not law abiding citizens.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo- Chambliss temporary guest worker amendment. First, I want to thank my colleague from California and my neighboring colleague from Georgia for addressing this issue. Currently there is a shortage of farm labor in many parts of this country. This is definitely the case in my home State of Georgia. A major reason for this shortage is clear. The U.S. Government's welfare system has lowered the work ethic in many areas of the labor market and has almost ruined the farm labor. As a result of this shortage, farmers are forced to import laborers from other countries. Until we break the cycle of dependency on the Federal Government, their will continue to be a great need for seasonal agricultural labor. American farmers should not be forced to bear the burden of misguided social programs. In fact, Mr. Chairman, farmers tell me it is difficult for their paycheck to compete with that of the welfare check. This guest worker amendment offers a viable remedy. It establishes a process through which farmers can acquire legal immigrant labor when no domestic workers are available. Bear in mind that under this amendment, farmers must still look to the domestic market labor first. This amendment will provide a means to track and ensure the return of imported laborers, something the existing program does not do. Additionally, the number of immigrants brought in is based on need, which will vary from year to year. Further, the amendment extends work visas for a maximum of only 10 months and the program bans aliens who overstay from future participation. As an additional incentive, 25 percent of the laborer's paycheck is withheld until they return home. On another point, Mr. Chairman, the recent farm bill removes many restrictions on how much farmers will be able to plant. As a result, farm production will dramatically increase over the next few years, creating a greater need for farm labor than ever before. I urge my colleagues to support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment. It will help the farmers throughout this country obtain labor because they do not have the labor force today to draw from.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, many citizens in Georgia have concerns over the Food and Drug Administration's proposal to regulate tobacco. As a result, the Georgia House of Representatives passed a resolution asking the U.S. Congress to rescind any action giving the FDA authority to regulate tobacco. I submit Georgia House Resolution 980 for the Congress' careful consideration. House of Representatives H.R. No. 980 By: Representatives Reaves of the 178th, Floyd of the 138th, Hudson of the 156th, Royal of the 164th, James of the 140th and others. A Resolution Petitioning the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States to rescind and remove any action that would give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory powers over the tobacco industry; and for other purposes. Whereas the tobacco industry has been a vital part of the economy of the State of Georgia for more than 250 years; and Whereas tobacco products are legally grown and produced in this state for the enjoyment of adults who choose to use those products; and Whereas tobacco growers are productive citizens of the State of Georgia; and Whereas the plan by the Food and Drug Administration is to severely and unnecessarily restrict the marketing of legal products grown in the State of Georgia; and Whereas tobacco companies, growers, tobacco producing states, and individuals who work within the industry sincerely and publicly oppose young people smoking; and Whereas the laws of Georgia forbid the sale of tobacco products to youth under 18 years of age; and Whereas the tobacco industry is more than adequately regulated by other state and federal agencies and tobacco products are the most highly taxed commodity in the country; and Whereas FDA Commissioner Kessler has publicly stated that he wants to put the tobacco industry, including our tobacco farmers, out of business; and Whereas regulation of the tobacco industry by the FDA is costly, unnecessary, and unwarranted. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, That this body hereby petitions the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States to rescind and remove any action that would give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory powers over the tobacco industry. Be it further resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit appropriate copies of this resolution to the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States. In House, Read and Adopted, February 26, 1996. Robert E. Rivers, Jr., Clerk.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Georgia House of Representatives passed a resolution asking the United States Congress to reevaluate the sale of the Southeastern Power Administration [SEPA]. I submit Georgia house resolution 850 for the Congress' careful consideration. Georgia House of Representatives Resolution 850 H.R. No. 850--By: Representatives McCall of the 90th, Powell of the 23rd, Hanner of the 159th, Reaves of the 178th, Channell of the 111th and others a resolution Urging the United States Congress to reject the proposal to sell the facilities used to generate electric power marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration; and for other purposes. WHEREAS, a proposal has been made to the United States Congress to sell facilities used by the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) which is headquartered in Elbert County, Georgia; and WHEREAS, these facilities, which include nine hydroelectric dams, provide electric power and reservoirs for Georgia; and WHEREAS, all of these facilities, operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, also provide the public and needed fish and wildlife resources, municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supplies, flood control, reservoir, and downstream recreational uses, and river water level regulation; and WHEREAS, such proposed sale would give too little assurance that these assets will be administered with due consideration to the purposes of the facilities not related to power production, such as water supply, flood control, navigation, recreation, and environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the revenue from the electricity generated by the hydroelectric dams exceeds the retirement obligations of the construction bonds and costs of operation and maintenance for these facilities; and WHEREAS, many Georgians served by these facilities could likely experience significant rate increases in electricity and water as a result of this sale.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues in the House recent action taken by the House of Representatives of the State of Georgia. While many Georgians expressed significant reservations with regard to the Clinton administration policies leading to the deployment of ground troops on the Balkan Peninsula, it is clear that American citizens and their leaders are unified in support of our courageous men and women serving in the region. Now that our men and women are fully deployed and committed to the mission given to them by the Commander in Chief, it is imperative that we provide the material support necessary to insure the safe and successful completion of this peacekeeping effort. H.R. No. 791 By: Representatives Bunn of the 74th, Heckstall of the 55th, Hembree of the 98th, Mueller of the 152nd, Brown of the 130th and others A Resolution Expressing support for the American troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina urging President Clinton and the Congress to give the troops sufficient resources to ensure their well-being; and for other purposes. Whereas, President Clinton has dispatched American troops to assist in supervising the fragile peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Whereas, those American men and women along with their NATO counterparts are experiencing severe hardship and facing real personal danger in order to protect the former combatants and their respective civilian populations in that tragic region; and Whereas, those brave men and women deserve not only our moral support but also the real material support necessary to ensure their safety in a hostile environment. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives That the members of this body express their confidence that the American troops deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina will acquit themselves professionally and honorably, pledge their unreserved support for the American troops, and pray that their mission will bring a return of peace and prosperity to the citizens of the region. Be it further resolved That the members of this body urge the President and Congress to provide the United States contingent with the resources and support necessary to ensure the success of their mission and their early safe return home. Be it further resolved That the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit appropriate copies of this resolution to President Clinton, the presiding officers of the House of Representatives and Senate, the majority leader of the Senate, and the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, after reflecting on the President's State of the Union Address Tuesday evening, I am deeply disturbed over the many contradictions in his speech. In one breath the President declared: ``The era of big Government is over.'' And in the next he states: ``But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves.'' The President is again trying to be all things to all people. But, he is being dishonest with the American people. The President knows the magnitude of our Government's financial crisis. Mr. Speaker, he knows our Nation is nearly $5 trillion in debt. He knows that Government subsidized programs and entitlements are draining our Nation's Treasury. And, he knows that to continue down this road leads us to moral and financial bankruptcy. Yet, the President continues to try and please everyone. He continues to pander to every person and every group that has come to depend on a Government subsidy paid for by the American taxpayer. He continues to pander to his voting base for the 1996 Presidential campaign. The elections of 1992 and 1994 were about change. The people of this Nation said ``enough is enough.'' The people told Washington they were tired of big government. They told Washington they were tired of the Democrat's tax and spend policies. Mr. Speaker, 1996 is another election year. And the President can read the polls. His State of the Union Address played to the people's desires and emotions. The President challenged Republicans in Congress to give him a balanced Federal budget, tax cuts for working Americans, welfare reform, educational scholarships, crime prevention programs. And the list goes on and on. Well Republicans have already met the President's challenge. But he failed to tell the American people that in his State of the Union Address. The President failed to tell the American people we gave him a balanced Federal budget--and he vetoed it. The President failed to tell the American people we gave him a bill that cut taxes for all working Americans--and he vetoed it. The President failed to tell the American people we gave him a bill to reform welfare as we know it--and he vetoed it. The President failed to tell the American people we gave him a bill providing $2 billion in new crime prevention programs--and he vetoed it. And, the President failed to tell the American people we gave him a bill that increases Federal funding for education, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans and all the Federal programs that help people help themselves. The President failed to tell the American people he vetoed it. Mr. Speaker, we did all of this and cut wasteful Federal spending and the Washington bureaucracy. We also did all this and returned the power and decisionmaking to individuals, families, and States. The President failed to tell this to the American people in his address. Why? Because Bill Clinton believes in big government. Bill Clinton believes in Washington bureaucrats making decisions instead of the people. The President was right when he said the era of big government is over. But the rest of his address was a last gasp for tax and spend big government. The American people rejected that philosophy in 1994 and we in Congress reject it now. We will not continue to pass on more and more financial obligations to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton needs to be more honest with the American people. He needs to have a change of heart or we need to change President.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the majority of this Congress passed a 7-year plan to balance the Federal budget. Our plan will zero out deficit spending by the year 2002. But, Mr. Speaker, at the end of those 7 years our accumulated debt will be over $6 trillion. If Congress reduces that $6 trillion debt by $200 billion per year beginning in the year 2003, it will then take 30 years to pay off the principal; 30 years, Mr. Speaker, at $200 billion per year for 30 years. Even at that rate, it will be the year 2033 before we pay off the $6 trillion debt. Mr. Speaker, the next two generations of working taxpayers will pay the bill. We must end wasteful spending now. And, Mr. Speaker, is the fight to retain power in Washington important enough to risk the prosperity and future of our young people? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in 1993, President Clinton and the Democrat-controlled 103d Congress thought they could reduce or end the Government's deficit by passage of the President's budget bill. That bill dramatically increased taxes on working Americans, but it will not end the deficit or balance the budget. President Clinton was wrong. He has even admitted publicly he was wrong to have raised taxes. But his actions have not matched his words. President Clinton vetoed the congressionally passed Balanced Budget Act of 1995. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 would have balanced the Federal budget in 7 years while reducing taxes on working Americans. The bill would have saved Medicare from bankruptcy and preserved this vital health care program for our nation's senior citizens, and the bill would have reformed the welfare system that has created a generation of Americans trapped in poverty and dependent on Government handouts. President Clinton also vetoed several appropriation bills, including the Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce, and others. The President closed the doors of many Federal Agencies and Departments. The President has idled thousands of Federal workers, and the President has inconvenienced millions of Americans who are trying to secure home mortgage loans, passports, financial aid and other important Government services. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to go beyond just an admission he was wrong. It is time for the President to stop the political rhetoric and accept common sense reform. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that goes like this: ``A wise man will change his mind, but a fool never does.'' In the current debate, it remains to be seen who will or will not change their mind. The President and the 103d Congress passed a budget bill that raised taxes on working Americans in an effort to lower the deficit and balance the budget. It did not work. That can be seen in the fact that today we are spending $500 million-a-day more than we take in in taxes and revenues. Yet the President has refused to change his mind and consider a new course, a course that will provide a balanced budget by the year 2002. The President and the 103d Congress initiated the COPS Program. The President's program promised to lower crime rates and make our streets safer by providing Federal funds to State and local governments to hire 100,000 more police officers. Two years later, less than a third of the new police officers promised by the President are on our Nation's streets, and when the Federal funds run out, the State and local governments will have to foot the bill for these new officers. The President's plan is costly. It is another unfunded Federal mandate forced on the backs of States and local governments. This, too, is clearly a failed policy, and again the President has refused to change his mind and consider a new course. Republicans in the Congress passed an appropriations bill for the Department of Justice. That bill provided some $2 billion in trust fund money for State and local law enforcement block grants. Those funds would have been used to employ additional law enforcement officers; those funds would have provided additional compensation, equipment, or other necessary materials related to basic law enforcement services. Those funds would have enhanced security measures in and around our schools, and those funds would have established multijurisdictional task forces, particularly in rural areas that work with Federal officials for crime prevention and control. Mr. Speaker, in short, that bill would have done what the President's bill failed to do. The bill would have returned money and decisionmaking to local police departments. The bill would have allowed them to make decisions on how to reduce crime in their communities, but again the President has refused to change his mind over a failed policy. He vetoed that bill. There is another old saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The American people are not fooled by the press conferences and political rhetoric being put forth by the President. Every day that this impasse continues, the public becomes more angry at the President and the Congress. In December, the public was leaning towards placing blame at the feet of Congress. Now, however, the American people are dividing the blame between the President and the Congress. Mr. Speaker, often political leaders will govern by poll numbers. The President peaked and missed his highwater mark in the polls by 3 days. With the President's failure to agree on a balanced budget concept that we as a Congress could have voted on this past Wednesday, it is now apparent to the public that the President is not sincere about balancing the budget. This is not a situation where the President is winning or losing some political game. There are no points to be scored here. From now on, everybody loses. Mr. Speaker, I say again, it is time for the President to stop the political rhetoric and accept commonsense reform.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, to quote a Member of the other body: ``Enough is enough.'' It is time for the President to do for the American Government and the taxpayer's employees what he did for the government and people of Mexico. Last year, President Clinton provided $20 billion United States taxpayer dollars to Mexico so they could pay their bills and employees. But President Clinton vetoed the appropriations bills that would have paid the bills for the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments and their employees. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time to override the irresponsibility of the President. Vote yes to override President Clinton's veto of the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, It is time for Congress to do for America what the President did for Mexico.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as Congress and the Clinton administration continue negotiations to balance the Federal budget, I am reminded of the question I heard from residents in Georgia's Third District last week: How much government can working people afford? I want to repeat that question: How much government can working people afford? Today the combined Federal, State, and local taxes consume nearly 40 percent of the disposable income of working Americans. Federal taxes place the harshest burdens on taxpayers. In 1994, the average American family turned over 25 percent of its income to the Federal Government. That compared to just 2 percent in 1954. During the 1950's and the early 1960's, the Federal Government managed to pay for the national defense, build a nationwide Interstate Highway System, deliver our mail, and provide other vital government functions while living within its means. Today the Federal Government spends $500 million per day more than it collects in taxes and revenues. We are $4.9 trillion in debt. Interest on our national debt is the third largest single item in the Federal budget, topped only by Social Security and the national defense outlays. Federal entitlement programs are responsible in large part for our national financial predicament. Today working Americans are paying the bills to provide health care to the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. Today working Americans are paying the bills to fund numerous Federal welfare programs that create a lifestyle of government dependence. Today working Americans are paying the bills to subsidize various Federal programs for farmers, students, cities, counties, States, businesses, and the list goes on and on, which brings me back to the question I heard from my constituents: How much government can working people afford? We Americans are a fair and compassionate people. We believe in providing the benefits of Federal programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, for which people have paid for and earned. We also believe in helping those who want to help themselves. We are providing the programs that will help those citizens in our society who have encountered difficulties. But we must reform those programs that encourage government dependence as a way of life for millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, working people pay the bills. They provide the funds to pay for all Federal programs and they must pay for the Federal debt an the interest that accrues because of irresponsible deficit spending. While Democrats criticize tax breaks for fat-cat corporations and businesses, who do they really think pays the corporate taxes? The working people of this country, Mr. Speaker. That is who pays corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are built into the cost of products and services purchased by consumers. When a consumer goes to the store and buys a product or purchases a service, he or she does not get two receipts for that product or service. They get one receipt for the item and within that one receipt are all the taxes that have been paid on that product. Instead, this consumer has only one receipt rather than two. No receipt for just the tax portion of the profits earned on the sale of that item. American workers pay the bills for all government programs and for all services. How much more government can they afford? Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to join Congress in our effort to preserve Medicare, to change welfare, and to provide tax relief for working Americans and pass a 7-year balanced budget. This is the only way we can provide a Federal Government that working people can afford.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, that is in the law the President signed some 30 days ago. He himself promotes the fact that we need to change and adopt tax codes that will stimulate the economy, and that goes back to the capital gains, the repeal of the depreciation schedule, the alternative minimum tax, the $500 per child tax credit. All of those things will help stimulate the economy, you do have growth, economic growth, as he agreed to.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield? Let us look at how that $500 actually helps that working family and then simultaneously stimulates the economy. What will they do with the $500? They will spend it. They will spend it on their family. That is how it helps that family, and once they spend it, they spend it normally on consumer goods or some type of service. That helps stimulate the economy. It is a very positive move for this country to adopt tax policy, as the President has agreed, that will help working families and stimulate economic growth.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. A lot has been said about the agreement in the bill that the President signed some 30 days ago dealing with the balanced budget and the agreement that we would reach one by the end of this legislative session. You asked the gentleman from New Jersey a while ago a very good question about tax policy: Did he think tax policy change would actually help to create jobs, as evidenced by the $500 per child tax credit? I want to refer to the agreement, too, that the President also agreed with. That is, the last line in the first paragraph says ``Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working families and to stimulate future economic growth.'' Even the President himself believes that if you help working families, and working families are the ones that pay the bills in the this country, they are the ones that work, earn a paycheck, and money comes out of that paycheck and comes into the government, he agrees that if you help those people, you will help and stimulate economic growth, also through tax policy that helps benefit those who provide those jobs for those working people. So the President himself has said, ``Let us change and adopt tax policy that helps working America and also stimulates the economy.''

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Our final word for my colleague from Georgia. You made a very important statement a while ago when you compared the tax policy of 1950 to today and how much more it takes out of a family income. There has been a lot said in this Chamber about the erosion of family income. The President himself has talked about the erosion of family income. One of the reasons for erosion is taxation. Another is excessive regulations that go into the cost of consumer goods and services. That has accounted for the erosion of family income in this country.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. To sum it up, the only person standing between the balanced budget and the people of this country is the President of the United States, because he vetoed the balanced budget that the leader from the other body and the Speaker of this House were instrumental in passing and sent to his desk. He vetoed it. He stands between the people and the balanced budget, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, there is only one person who stands between a balanced budget in this town and that is the President of the United States because he vetoed the balanced budget. There is only one person that stands between those employees of the Commerce and Justice Department being at work, and that is the gentleman who vetoed that bill, the appropriations that would have paid their wages. That is the President of the United States. There is only one person that stands between the national parks being open and the people who work for the Department of Interior, and that is the gentleman who vetoed that appropriation bill, the President of the United States. There is only one person who stands between those who work for VA and HUD and besides there would have been a 2.4-percent increase for our military had this bill been approved, and that is the President of the United States, the man who vetoed the appropriation bill. Mr. Speaker, I was reading the other day in Reader's Digest a quote that I think fits this area, this time very well. It was by the late Harry Truman. He said, it is not the hand that signs the laws that holds the destiny of America; it is the hand that cast the ballot. I think that we could say the same here. It is not the hand that vetoes the laws that holds the destiny of America; it is the hand that casts the ballot. I urge support of this continuing resolution to fund the benefits of our veterans.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a real gentleman of Georgia. Carl L. ``Pat'' Patrick of Columbus is a man who is known and admired greatly by industrial, civic and community leaders throughout our State. He is the founder and chairman of Carmike Cinemas Inc. which operates movie theaters throughout Georgia and the South. And while he is known best for his work in the cinema industry, it is his generosity and selfless charitable acts for which I commend this man. Pat and his wife, Frances, have long been supporters of and contributors to Columbus community causes such as Columbus Technical Institute, the Columbus Museum and the John B. Amos Community Cancer Center at the Medical Center. Pat's most recent contribution, however, is one of his greatest. He donated $1 million to St. Francis Hospital of Columbus--the hospital where his son was born during the facility's first year of operation in 1950. St. Francis now specializes in cardiac medicine and the Patricks want to ensure the hospital is able to purchase the necessary equipment to keep pace with the strides being made in this field. On a more personal note, when Julie and I received our Christmas card from Pat and Frances this year, we had a most pleasant and touching surprise awaiting us. In addition to the wonderful holiday message, the card informed us that a contribution had been made by the Patricks in our name to the Will Rogers Memorial Fund. Again, I commend Carl L. ``Pat'' Patrick. He has touched the lives of so many people in so many ways with his warmth and generosity. Thank you Pat and Frances.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yieldng me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have said a number of times from this well and also in the Third District of Georgia that the greatest challenge to this Congress is the deficit, and the greatest threat to this Nation is the national debt, and the best and the most important responsibility of this Congress is balancing the budget. What we are doing here today is trying to prevent and stop the delay of balancing the budget. The process of using trust funds rather than disburse them into the accounts that they should be in is simply a way to balance-budget dodge, and that is it in a nutshell. It is wrong. Those funds are deducted from employee checks, they are matched by taxpayers' money, and they should be deposited in the trust funds. Those dollars do not belong to the Federal Government or the Treasury any longer. Once they come out of a person's payroll check, they should go to the place of responsibility and that is the trust funds. We in the private sector, those of us who are in business and employ people, have to do the same thing. When we have funds that we deduct from an employee's check, we have so many banking days that we have to make a deposit at the bank and those funds go into the Treasury and then supposedly into trust funds. The same thing should be required of the Treasury and the Federal Government. The Federal Government, the Treasury, should be required, also, to make those deposits within a short period of time and not use them to circumvent the process of balancing the people's books. Passage of this legislation will not completely stop the balanced- budget dodging, but it will sure help. It will sure help to protect those dollars that are deducted from the employees of this Government and from those who work for many other employers and have Social Security funds deducted from their paychecks. It is important that we pass this legislation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is a day that many of us in this body can stand and say promises made, promises kept, because both sides of the aisle have promised our seniors we would give them relief in their earnings ability by allowing them to continue to work and earn extra money and not be penalized for such. It comes from both sides of the aisle. As has been mentioned, both in the subcommittee and the full committee, there was not a dissenting vote. Again, this is how this body can work. I go back to just 10 days ago, on Sunday evening in this same body when on a unanimous consent we sent a continuing resolution down to the White House that would do the same thing, promises made, promises kept. That is why we all agreed to a 7-year balanced budget. I look forward to the day we stand here unanimously and say we fulfilled that promise also.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there have been several speakers who have come to the floor this morning and talked about the agreement and the entitlement programs that it will address in the next 3 weeks, but there is another very, I think, very influential and very important portion of that agreement and that is that we shall adopt tax policies to help working families and stimulate future economic growth. Tax policy to help working families. That is the $500 tax credit that not only we have proposed in legislation and passed this year, but also that the President proposed earlier this year. Stimulate economic growth. When the minority leader appeared before the Committee on Ways and Means earlier this year, I asked him about a provision in the Tax Code that I think have cost more assembly line jobs than any provisions that have been implemented and would he support repealing it; and his answer was yes. And that is the alternative minimum tax. The capital gains tax. What more has history proven that will help stimulate the economy than the capital gains tax? Mr. Speaker, we do not need to overlook this very important part of this agreement.