Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the new majority plan to save Medicare [[Page H 9901]] includes new health care choices for seniors. I heard something about unfairness over here a moment ago, but currently this is unfair. Medicare recipients are limited to a one- size-fits-all type of contract designed 30 years ago. It is time to expand those options. Why? Because giving seniors the right to choose from a variety of quality health care plans will create competition among health care providers, it will drive down costs, and it will allow seniors to pick a plan that meets their individual health care needs. My colleagues, our plan is about more choice, not less. More; we do not force seniors to give up their current coverage. If a senior likes the current system, he or she can stay in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. No questions asked. But if a senior wants to try something new, maybe a plan that covers prescription drugs and limits out-of- pocket costs, there is one for him. We provide that option. Mr. Speaker, more health care choices for seniors, not less. It is that simple.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, for all my colleagues who tried to scare the American public into believing that the devil was in the Republican Medicare plan, they forgot one thing, the truth is in the details, and in the marketplace of ideas, the truth will prevail. The 1960's Medicare System is going broke. The Democrats know it, the Republicans know it, and the American public knows it. The truth in the details about the Medicare Preservation Act, is this: There are no cuts in Medicare spending, we increase per beneficiary spending by $1,900. There is no increase in Medicare copayments. There is no increase in Medicare deductibles. And there is no change in the current rate of Medicare premiums. Most importantly, the $270 billion saved by Medicare under this proposition will be kept in Medicare to ensure its solvency for years to come. Mr. Speaker, the truth is in the details.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, it seems Goals 2000 bureaucrats have changed the way we teach addition and subtraction. If not, then how can the political operatives of the Democratic National Committee call a $1,900 increase a cut? It's really quite simple. Either they can't add, or scaring senior citizens with imaginary Medicare cuts is the only way they believe Democrats can regain control of Congress. While the Republican majority diligently works to save Medicare, the paid political hands at the DNC have launched a Medicare campaign that suggests that Republicans are cutting Medicare, even though our plan increases spending per Medicare beneficiary from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in 2002. Mr. Speaker, scare tactics and fear mongering will not save Medicare. It's time for the minority party to fire their political advisors and join our efforts to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. The American people want leadership from their Representatives in Congress--not cynical 30-second political ads.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman, for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the TEAM Act is not about the return of company unions, as my colleagues on the other side would like you to think. It is about moving the National Labor Relations Act from the Depression-era 1930's to 1990's. It is about telling American workers they are a valuable resource, and their input is vital to the success of American business. Above all, it is about keeping American companies competitive in the global economy. Without TEAM Act, we are in effect saying to the American worker, ``we don't believe you can make managerial decisions on how to make a product better.'' We are saying ``work, don't think.'' Mr. Chairman, it is 1995 not 1935. Adversarial labor-management relationships were unavoidable 60 years ago, but today, it is time to move employee relations into the 21st century. Vote for H.R. 743. It is a solid step in the right direction.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, for months House Democrats have bantered about tax cuts for the rich. They have distorted our plan to balance the budget and increase the take-home pay of working families as a mean-spirited attempt to provide a boondoggle to wealthy Americans and corporations. Here are the facts: 74 percent of the largest tax cut in our budget, the $500 per child tax credit goes to families earning less than $75,000. This profamily tax break will remove 4.7 million families at the lowest income levels from the Federal income tax rolls. Furthermore, 70 percent of the benefits of lower capital gains taxes go to families and individuals with incomes of less than $50,000. And we must keep in mind that cutting capital gains taxes provides incentives for investment in new businesses and high paying jobs that benefit all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I do not know about you, but working parents earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year in my district do not consider themselves rich. We must start telling the truth about the GOP tax cuts. They are good for families and the economy. Allowing families to keep more of what they earn and laying the foundation for long-term economic growth is not mean-spirited. It is exactly what the American people voted for last November.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to look at this aspect of it since, in the judgment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey], the Department of Labor's directive does not preclude investment in ETI's, and since the bill of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] does not preclude or prohibit or in any way challenge the investment in ETI's, why is there any need for an amendment?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, those are good, solid suggestions about what you want to do, but here is what bothers me a great deal.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here, obviously, as many of us have, listening to the debate and there seems to be a recurring theme that comes from the other side of the aisle. I do not challenge their honesty and integrity about bringing forth the argument. I have heard the words used over there ``hung up'' or ``ambiguous.'' There is an ambiguity about what we are saying. There is a misunderstanding. Mr. Chairman, I have misunderstood some of the direction over here as well, but there is one thing that we have to keep coming back to. This is repetitious. You have heard it before. Nothing like singing the same thing over and over. But the Saxton bill does not prohibit investing in ETI's. There is no prohibition or language or sentence or phrase that refers to that. The only thing that I can tell my colleagues, though, is that the DOL, the Department of Labor interpretive bulletin does promote investments in ETI's and that is where I think the hangup or the problem is. If my colleagues want some proof of the fact that they are promoting it, think about this for just a little bit. They are spending, the administration is spending $1 million to establish a clearinghouse to produce, I heard, a variety of things. I heard a list, which is probably is. But it is a somewhat sanctioned grouping of names of investments that are satisfactory, all of which happen to be ETI's. That is No. 1. No. 2, they are sending the Assistant Secretary around who is actively promoting and I understand spending 10 percent of her time promoting ETI's. That is proactive. No. 3, there has been talk, and not just talk, but indications of inappropriate pressure that have been put on the pension managers. Let me tell my colleagues something about pension managers. They are not blocks of wood. They do assess, they analyze, they scrutinize, they weigh, and look at what is best for their pension beneficiaries. It might be an investment in Lebanon, IN, or Lebanon, PA, or it may be overseas, but it may be in the heart of their own hometown. They look at all sides of the equation; not just one. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that one of the reasons that ETI's do have to be scrutinized more closely is because the Department of Labor itself has acknowledged, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to call them social investments. Fine, but these ETI's, I will call them ETI's, I have called them PTI's, politically targeted investments, but the ETI's are less liquid. They require more expertise to evaluate. They require a longer period of time to generate significant investment returns. Mr. Chairman, I am not a pension investment manager. I think I am average in terms of those kinds of things. But if those were the words that I read, it would have a great deal of impact on what I would do in terms of investing, even as an individual. And pension mangers, as I say, are not blocks of wood. They do weigh all of this. The problem of this bill is that it addresses the promotion of ETI's. And, frankly, that is something that is very contrary to its charge as the Nation's pension watchdog. So, I am just suggesting that if there is some confusion or misunderstanding, it has to be, I believe, over that very issue. That the Saxton bill does not preclude investment in any of those arenas, any of those areas.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1594, the Pension Protection Act of 1995. Let me start out by commending the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for his work on this important bill. The reason we are here today is because President Clinton's Department of Labor has abdicated its responsibility as the Nation's pension watchdog. Last June, Secretary Reich issued an interpretative bulletin that allows pension managers to invest private pension funds in risky social ventures. He likes to call them ETI's, or economically targeted investments. I prefer to call them PTI's--politically targeted investments. ETI's are chosen for the social benefits they generate to third parties instead of their safety and financial return to pensioners. Simply put, ETI's are nothing more than a code word for pork barrel projects in urban areas. Secretary Reich has argued that his interpretative bulletin was needed to clarify the intent of ERISA because of confusion in the pension investment community. In reality, the intent of ERISA's investment standards have been understood by pension managers for over 20 years. They are very simple and very clear: When investing private pension funds, a pension manager's sole responsibility is to focus on the interest of his plan's participants and beneficiaries. Pension managers have avoided ETI's, it is because they are bad investments-- not because they were confused by ERISA. If ETI's were sound, pension managers would invest in them regardless of their so-called social benefits. It's that simple. Secretary Reich's promotion of ETI's leads me to the conclusion that either the Clinton administration doesn't believe in the free market, or it understands that these investments are too risky and ERISA's standards must be altered. If these investments were prudent investments, the free market, the pension managers, would already be there. The President's advisors know that ETI's are risky. In fact, Alicia Munnel, [[Page H 8747]] a current Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration, their economist at Federal Reserve Bank, Boston, stated in 1983 that ETI's earn between 2 and 5 percent less than traditional pension fund investments. Now that may not sound like a big difference, but the numbers add up over time. For example, if just 5 percent of the Nation's private pension funds are invested in ETI's, pensioners would lose $90 billion in retirement income over 10 years, $520 billion in 20 years, and $2.3 trillion in 30 years. This translates into over $43,000 in direct losses to the average pensioner. I don't know about you, but I sure would be upset if the manager of my private pension decided to follow the lead of President Clinton. Given the track record of ETI's, an interesting question comes to mind, why is the Clinton administration promoting these high-risk social investments? The answer is simple. Finding revenue for the President's social agenda is obviously more important to the Department of Labor than protecting the retirement income of millions of Americans. This is outrageous. The Clinton administration's pension grab reminds me of the story of Willy Sutton. Willy Sutton, a famous bank robber when asked why do you rob banks, responded, ``because that's where the money is.'' Faced with a Republican Congress committed to balancing the budget, President Clinton knows that he can't get money for his pie-in-the-sky-liberal programs, so he is going where the money is--private pension funds. Promoting ETIs may be good politics for a President who needs the support of big labor and inner city mayors to win reelection, but it's bad public policy. This scheme has been tried before and the results have been devastating. Confronted with the need to cut spending and balance their budgets, several States have tapped into the pension funds of State employees to finance development projects. For example, the State of Connecticut invested $25 million worth of State pension funds in Colt Manufacturing. Just 3 years later, Colt filed for bankruptcy and the State's pensioners saw their hopes of profit vanish. It is unlikely that they will ever see their money again. This is not the government's money at stake, it is the retirement funds of American workers. H.R. 1594 stops the Clinton administration's stealth attack on private pensions. Under this bill, fiduciaries will still be able to invest in ETIs, as long as these investments are safe and generate good returns. BUt they won't have legal cover for bad investments that were made at the bequest of labor bosses and inner city politicians. The promotion of ETIs is nothing less than embodying political correctness as public policy. It is simply wrong for the Congress to do anything other than reaffirm the commitment of pension managers to seek the highest possible return on the investment of the retirement income of American workers and pensioners. To do any less would seriously undermine the confidence in pension investors. We cannot and should not give a green light to the irresponsible allocation of the finances of retirees. To do so would be a breach of our fiduciary responsibility to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1594 and stop the Clinton administration's pension grab before it is too late. Do not compare pension assets with entrepreneurial capital.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we do not need the amendment, because we have not precluded investment in any domestic activity.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has been diligently working to keep our promises to the American people. This fall we will complete work on our balanced budget plan, save Medicare from bankruptcy, and allow working families and businesses to keep more of what they earn. For too long, Washington's solution to America's problems was always new spending and new taxes. As a result, our national debt now exceeds $4.9 trillion and the average American family pays more in taxes than it spends on clothing, food, and shelter combined. This fall offers our best chance to honestly balance the budget, cut exorbitant taxes, and ensure that our children have a bright future that is free of debt and full of hope. The choices are simple we can either spend now and worry later or we can move forward with an agenda that forces the Federal Government to live within its means, saves the American dream for our children, and lays the foundation for a generation of economic growth and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, there are no legitimate excuses for continuing to spend money that we do not have. It is time for Congress to quit avoiding the tough choices and restore some sanity to the Federal budget.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to S. 21. I too have watched the news reports of the worsening situation for the Bosnian people. But unilaterally lifting the arms embargo will not end this conflict. This legislation can only lead to the total collapse of humanitarian efforts in Bosnia and likely will result in an escalation of the fighting. I remind this body that we do not have troops on the ground--nor should we--and it is our allies in NATO who will pay the price if the United States violates our own embargo. And as you know, our allies have said that if the United States acts unilaterally they will withdraw from UNPROFOR. President Clinton has stated his belief that the United States is obligated to assist that withdrawal. I do not want to see our troops dragged into this conflict. Earlier this year this Congress voted to lift the embargo. Why hasn't it been lifted? Because the countries who are there say lifting it would jeopardize their mission of humanitarian relief. Our allies do not want this lifted. Are you willing to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers over their objections? Or can you say, with any credibility, that lifting this embargo will not affect the U.N. and NATO operations in Bosnia. No one can say that the United Nations and NATO have been successful in Bosnia. It is to our shame that these organizations have failed to protect so many people. But this action we take today will not rectify past mistakes. And it will not bring peace to this region. Lifting the embargo will bring more weapons into the region. It will isolate us further from our NATO allies. It will antagonize Russia who already has threatened to aid the Serbs if the embargo is lifted. It will slide us further down the slippery slope we now are precariously balanced on. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will force the President to act unilaterally to lift the embargo against his will and against the will of our allies. It will make the Bosnian conflict our responsibility, it will severely damage the NATO alliance, and it will make the conflict in Bosnia worse not better. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Vote ``no.''

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, the Medicare anniversary is July 30. Thirty years it has been in existence. This vital program, while it is only 30 years old, faces a very strong financial crisis. I think everybody on both sides of the aisle knows that. The Medicare board of trustees have concluded that Medicare part A, the hospital insurance trust fund, will be bankrupt in 7 years. We cannot say it any more simply. We will be unable to pay those bills for seniors. The Republican majority will not let this happen and I am sure many of the Democrats do not want that to happen. We understand the importance of Medicare to seniors and stand ready to protect, preserve, and to strengthen this [[Page H 7808]] program for current and future retirees. Unfortunately, many of our political opponents are trying to turn Medicare, the Medicare crisis, into a political issue. They continue to distort the idea of protecting Medicare by scaring seniors with imagined Medicare cuts, even though, as everybody knows, the benefits go per beneficiary from $4,800 to $6,700. I would just ask the Democratic leadership and the Democrats on the other side, please help us. Join up with us, roll up your sleeves, let us achieve both better care with more choices. Let us protect and strengthen Medicare.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time briefly, the gentleman said let HUD do its job. That is not HUD's job.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, obviously, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I know that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] favor another idea, but I would ask them to listen to some of the things I want to say. The gentlewoman from California has already mentioned some of the things, but I think they bear repeating, and I will add some things. Mr. Chairman, let me start out by saying that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has absolutely no business regulating property insurance. This is just another example of the Department's tendency to stray into other jurisdictions while failing to address the glaring problems in its own core missions. To begin with, and first of all, Mr. Chairman, 50 States and the District of Columbia already have laws or regulations which prohibit unfair insurance discrimination. Let me repeat that, because I think it needs to be repeated. All 50 States and the District of Columbia already have laws or regulations which prohibit unfair insurance discrimination. I think we can all agree that proper insurance underwriting should be based solely, and I will repeat this and some may not agree, but it should be based on factors of economic risk; I will repeat, not on race, not on sex, and not on ethnicity. However, the plain fact is that Congress never, never intended for HUD to regulate property insurance. The Federal Government, through the Fair Housing Act, expressly governs the practices of home sellers, landlords, mortgage lenders, and real estate brokers as they relate to housing discrimination. It makes no mention of property insurance. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which is the linchpin of our current system of insurance regulation, says that unless a law, and I am quoting. ``* * * specifically relates to the business of insurance, that law shall not be deemed applicable to insurance practices.'' On a more practical level, HUD cannot handle even the responsibilities it now has, let alone assuming new ones. It cannot seem to keep its own house in order. Now it is taking on new responsibilities. The Department currently has over 150 programs on the books, and the entire Department has been listed by the GAO as being, and I am quoting, ``at risk'' of waste, fraud, and abuse. This is not a question of discrimination. I know that is a very sensitive point, but this is not a question of discrimination. It is a question of jurisdiction. Unless we think HUD would make a great insurance regulator, Members should vote against the amendment. Congress never intended for HUD to have the authority to get into the insurance business.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the bill. I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, for all of his hard work. Shepherding an appropriations bill through the legislative process is no easy task, yet he has done it with skill and flair. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. And finally, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the subcommittee staff--Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, John Gauthier and Todd Weber. We truly would not be here today if it weren't for their tireless efforts. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It does not simply spread the pain throughout all of the programs in its jurisdiction, it makes the tough choices necessary to move up toward a balanced budget. Overall, it cuts about $10 billion in spending from last year's level. But it also preserves funding for programs which work well and are important to the Nation's future. Now, we are going to hear a lot of heated rhetoric about disproportionate cuts in housing programs. But do not let that get in the way of the facts. Yes, next year housing programs will have to absorb some spending reductions--there is no doubt about it. But when compared to the other agencies in this bill, HUD's funding actually will take up a larger share of the outlays than they did this year. In short, HUD will enjoy a slightly larger piece of a smaller pie. And in the present budgetary environment, that is nothing to complain about. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of good in this bill. VA medical care has been protected, as has funding for university-based scientific research. We preserve funding for NASA's core missions; and we send EPA a strong message that they must move away from their current Soviet- style, command and control system of regulation. I am sure that every Member of this body, given the chance, would draft a VA-HUD bill that is different from the legislation before us. But, to use an often-heard quote, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, July 30 marks the 30-year anniversary of Medicare, and while this vital program is only 30 years old, it is facing a financial crisis that threatens its longevity and the health security of 37 million seniors. Just a few months ago, Medicare's Board of Trustees, four of whom are members of the Clinton administration, reported that Medicare part A, the hospital insurance trust fund, will be bankrupt in 7 years and unable to pay the hospital bills of our Nation's seniors. The Republican majority in Congress obviously will not allow this to happen. We understand the importance of Medicare to retirees and stand ready to save this important program from going broke. We have been working very diligently to develop a proposal to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare for current and future retirees, and have already laid out six principles that will guide our efforts to reform Medicare. Instead of acknowledging the spending crisis in Medicare as indicated in the trustees' report, and joining our efforts to save this important program, the President and his political allies have attempted to distort our principles to reform Medicare by scaring seniors with imaginary Medicare cuts. Why? Because they have no plan of their own to solve the Medicare crisis. House Republicans are not proposing to cut Medicare. Under our plan, Medicare spending will increase each year. [[Page H 7554]] In fact, Medicare will still be one of the fastest-growing programs in the entire Federal Government, and spending per Medicare beneficiary will grow from $4,800 per beneficiary to $6,700 in the year 2002. While the lack of leadership and partisan sniping on this crucial issue by the President and his allies is bad enough, House Republicans have recently discovered a stealth attack by the Clinton administration on private pensions. This is another matter. Last year, the Department of Labor issued an interpretive bulletin that places the $3.5 trillion in private pension assets at risk of being channeled into low-return, economically targeted investments, or ETI's. ETI's are investments which are chosen for their social benefits, rather than the return they generate for pension plan participants and beneficiaries. These politically targeted investments channel pension funds into public housing construction, community development projects, and other pork barrel programs that are more risky than traditional pension investments. Even the Clinton administration has acknowledged that ETI's are, and I quote, ``less liquid, require more expertise to evaluate, and require a longer time to generate significant investment returns.'' Nevertheless, the President's Labor Department is actively promoting these high-risk investments through a national clearinghouse at a cost of $1 million a year to American taxpayers. I guess finding the revenue for the President's social agenda is more important to the Department of Labor than protecting retirement income for millions of Americans. Prior to the issuance of the Department of Labor's interpretive bulletin, private pension managers were required to abide by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, fiduciary standards which forced them to focus entirely on the interest of their pension beneficiaries when investing pension assets. Because of the Labor Department's interpretation of ERISA, pension managers can now take into consideration the benefits of an investment to third parties. The Department of Labor's promotion of ETI's flies in the face of its responsibility as the Nation's watchdog and chief enforcer of ERISA. Last week, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities approved legislation introduced by Congressman Saxton to stop the Clinton pension grab. The Pension Protection Act of 1995 reinforces ERISA's fiduciary standards, abolishes the ETI clearinghouse, and prohibits the Department of Labor from abdicating its responsibility to pensioners by promoting ETI's. While the President and our opponents in Congress continue to play politics with retirement issues, an interesting question has arisen: Who really is on the side of seniors? As House Republicans continue to move forward with our proposals to protect, to preserve, and strengthen Medicare and stop the attack on private pensions, and also roll back the President's tax increases on Social Security, it is becoming clear that our opponents' attacks are hollow and nothing more than political rhetoric. Mr. Speaker, I believe at the end of the day, the American people will reward us for our leadership on senior issues and hold our opponents accountable for engaging in partisan politics.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in Congress is committed to keeping our promises for the American people. We pledge to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, balance the Federal budget, and lower taxes on working families. We also passed a budget resolution that eliminates the deficit by the year 2002. It also provides a $245 billion tax relief segment to families, seniors businesses. Currently we are in the process of implementing this plan. We are passing appropriations bills that cut wasteful spending, eliminate unnecessary programs and downsize bloated bureaucracies. The President has also expressed his desire to eliminate the deficit. Strangely enough, however, he has submitted two budget proposals that produce $200 billion in deficits as far as the eye can see. He helped kill the balanced budget amendment and he vetoed a $16.4 billion rescission bill. Now he says he is threatening to veto our appropriations bills because they cut too much spending. Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people understand the difference. I think they will see that the Republicans are right in downsizing the Government to increase their take-home pay.