Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is right; and as we have taken a look we are increasing spending, we are going to have to reassess some priorities, because we are going to be moving money into high-priority programs, programs like Medicare, Medicaid, those types of programs, as we reform them we are still going to be increasing this per beneficiary from I do not know of the latest numbers, but I know in the House budget resolution we are looking at going from roughly $4,700 or $4,800 per beneficiary to over $6,000 per beneficiary.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I do not think that has been a problem. The nice thing about going through this process is we have recognized, despite all of the rhetoric, and Mr. Greenspan knew this, to get a balanced budget we did not have to radically go through and cut spending; we had to slow the growth of the [[Page H 6393]] Federal Government. And coming from the private sector, I would have taken these kinds of budgets and these kinds of cuts almost any time because the private sector is going through much more difficult and aggressive cost-cutting procedures than what we are doing. We are slowing the growth. We are still spending at a roughly 3-percent to 4- percent increase.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is fine. I think the words that you started your special order with were talking about the discussions that we really had 14, 15 months ago, talking about what kind of an agenda and what kind of platform are we going to run on as Republicans, in walking away from the easy answer which is saying, let's run a negative campaign, and talking about now, let's not worry about what the other side is doing, what the other side is saying, let's identify our agenda, what we want to do, the positive message that we believe we can carry to the American people because of the great faith that we have in our country, in the American people, in our ability to bring all of these people together to re-create and to renew this country. We ran on a positive agenda. We then came in and, as my colleague recounted, we did what we said we were going to do. We are continuing to do it. I went back and got this document, this is the Congressional Record for yesterday. It is pretty much a pro forma day. But the first document that was put in there was Permission to Have until Midnight Tonight to file the Conference Report on House Concurrent Resolution 67, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996. This is it. This is the document that a year ago, 6 months ago, 6 weeks ago, 6 days ago all the critics were saying we could not do, that first we could not as House Members on the Committee on the Budget get to a budget resolution that would balance the budget within 7 years. Then they said, ``Well, yeah, you're right, the House could do it but you'll never get a similar-type document out of the Senate.'' The Senate came through in great form and they delivered a budget document that got the balance. As happens, their document was different than ours, and the people came back and said, ``Now there's no way you'll ever reconcile the differences between the two.'' We now have, and I believe on Thursday we will have the opportunity, hopefully in both the House and the Senate, to pass a budget resolution, the same budget resolution which gets us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. So we have moved from a process of talking about change, having a positive message, to taking one more step to actually delivering positive change, and as we have had so many people come into the Budget Committee and testify, Alan Greenspan coming in and talking about what the importance is of having a balanced budget, not only to business and industry, but to families, people buying a mortgage. I believe a number Mr. Greenspan has quoted is we may see up to a 2-percent benefit on home mortgage and long-term interest rates and short-term interest rates.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Perhaps we can get into a little bit of a dialog, because I think it is very instructive to understand what we are talking about with Medicare, Mr. Speaker, and also when we take a look at what we do with the rest of the budget. If we take a look at and listen to much of the rhetoric that has gone on during this 6 to 7 hours of debate that we had today, you would think that we were dramatically cutting the budget. In reality, the standard that we are setting for the Federal Government to get to a balanced budget, you know, I came out of the private sector, and this is my third year here. The aggressive posture that we are going to take to get to a balanced budget is something that the private sector would look at and they would basically laugh at. They would say ``This is an aggressive plan to get to a balanced budget under the dire circumstances that you are under right now? You have a $4.7 trillion debt. A child born this year, in their lifetime, if we do not change how we spend and tax, would have to pay what, $187,000 as their share of interest in the debt, and you are going to slow the growth of Federal Government to 3 percent per year?'' During the break I had an opportunity to go to a number of companies in my district. I listened to what they had done. You gave some examples about what they had done to control health care costs. I looked, and they explained to me what they had done to control product costs. There was a company in my district that, through participative management, employee involvement, creative thinking, new technology, new thinking about new ways to do things, for 12 years they have not had a price increase on their product, so they now are exporting around the world, because they have been able to control costs, not at a rate equal to inflation, but at a rate 3 or 4 percent below inflation, reducing costs every year, reducing actual costs. There was another company in my district that made an electronic component. In the early 80's they were making it for $44. The Japanese came in and said ``We have taken a look at this part and we can build it for $13.'' The company got together, they got together with the management and the employees, and today they are building it for less than what the Japanese quoted to them in the early 1980's, so they took a $44 part and they are now building it for less than $12. Here we are in Washington, the only thing, the thing we are going to do is slow the growth to 3 percent. I really believe that much of what has been applied in the private sector can and should be applied to Washington, and that what we are looking at doing to balance the budget is not that unreasonable and is very, very doable. I think we can do it like we did it with the Contract With America. The Contract With America said ``We are going to do this within 100 days,'' and we did it within 93. I think if we energize Federal employees, build a partnership with State and local governments, build a partnership with people at the local level, and come together on this budget issue, we can improve performance, we can deliver a better solution to the American people, and we can balance the budget, and we can balance it quicker than 7 years if we focus and recognize that it has to be done.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I think, you know, in summary, you said exactly what the key building blocks of what our plan are, much of which were outlined in the 1992 election campaign, where at one time they were part of President Clinton's agenda, tax relief, reforming welfare, and balancing the budget, three components of this plan. The reason they are so important is what we talked about earlier. This is the type of plan that really puts America back on the right road. I mean it is going to mean 7 hard years of work just doing this plan. It does not mean we have implemented it. We now are going to have to hold our feet to the fire to actually go through and make the tough decisions each and every year to stick to this plan, but it is a wonderful start. I think for you as a freshman, the first budget proposal that you are going to have an opportunity not only to vote on but the first one that you are going to have an opportunity to pass, because I do believe we will pass it tomorrow, I mean I think tomorrow will be a historic day where we actually now lay out that plan. We vote on it, and we will pass it, and we will pass it in a bipartisan way. We are laying the long-term foundation for the contract with our children, saying this is the America that we want to leave you, one that is fiscally sound, one that will be on a road to balancing the budget and one that will also then enable us to start the discussion about how we are going to pay down the debt. We are going to cut spending. We are returning power to families. We are protecting Social Security. We are preserving and protecting and improving Medicare, and the most important thing, not only do we have the right vision for what we want to accomplish, I believe that tomorrow and actually what we have done for the first 4\1/2\ months of this year, we have a vision for America, and now we are also providing the leadership to actually implement it. We need much more than vision. I think, you know, we were talking about 1992. Anybody can have a vision. What you have to have is you have to have the courage and the demonstrated leadership and the capability to lead to make that vision a reality. So now we are reaching for that vision. We are putting that vision in place for a balanced budget, for more economic opportunity, for a better future for our kids, and as we start moving there, we can actually start expanding our vision for even more improvement in America and a better future, so that I think that is a great way to start, and we could not have done it without 73 new freshmen here to join us, and thank you very much for all that you have contributed to help make these first 5 months such a historic opportunity not only for the House of Representatives but for all of America. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What we have been doing for the last number of months, actually what we started doing in 1993, we came forward with a budget alternative, major conflict within our conference, but we said we wanted to stand for a budget alternative and we wanted to have a document out there that said that is who we are and what we stand for, and we presented a very credible alternative budget. We did the same thing in 1994. And what both of those budgets did is they prepared us to be able to lead in 1995 to present a credible budget, to present a solid plan to get us to a balanced budget by the year 2002, to save the future for our kids, and we have a President who, running for election, promised that he would be driving toward a balanced budget, and we started the budget debate in the Committee on the Budget in 1995. What did we see, we saw more of the same, continuing $200 billion deficits, no plan to save Medicare, no plan to drive down the deficit. As a matter of fact, we saw exploding deficits as you went out 5, 6, and 7 years. So what we have done is we have put together, we have put down on paper, we are out here saying we have a plan. Remember when people used to say, ``Why don't those guys stand for anything?'' For 3 years we have demonstrated, and now we are going to have the opportunity to drive a plan that does exactly what we have been talking about: Tax relief for families, a balanced budget. We do go through; you know, we eliminate three Cabinet departments. We eliminate the Energy Department, we eliminate the Commerce Department, we eliminated Education, areas where we do not think the Federal Government has a primary [[Page H5179]] role in setting policy. We eliminate 284 programs. In many cases, right now, and in the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, I think is a great example, we are going through a process right now where we have something like 153 different job training programs. Take a look at this from a consumer standpoint. You are an American citizen out there, and you are taking a look and saying, ``I need some help to acquire new skills,'' recognizing that jobs are changing, technology is changing, ``I need some help.'' You look at this, and you say, ``Whoa, where do I go? There are 153 different programs? What little box do I fit into? Am I a displaced worker? Am I a senior? Am I somebody right out of school? Where is a box?'' That does not work. What we are doing is we are consolidating that back down into four block grants. The money goes back to the States so that for west Michigan they can design a training program in conjunction with the industry and the people in west Michigan and the local colleges to put together a program that works for west Michigan. They can go to Detroit, which has different problems, very different opportunities. They can develop a program for Detroit. They can build off of successes in Detroit. They can go to Minnesota, and the Governor there can put together a program. What we have done is we have basically eliminated, you know, again we are eliminating that bureaucrat in Washington that is standing between an individual and that person's need to get new skills, to make them more employable in higher paying jobs.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The demographics do not work in your favor, but I think as we talk about reforming Medicare we are talking about putting in place a number of policies and practices that have already worked and are working in the private sector. Medicare basically has not been reformed or enhanced or modified or had any creative thinking applied to it for the last the 20 to 25 years, and we are still allowing spending per beneficiary, spending per person receiving Medicare is going to increase by somewhere between 33 to 40 percent depending upon what State you are in, but on average we are spending $4,800 per person in 1995. We are allowing within this budget to be spending up to $6,400 on average per person by the year 2002. That gives us a lot of leeway to examine what is going on in the private sector, to reform and enhance Medicare to take a look at the discrepancies by State. I think one of the speakers today made the comparison about what you spend per person on Medicare in Minnesota, which has a fabulous health the neighborhood of $3,000, going up to something like $5,000 compared to the expenditures in Connecticut, which was like $5,000 going up to somewhere near $6,000 to $7,000, and saying you know we can take a look and what we need to be doing is taking a look at the different programs in different States and say what are the dynamics in this State that are driving costs to this level and to be very efficient and effective, and there are some things in these areas that we can learn and transfer to the high-cost States because like I said, Minnesota, my area, I think we are at about two-thirds of the national average for many of the health care costs.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. At least we would have something else to be very thankful for, that we only had to work until Thanksgiving to pay the Government their share to keep the Government running and we could then work from Thanksgiving to the first of the year. We need to be moving in the other direction of getting to the balanced budgets and paying the debt down.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. We know what the statistics are. We know within 7 years Medicare will be bankrupt. We know if we do not change our spending priorities that by the year 2012 all the revenues we collect in taxes will be used to pay for two things: entitlements, and that thing that returns so much value to the country, interest on the debt. I mean that is just money that is gone away. You know, in 2012 we could be talking about student loans; there will not be any money for them. We can talk about building highways; there will not be any money. We talk about national defense; there will not be any money, unless, what? We ask the American people to share more of their income with us. What is it, the generational accounting which came out in the President's budget a year ago said if we continue at taxing and spending or spending at this rate, the next generation could see an effective tax rate of 84 percent. Which means that for young people going out and working, for anybody going out and working, 84 cents would come to Washington or, yes, and you would get to keep 16 cents of it for yourself, which means Tax Freedom Day would move to somewhere in November.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Maybe too timid, but I think they will look at the policies in place and ask how are we changing decisionmaking here in Washington, moving more decisionmaking back to empowering the individuals. What is the $500-per-child tax credit? It is just a basic recognition that a family and parents are a better place to make decisions on how to spend that $500 than sending that money to Washington. We are returning power and control to the States and localities, bringing decisionmaking back close to the problems, fine tuning the solutions for the specific problems within the graphic area. My district is nine counties, it is a medium-sized district, but the problems in the southern part of the district or characteristics of the southern part of the district are very, very different than the northern part of the district. But what we are finding today is the decisions are all made here in Washington for a number of programs, whether it is school lunch, whether it is public housing, the decisions are made here in Washington. What we are trying to do is move decisions locally. We want to move a Federal bureaucrat from being between a child and a school lunch, let that decision be made at the local or State level. We want to move the Federal bureaucrat in Washington away from being the connecting point between a tenant and a landlord. Why is a Federal bureaucrat trying to make those arrangements? Same thing, we are proposing eliminating the Commerce Department. Why do we need a Federal bureaucrat in Washington being between a customer and a potential vendor? It does not make any sense. That is not a good use of our resource, so we are moving power back to States and localities. We are at the same time discarding needless bureaucracies, eliminating duplication and waste. One area where we really are cutting, where the number is actually going to be less, it is a true cut, it is a cut as defined in the rest of America, and here in Washington now it also means a cut, is the foreign aid. That will be I think an absolute reduction of somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 35 percent. We are reducing corporate subsidies. We are going after just about every area of the budget, except Social Security. We are promoting personal responsibility. The end result is we are all coming together in a plan to save the future and save the future for our kids.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, we are really talking about the future of America. We are talking about security for seniors and we are talking about opportunities for our kids. You know Alan Greenspan came in and said here was his vision of the benefits of balancing the budget: Children will have a higher standard of living than their parents, part of the American dream; there will be improvements in the purchasing power of everybody's incomes; there will be a rise in productivity, a reduction in inflation, strengthening of financial markets, acceleration of long-term economic growth, and a significant drop in long-term interest rates. This is going to benefit everybody in this country, just getting back to a basis where we have fiscal soundness, good fiscal policy, get to a balanced budget, and I think one of the goals and objectives which we had, which we put into the budget resolution during the debate in the Budget Committee is saying as we move to a balanced budget we cannot forget the fact that when we get to a balanced budget we need to develop a surplus, because balancing the budget is not good enough. We need to make the next step, which is developing a surplus and putting a plan in place to actually pay down the debt. The old American saying is what, we used to pay off the mortgage and give our children the farm. If Congress keeps going the way that it had been going, what we were going to do was sell the farm and give our kids the mortgage. We are now, tomorrow, we are going to start that historic process that we are going to go through the next 6 months. We are going to put in a balanced budget plan for 7 years which is going to guide the authorizing and the appropriations committees so that by the end of this year we will have put a plan in place in May, and for the next 6 months we will manage our fiscal resources to hit that plan.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I have been sitting here now for a couple of hours and I was waiting and wondering when the school lunch debate was going to come up. And you are absolutely right that only in Washington would we describe a 4\1/2\-percent increase each year for the next 5 years for the school lunch programs and we are calling it a cut. But I think it is important as we take a look at what we are actually doing here. We are doing something that is important for the future of our children. This House has used this card for the last 25 years to build up a $4.7 trillion deficit for each of our kids. That is totally inappropriate. We need to get spending under control, and we are doing it. We put together a plan to get a balanced budget within 7 years. It is the right thing to do; it is the thing that we have to do for our kids. What we are tying to do in this plan is we want to get the Federal Government away from so many things that happen in the private sector. It is not important to have a Federal bureaucrat between a child and their school lunch. It is not important to have a Federal bureaucrat between a landlord and their tenant. It is not important to have a Federal bureaucrat between a customer and a vendor. That is not the right place for the Federal Government to be. Those things happen very effectively and efficiently in the private sector. We reach out and we help those that need help. but we do not need to have Federal bureaucrats in all of these places, it is not the right way to go, it is not the right direction. What we are doing in many of these areas is we are fixing programs that are broke. Job training, we are going at an area where, yes, we have to educate and train people. This Congress has put together 153 different training programs, 153 different Federal bureaucracies of Federal bureaucrats between an individual who needs skills and an education process. It is absolutely ludicrous to have 153 programs. We are going to put that into four block grants. It is going to be efficient and much more effective than the system that we have today.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, representing a district that you are well aware of; I understand you have a summer residence in west Michigan; you appreciate the beauty of the west Michigan shoreline. We are also very aware of the critical role that the Coast Guard plays in ensuring the safety of boaters and residents in my district. I do believe that it is necessary for the Coast Guard to streamline their operations, to be both efficient and cost effective, and also to represent the changing nature of their mission. However, I do not believe this should come at the cost of safety. As a Representative of a district that lines the coast of west Michigan, I am well aware of the essential role the Coast Guard plays in ensuring the safety of boaters and residents in my district. While I believe that it is necessary for the Coast Guard to streamline their operations to be both efficient and cost effective, I do not believe that this should come at the Guard cannot close a station until the Secretary of Transportation can certify that the action will not have a detrimental impact on public safety. My amendment would add to this provision, stating that before the Coast Guard can close a small boat unit, they will have to work in cooperation and consultation with the affected communities in developing a transition plan that ensures that the safety needs of that community are being met. By pulling in the community, the Coast Guard will hear the inputs and proposals from the people that are affected by their decisions and a healthy dialog can take place about possible alternative solutions. The Coast Guard has already informally agreed to this procedure but has failed to take action on it. My amendment will make communication with the communities a requirement before a closing can occur. Through this dialog, communities can work with the Coast Guard so that both parties will be comfortable with the end result.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Traficant's amendment because I feel that it is necessary that before the Coast Guard closes a station, they should develop and implement a transition plan in consultation with the affected communities. I have expressed this desire to the Coast Guard and while they are supported of the idea, they have yet to take the necessary steps to ensure the transition will be a smooth one for the communities. This amendment sets a 1-year moratorium on closings. During this time, I would hope that the Coast Guard would work with the affected communities to develop a plan that will ensure the safety of the boaters and residents of the area.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for us to reflect back on where we have been for the last 2 years and also then to look forward to where we are going to be at the end of this Congress. Over the last 2 years, back in 1993, we had a real what we thought was a genuine effort to reduce the budget, passed the largest tax increase in American history. Two years later the President has come back after that large tax increase and has taken a walk on getting us to a balanced budget, continuing and perpetuating $200 billion deficits for the next 5 years, taking us to an accumulated debt of over $6 trillion. I encourage everyone to take a look at where the Republicans will be after we finish our 2 years with this opportunity to set America in a new direction. We have taken a first step where we have passed a rescission package where we actually pay for emergency spending. This is the second step in that process. Today we are going to be delivering over $190 billion in tax reform, tax relief. We are going to be delivering another $30 billion in deficit reduction. Within the next 2 months we will also for the first time in this House of Representatives deliver a plan to get us to zero, a balanced budget within the year 2002. So what we have done is we have paid for emergency spending, we are providing tax relief, and we are going to continue to slow the growth of Federal spending so that we actually do get to a balanced budget. That is a record that we will be proud of. That is a record of accomplishment. And that will be a record of equity, fair distribution between the American people and slowing the growth of the Federal Government.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the debate today, I believe once again we see that Congress just does not get it. There continues to be a huge disconnect between Congress and Washington and the rest of the country. I enjoy listening to the philosophical debate about the pros and cons for term limits, but coming from a business background, I think it is also important to come back and take a look at reality. Let us take a look at what performance this Congress has been giving to the American people: huge deficits; a process which has unempowered the people by developing a campaign process where Congress is forced to raise huge amounts for campaign war chests, and other failed programs. We have developed a huge welfare state, a dependency on Washington rather than the American people. It is time that we move back, that we empower the American people, that we even the playing field. We have to recognize that the only change and real reform that is taking place, is taking place at the State level, where voters are empowered to make change.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will have an historic debate on the floor of the House. We are going to take another step in reforming the place where we do the people's business. Mr. Speaker, if we reflect back on what we have accomplished so far during this year, on opening day we made the agreements, and we have now implemented cuts of committee staff. We have reduced the number of committees. We have cut committee budgets. We passed a bill which would apply the laws that apply to the private sector now also make those apply to Congress. That bill has now gone through the Senate and has been signed by the President. We went on to reform the House. Republicans decided as we took control that we would limit terms of committee chairmen and chairwomen. We also decided that any individual Member could only chair one committee or one subcommittee. What we have been able to do is disperse power so that people like my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, and myself, who have only been here two terms, that within the second term that we are here, would have the opportunity to chair subcommittees. So we are creating more opportunities for more influence among more Members of Congress. We went on to reform our process, additional reform for the House. This House of Representatives can be proud that we passed the balanced budget amendment. We can also express our disappointment that the other body failed to pass the balanced budget amendment. We have passed the line-item veto, and it looks like we are going to make progress in being able to take that through a conference committee and a Republican Congress providing a Democratic President with a line-item veto. Tomorrow we will have an historic debate. We will do something that many States have not had the opportunity to do, or that they have not had the courage to do, is we will have a debate, and we will have a vote on term limits. To date, what has happened with term limits around the country is that 22 States have considered state-imposed term limits, and in all of those States, they considered it through a process which I believe soon we are going to have to consider here on the floor of the House, is that they have returned power back to the people through an initiative and referendum process. They have not turned power back. What they have actually done is they have invited the people to participate with them in the process. It is interested to note that the only place where this kind of activity on term limits has taken place is where States have invited the people to participate with them in the legislative and lawmaking process of that State. No State legislature has passed term limits. Where we now go is tomorrow we are going to have the discussion on this floor of the House. I hope at the end of the day tomorrow that we will be able to say that we have taken another step in the reform process and that we will have had 290 Members of this House who have been willing to step up and say that we endorse and recognize the importance of term limits. We recognize the input and the value and the direction that the American people have provided to us that says we believe that we need a flow in and a flow out of Members of the House of Representatives. Remember, only 18 percent of the American people believe that we are doing a good job. I think maybe the recent polls show we may be all the way up to 32 percent. One of the primary reasons for that is they believe and they recognize that the policies and the directions and the laws that come out of this House bear only slight resemblance to the problems that they see in their local communities. They believe that by having Members coming in and flowing out, we will have better laws and better process; we will have Members coming in, moving out of real jobs, coming to Congress, and then moving back after they recognize that they have served here for a period of time. I do not think it is really all that important whether it is 6 or 12 years. I personally prefer 12. I will also vote for the--6-year-term proposal because the voters in my State have instructed me to support and to work for the passage of 6 years, but most importantly, to work for and push the concept of term limits for the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, it will be an historic debate. I am looking forward to the debate, and I am looking forward to Wednesday night when we can celebrate the passage of term limits.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I followed the debate very closely during the day today and actually all of this week as we have been debating welfare reform, and it is amazing to me that, as much as everybody says that we need change, there is also such a strong effort to support the status quo, to support a failed welfare state, a welfare state that in the name of compassion we funded a system that is cruel and, experience has shown us over the last 40 years, has been destroying the American family. We have a failed welfare state. Welfare spending now exceeds over $305 billion per year, $5 trillion since 1965. Three hundred five billion dollars is roughly three times the amount needed to raise all poor Americans above the poverty line. What kinds of results have we seen? Since 1970, Mr. Speaker, the number of children in poverty has increased by 40 percent, the juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes has tripled since 1965, and since 1960 the number of unmarried pregnant teens has nearly doubled and teen suicide has more than tripled. Next week, Monday, in my Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities we may take a look at why all of this spending and why all of this bureaucracy in Washington has failed to deliver the kind of results that we all would have wanted to see for America, and I think what we are going to see is that what we have developed is we built off of a system that inherently is wrong. We have the right motivations, but we have developed a system that cannot deliver the kind of results that need to be delivered. I have a couple of charts here, and what we are going to be doing on Monday in the subcommittee is we are going to have members of the subcommittee, as well as staff, break into different groups and actually go through the process of applying for the benefits of 19 different welfare programs, and I think we are going to find that the process that the poor and those in poverty face and what they take a look at in Washington is a spider web of bureaucracy, regulations, mandates, and a system that just does not work for them. In the House of Representatives we have 10 committees, 20 subcommittees, that take a look at all of these programs. When you take a look, and I do not know how well it will show up tonight, but this is the spider web and the confusion that we see here between the House and the Senate of different kinds of programs that affect children and families. Certain committees have responsibility for income subsidies, social services, health, housing, nutrition, education, and training. This is what we want to attack in the Republican bill. We are not going after women and children. We want to get benefits to women and children. We want to actually go through and tear up this bureaucracy in Washington and actually deliver results and benefits back to them and back to women and children so that we do not end up eating the dollars here in Washington. We need a new process, a new focus, a focus on women, children, and families, not a focus on bureaucracies, and bureaucrats, and rules and regulations here in Washington. We are going to go through these 19 programs, and they are only a small sample of the many programs and many different bureaucracies that we have here in Washington. In the next chart that we are going to develop that we will not have an opportunity to take a look at on Monday, but will be to take a look at it from the user standpoint, the people that are supposed to be getting these benefits, the ones that we are supposed to be lifting and helping up out of poverty. There has been discussion tonight earlier that we need more job training programs, we need more money and more programs for child care. The problem is not programs. The problem is not dollars as we are working off a failed model and a failed system.