Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, a number of the members of the committee have spoken here, and I certainly respect their expertise in the matter as I respect the gentleman who is sponsoring and handling this bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]. My perspective is broader than that. It is the experience that I have had in my district and in talking to people around the country who are trying to rebuild distressed urban neighborhoods. My experience is one that I think is shared by most of the Members of this body. It simply does not reflect well on HUD. Mr. Chairman, let me tell a couple of anecdotes that show that. I was on a talk show about a year and a half ago with the man who used to be the mayor of the city of St. Louis. He is a member of the Democratic Party. I said, ``If you were the czar of public housing in this country,'' and he had a lot of experience with it, ``what would you do to provide good public housing for poor people?'' Mr. Chairman, he said, ``I can tell you what I would begin by doing. I would begin by abolishing the Department of Housing and Urban Development,'' and then he went on to explain why HUD was blocking the efforts of local officials and private people to provide decent housing for people. Mr. Chairman, I visited the Columbia Heights neighborhood here in the District of Columbia and looked at what those neighborhood associations are doing to get good people into decent housing. I asked them, ``What is your big problem with housing?'' They said, ``It is HUD. HUD owns about 40 properties in our neighborhood, but will not do anything with them. Will not give them to me. I cannot rehab them. They are run down.'' HUD has a lot of people locked in a public housing project using dumb rules and it is a source of difficulty and we cannot get control and cannot do anything about it. I can go on and on. I think everybody in this body could. It seems that there is a whole lot of people in this country, and this is encouraging, a group like Embers Beneath the Ashes of Urban America, that are rebuilding their neighborhoods, and they keep telling us that HUD is a problem. We keep saying that it is HUD and we cannot do anything about that. This bill is an attempt to do something about it. What do we need to do? We need to return local control back to the people in these neighborhoods. We need to say: We trust you. You can run some housing projects on your own without detailed supervision. We need flexibility in Section 8 housing. We need to promote work instead of punishing it. We need to provide for home ownership where we can. That seems to me what is in the preamble here. I do not know that there is a lot of difference. It just seems to me that what we have in the bill with regard to the preamble makes clear that we recognize that the Federal Government is not directly responsible for performing all of those things. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on further and say, as it does say, the Federal Government has a responsibility to help and will help, but what we have been doing the last couple of decades is not helping, but blocking the people who really can make a difference. That is what my concern is. We are fighting over language here. I hope that we can get behind this bill, that we can move forward, and that what we are not seeing here is some rear guard action on behalf of the status quo and that we are going to take this bill up line by line, section by section, and we end up with nothing except HUD oppressing these neighborhoods as they have been doing year after year after year. There are so many people who see these problems back home and want to know why we do not do something and then they see us up here and nothing ever happens. I hope that is not the result tonight.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge, Linda Lee Hydar, Linda Marie Kralina, and Kathleen M. Vielhaber in recognition of their 1995 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching Program, administered by the National Science Foundation, is designed to recognize and reward outstanding teachers from elementary and secondary schools. These teachers serve as models for their colleagues in many important areas. At the same time, through such awards, they are able to increase the visibility and rewards of teaching in hopes of encouraging high quality individuals to enter and remain in the educational field. In addition to the individual recognition that Ms. Hydar, Ms. Kralina, and Ms. Vielhaber receive, the school at which each teaches will be given a $7,500 grant from the National Science Foundation. These funds are to be used under the direction of the recipients to continue their excellent work in educating our Nation's children. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to pay tribute to these fine teachers, and commend them upon their efforts in ensuring the next generation of quality foundation from where they can pursue their ambitions. I join the National Science Foundation in honoring the excellent work that each of these three teachers has been able to accomplish.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my constituents, Anne Marie Foy, a student at Cor Jesu Academy who was recently awarded a Voice of Democracy Scholarship from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Ms. Foy's essay was one chosen as a national winner from over 116,000 submitted. The contest theme this year was ``Answering America's Call'' and I have included her winning essay below. Good morning friends. I come today to speak with you about an issue that is both very dear to my heart and extremely vital to our nation's well-being. I speak about our answer as citizens to America's call. Today I want to take a moment to reflect on this call and to see it in its fullness, as a necessary element of our personal democracy. I hope to inflame your American passions with these few words. In fact, I dream to awaken everything about you that defines you as an American citizen. In the past, to be an American was to determine your own destiny. It was to have a voice in your government and to take a considerable role in the governing of yourself and of your community. Never before in the history of the modern world had autonomy been so real, so tangible, and so evident. It was our political pluralism, the sovereign contract with our government as a democratic people, and our rights to assemble and disagree with our governing figures that united us as America. It was our political views that we transformed into civic activism and our personal involvement with the government that made us strong. The freedom we enjoyed as empowered citizens of this democratic nation led us to be one of the great superpowers of the world. We had found our strength as a country in our reply to the great American call. The truest beauty of America is her people. Under a democratic government each individual enjoys protected rights and liberties, but this political system is dependent on civic activism. Thus to enjoy your political rights, you must fulfill your responsibilities as a citizen and accept a political role. We as Americans are owners of a political mechanism designed to pursue justice, yet somehow in contemporary American society we managed to misplace the operations manual and have forgotten how to keep this beautiful machine working. If we are a government of the people, why are the people so upset at the government? In order to look at the real root problems we must first quiet our partisan babble, we must calm our nationalistic frustrations, we must look fearlessly at ourselves and then we must listen. Listening for our genuine voice is the first step. It will require patience and integrity and ultimately it will lead to an answer. How do you reply to this democratic call? You must first reply through education. We as citizens must become knowledgeable of our history, our laws, and our government structure. If we are not educated, these institutions will cease to exist. We must strive to be aware of current issues, and how our government is responding to them. We as United States citizens are the government. We cannot shut our eyes to what our representatives are doing. Education must be followed with action. A democratic state is dependent on this integrity. Whether we sit in on city council meetings, write letters to our government officials, or protest against things we view unjust, we must reply to the American call. If we feel far from Washington D.C. or detached from government, then we should rise up and demand straightforward dialogue. We must get past this glossy, polished, television image of the government. For we are the government. We are real. We are not polished. We are human. We have mentally separated ourselves from the government in this country. Government officials are no longer extensions of the people but, professional television personas. If we are upset with public officials, then we must vote them out of office. If we are tired of corrupt politicians, then we must speak with honesty ourselves and elect honest citizens. If we are exasperated with government programs, then we must take our seat on planning committees. In a world where so many fought and died for their independence, for their freedom, for their autonomy, America and her people should stand as an encouraging light and example. We have so many brilliant minds, and caring hearts, and noble spirits, and yet America seems lost, somewhat bewildered about her path, her future. We are her future. Our parents, our children, our countrymen, and our very selves, we are the ones that must decide her path. First we must hear the call and then as Americans, boldly and courageously, we must answer.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Parkway Central High School Symphonic Band from Chesterfield, MO. The Marching Colts proudly represented the St. Louis area by participating in the 1996 Tournament of Roses Parade. Parkway Central is located in the Parkway School District, which has long been committed to providing their students excellent facilities and instructors for its music programs. Under the skilled guidance of their director, Mr. Doug Hoover, the Parkway Central band has a history of national performances; including performances at the 1989 George Bush Presidential Inaugural Parade, and the 1991 and 1993 King Orange Parades in Miami. The Marching Colts have benefitted from outstanding community support from Chesterfield and the entire St. Louis community. The band has successfully used various fundraising efforts, including their annual fall craft show known as the Craft Harvest, to raise thousands of dollars. This event boasts over 200 vendors and several thousand patrons. These efforts stand as a testament to the dedication of the parents, faculty, and local community who have rallied around the efforts of these young people. Mr. Speaker, the Parkway Central band is to be commended for its continued hard work and dedication to excellence, which has brought not only their school nationwide recognition, but is also a great source of pride to the residents of St. Louis County. It is with great pride that I congratulate these fine educators and students and recognize the contributions they have made while at Parkway Central High School.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in a belated tribute to a great victory in the pro-life movement. While the pro-life movement always has proclaimed the sanctity of human life, pro-life supporters and others touched by abortions have been without a place where they can gather to mourn those lost to abortion or to reconcile the pain of that tragic decision. But that changed in 1993 when a pro-life group in Chattanooga, TN, peacefully brought about the closing of the city's only abortion clinic. This is an incredible story, which I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House. In April 1993, the Pro-life Majority Coalition of Chattanooga [ProMaCC] learned of the pending sale of a building that for 18 years housed the Chattanooga Women's Clinic. The abortionist who was leasing the building agreed to purchase the property from the bankrupt landlord for $254,000. Within 7 days, ProMaCC raised over $300,000 from local pro-life supporters who wanted the facility closed. When the building was auctioned in bankruptcy court, ProMaCC outbid the abortionist and purchased the building for $294,000. Faced with the loss of this facility, the owner of the abortion clinic sold all assets and dissolved the corporation. But the story doesn't end here. After the building was acquired, the question arose of what to do with it. ProMaCC formed a new organization called the Imago Deli--Latin for Image of God--Foundation to decide the future of the 8,600 square foot building. The foundation sold part of the former clinic to AAA Women's Services, a pregnancy center which provides counseling, abstinence training, and infant care instruction and which distributes food, clothing, and other needs for babies. The remainder of the building will be dedicated as a memorial to the victims of abortion--the National Memorial for the Unborn. Most of the existing building structure will be torn down. The abortion procedure room and waiting area, however, will remain standing to house the central feature of the memorial, the Wall of Names. The wall, which is modeled after the Vietnam War Memorial, will hold name plaques, each one dedicated to the memory of an aborted child by those who mourn the loss. A black wrought iron fence will be constructed over the building's footings to mark the perimeter of the former clinic. Connecting the fence to the Wall of Names is a stone path which winds past meditative gardens and a pool of tears. With both the AAA Women's Service and the National Memorial for the Unborn, an effigy of despair has been transformed, in a real way, into a monument of hope which encourages, supports, and nurtures life, both physically and spiritually. Abortion is an emotional issue which has deeply divided our Republic since the Supreme Court handed down the Roe versus Wade decision. But I hope that everyone will join me in applauding the efforts of the Imago Dei Foundation to provide a memorial for the unborn where the healing of millions of Americans touched by the scar of abortion may begin. Besides healing individuals, the National Memorial for the Unborn begins the process of healing a nation. The memorial brings us one step closer to the day when we have mercy for all and malice toward none. Brochures at the memorial read: On the site where over 35,000 babies were aborted, the National Memorial for the Unborn is a powerful witness to God's redemption and healing for all the victims of abortion and for our Nation. Indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. The National Memorial to the Unborn was dedicated on January 23, 1994, and will be open to the public in January 1996. I commend everyone involved in this project, and I look forward to the day when we as a nation will have a place to mourn individually and corporately the loss of children by abortion. The following Members of Congress join me in these remarks: Representative Zach Wamp, Representative Charles Canady, Representative Todd Tiahrt, Representative Bob Inglis, Representative Ron Lewis, Representative Steve Largent, Representative William Lipinski, Representative Christopher Smith, Representative Bill Emerson, Representative Dave Weldon, Representative Tim Hutchison, Representative Joe Barton, Representative Nick Rahall, Representative James Barcia, Representative Mel Hancock, Representative Tom Coburn, Representative Wes Cooley.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I think colleagues refer to the historical context of this bill and also talk about the terrible job the States were doing with welfare. So I think it may be appropriate to respond a little to that. Let us look at the historical context. In the immediate postwar era of 1948 the poverty rate in this country was about 30 percent. That was when the States and localities were handling welfare. It declined to about 15 percent in 1965, when the Federal Government declared war on poverty and took over the welfare system. In the last 30 years, the Federal Government has spent or mandated in State spending $5 trillion in entitlement spending and the poverty rate, which was 15 percent 30 years ago, is 15 percent today. What we have gotten a six-fold increase in the out-of-wedlock- birthrate. And the reason is the two best antipoverty programs are marriage and work, and the Federal Government has brilliantly conditioned welfare assistance on the people doing neither. That is the historical context of this bill. Mr. Speaker, what we have done is taken away from the lower-income Americans in this country the institutions that make them happy, that make them secure, family, work, responsibility, and we have given them government, and it has been a total failure. What does this bill try to do? It changes the welfare system so that, among other things, instead of punishing work, we encourage it and, in many cases, require it for able-bodied Americans. The bill says to the States they must have by about the end of the decade about 50 percent of the caseload working, and we mean actual work at actual labor, what the average American means by work. Is this workable? It has been suggested it is not. Of course it is workable, if by work we do not mean we have to train them to be a vice president; if by work we do not mean we have to have a bureaucrat work out a personal employability program for them that will take 18 months before they have to do anything. There are States already implementing real work requirements under waivers. Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, when somebody applies for welfare there, if they do not have a small child at home who needs day care, he says, OK, go out, get work. And it has shrunk the welfare rolls. Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. If individuals are not liberals that believe in the failed system, they will be for this bill.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to read a letter I recently received from a young man named Aaron from my district. He writes, ``When I turned 16 I did two things right away. I went out and obtained my driver's license, and I got a job. I am now almost 17 and have been working at various jobs for the past year. I have learned a lot from working, such as the value of money, the responsibility of having a job and how important it is to get a good education. One big thing I learned is that taxes will affect me for the rest of my life.'' ``Before I started working I had no idea how much the government really took out of your paycheck for taxes. I have discovered that it is a lot of money. Actually, I don't really mind paying the money, as long as it is not too outrageous, and if I know for sure that one day I will benefit. For example, I want to be sure that when I am old enough to receive Social Security and Medicare, it will still be around.'' ``I want to thank you for all your efforts toward decreasing taxes, and in making sure that the things my taxes pay for, such as Medicare and Social Security, will still be around in the future.'' Mr. President, when you promised to present a balanced budget, you promised it to young men and women like this. Keep your promise, help us pass a balanced budget and keep faith with America.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Did you vote for the continuing resolution?

Mr. TALENT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. TALENT. Did you vote for the continuing resolution?

Mr. TALENT. Did you vote for the balanced budget amendment?

Mr. TALENT. Did you vote that way?

Mr. TALENT. We provide family tax relief. Is the gentleman in favor of balancing the budget in 7 years?

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to focus on not just where we are now, but how we got here. Several days the House passed and sent over to the Senate a continuing resolution which would fund every part of the Government that is now shut down, and fund it at a level that I take it the President does not object to, because he has not objected to that part of the continuing resolution. There was only one other condition attached to it: That the President agree to balance the budget of the United States in 7 years according to realistic numbers. The President has announced, before the bill was even passed the President announced that he would veto the legislation. Why? Because the President would shut the Government down rather than balance the budget in 7 years, and the Congress would allow the Government to be shut down rather than prevent the budget from being balanced in 7 years. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle have talked about the schism, about the philosophical differences.

Mr. TALENT. No, I appreciate the gentleman saying that. The President has complained and several Members of this body have complained about certain parts of our budget that they do not like this aspect of it, they do not like that aspects of it. The continuing resolution does not say the President has to accept the congressional budget, does not say the President has to accept any budget. It says the President has to agree to balance the budget in 7 years. One of the problems we have in this Congress is that instead of debating the import of the matters before us, we keep making contrary assertions about what is before us. We cannot even agree on what we are talking about. The continuing resolution says the Government will continue if the President will agree to balance the budget in 7 years. He does not like our budget. He can offer his own. In fact, he did offer his own budget. He did offer his own budget some months ago, I believe in the form of a 22- or 24-page press release, which he claimed balanced the budget in 10 years. This is how the Congressional Budget Office scored it. Continued deficits through another 10 years at $200 billion. It was a budget that no Member of either party in this House would even offer on the House floor. It was offered on the Senate and it was rejected by a vote of 96 to 0. The President is not opposed to the continuing resolution. He is not trying to get the Government to shut down because he does not like our budget. He is shutting down because he does not like our budget. He is shutting the Government down because he does not want to balance the budget in 7 years. Why does he not want to balance the budget in 7 years? About the only good thing about this controversy, Mr. Speaker, is that it does highlight the very major philosophical differences between the two parties here in Washington. The President of the United States and the leader of the Democratic Party believes basically that what is important about America is the Federal Government and its agencies and its instrumentalities, as if the United States was a pyramid with the Federal Government at the top of it. And the policies the President has followed and the national Democratic Party, not all Democrats to be sure, but the national Democratic Party have followed has sucked up that pyramid power and resources away from the American people for the last 30 years. But our party believes in the people and what they have built, their families their communities, their neighborhoods, their local schools, serve and civil and charitable organizations. We want power and resources located in the people, and what built in their communities. And we do not want the Federal Government to bankrupt everything that the people of this country have built and have worked for for the last several hundred years. Mr. Speaker, the President was against the balanced budget amendment. He is against the budget that we offered. He refuses to offer a serious budget of his own. And now he vetoes a continuing resolution that calls for him to do nothing except accept in principle that we will balance this budget within 7 years. Mr. Speaker, if some family or some business in the United States was awash in red ink the way the Federal Government is and their deal with their creditors and the bank was, we will get our budget balanced in 7 years, not eliminate the debt, just eliminate the deficit in 7 years, people would laugh at them. That is all we are trying to do here. That is all we need to do to get this government open. The minute the President agrees to balance the budget in 7 years, according to reasonable numbers, this Government will open for business.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. All the President has to do is indicate he will agree to a balanced budget in 7 years according to the budget numbers of the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman a question. There has been a lot of discussion about the government shutdown. My understanding is that the minute the President agrees to balance the budget in 7 years according to the reasonable numbers of the Congressional Budget Office, a strong bipartisan majority of this body and the Senate will send him a continuing resolution and open up the government. Is that not your understanding?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and a great degree of pride that I draw to your attention the accomplishments of the Women's Exchange, a volunteer organization in the St. Louis area, dedicated to the mission of helping others help themselves. Established in 1883, the Women's Exchange was founded by a group of volunteers to help women support themselves and their families by working out of the home. In an era when males dominated the work force, the Women's Exchange provided a marketplace where creative women could display and sell their products, while still allowing them to be at home to educate and raise their children. The organization also offered working women inexpensive lunches, and a library of resources, all in an effort to enable women to earn their own living and provide an atmosphere to change the tide. Over the past 112 years, the need has not subsided nor has this organization's fine service and devotion to quality. They remain faithful to the founders' mission to help people help themselves by continuing to provide training and quality materials to their consignors. Approximately 100 families are supported by Women's Exchange consignors, many of whom receive up to 100 percent of the profit from the sale of their goods. Today, under the direction of president Mary Fort, the St. Louis Women's Exchange is the largest chapter in the National Federation of Women's Exchanges. They now operate a tearoom in addition to the gift shop which helps attract customers for the consignor merchandise and generates income to maintain the shop's excellence and professionalism. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to recognize this fine organization. I commend the Women's Exchange on its first 100 years of service and dedication to the St. Louis community and wish them well on 100 more.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to add to my colleague's remarks my appreciation to the gentleman for his courage in bringing this difficult issue before the House now. Madam Speaker, Mother Teresa said one time, ``How can people say that there are too many children? That is like saying that there are too many flowers.'' I very much appreciated that remark. I think of it when we discuss debates like this. I hope and look forward to a time when we can persuade America that there is room in this country for all of the souls that are created here. I believe that some day we will be able to persuade America of that. Until we can reach that point, at least we can take some incremental steps. At least we can outlaw procedures like this, the gruesome details of which have been discussed in specificity by some of my other colleagues. I want to make this point and that is why I asked the gentleman to yield a moment to me. I understand that those who oppose this bill are going to oppose it on the grounds that if we outlaw this particular gruesome procedure, it will mean somehow that Roe versus Wade cannot stand. I hope that that indeed is the case someday. But I would like to ask them this question. If they cannot justify Roe versus Wade without justifying procedures like this, if they feel so intellectually insecure or morally insecure about that decision that they believe it cannot stand as the result of a chain of events that would be let loose by outlawing gruesome procedures like this, then maybe it is time for them to reexamine their position about Roe versus Wade. No American can look at this diagram, can read what it means to babies all around this country and believe that this procedure can be justified in a civilized society.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciated my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders' remarks, and there have been a lot of suggestions in the last few minutes about how we should have balanced the budget, but none of those were incorporated in a plan from the other side when they had a chance to offer them. Another reason to pass this reconciliation bill is because it incorporates the Personal Responsibility Act, the welfare reform bill this House passed in the spring, a bill designed to replace a failed system that is destroying families and neighborhoods in America with a system of assistance that is based on family, that is based on work, and that is based on responsibility. Why do we need to do that, Mr. Chairman? Let us look at a couple of historical facts. In 1948 in the United States the poverty rate was about 30 percent. It declined steadily all throughout the postwar era until it reached about 15 percent in 1965. And a seminal event occurred in 1965. The Federal Government declared war on poverty. In the 30 years since that date, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has spent, in means-tested entitlement programs, in Federal spending or Federally mandated State spending, $5 trillion in transfer of payments from the middle class to lower income America. And the poverty rate, which was 15 percent in 1965, after 20 years of going down, is 15 percent today. We have bought nothing in terms of a decrease in poverty. What we have bought is a six-fold increase in the out-of- wedlock birthrate. In 1965, 6 percent of the children born in the United States were born out of wedlock. Today that figure is 32 percent. Why did this happen? Why no poverty decrease but an increase in the out-of-wedlock birthrate? Because, Mr. Chairman, the two most effective antipoverty programs, proven through generations of experience, through all the scholarship, the two most effective programs are work and family, usually marriage. The Federal welfare system conditions assistance to poor people on them doing neither of those things. If they work or if they get married, they get no assistance. That is why poverty has not gone down and illegitimacy has gone up. We have taken the dads away from millions of American children and we have given them the Government instead, and we are now living with the result. Senator Moynihan said, 30 years ago, that a society that does that asks for and gets chaos. And we have chaos in hundreds and hundreds of neighborhoods around the United States where this model predominates. What do we do in this bill, Mr. Chairman? It is really pretty simple. We take the welfare system and we shift it so that instead of discouraging and penalizing work, we encourage it, and in many cases we require if for able-bodied people because it is good for them and their families. Instead of encouraging illegitimacy, we discourage it by removing the incentives in the welfare package that encourage people to make a decision that is terribly destructive for themselves and for their families. And then we return power over the administrative details of this system to the people, exercised through their State and local authorities. Mr. Chairman, this is not the last step in welfare reform, it is the first step. We have a long way to go. This lesson has been hard to learn. It has taken us years. We have paid a lot to learn it, and now I hope we learn it. It is important that we pass this bill and the welfare reform in it.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of comments tonight about how we cannot balance the budget while providing tax relief to the American people. You know, I think we cannot balance the budget without providing tax relief to the American people, because it is not just balancing the budget, it is reorienting the way the Federal Government relates to the rest of American society, lightening the burden of Government on people. As we disempower the Federal Government to some extent, we have got to reempower the private institutions of society, families, so that they can raise their children, individuals, so that they can invest in their own future, small businesses, so that they can create jobs. But we hear tonight, well, we cannot, because that means we are going to have to cut the Federal budget. Mr. Chairman, we are not cutting the Federal budget. It is growing under our plan over 7 years at 2.8 percent a year, at the rate of inflation. What people are saying who do not want the tax relief is we have to deny tax relief to the American people so that the Federal Government can grow faster than the rate of inflation over the next 7 years, as if the American people were undertaxed. Mr. Chairman, in 1952, the average American family paid 2.5 percent of its income in Federal taxes of all kinds. That same average family today pays 25 percent, or 10 times as much, of its income in Federal taxes, and people are saying they do not need tax relief so the Federal Government can grow faster than the rate of inflation. If people paid taxes at 1970 levels, they would have $4,000; the average family earning in the $40,000 range would have $4,000 a year more in disposable income. Mr. Chairman, the reconciliation bill which is before the House today is a good bill. It balances the budget in 7 years. It is the least that we ought to do, and we need tax relief for the American people so that they can do what they do so well for themselves, for their families, for their communities, and for this country.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today, to recognize a valued member of my staff who will be retiring this year. Mrs. Ruth Wood has provided me with dedicated service for over 4 years. Mrs. Wood was an instrumental member of my election team in my first campaign for congress in 1992. After taking office in 1993, Mrs. Wood joined my congressional staff as a receptionist and as my military academy liaison. Mrs. Wood, who had previously served former Representative Jack Buechner, has provided my office with invaluable experience and professionalism. Her work on the selection process of academy applicants has been outstanding. Her expertise in this area is unquestionable. Under her direction, 15 young people from my district received acceptance offers from the military academies in 1995. During her service with Representative Buechner, she had the distinction one year of placing more nominees in the service academies than any other House office. Her leadership in this area will be greatly missed. Mrs. Wood has also distinguished herself with a lifelong commitment of service to the Republican Party. her efforts to assist numerous local, State, and national candidates, stands as a testament to her unselfish dedication to promote leaders to public office which exemplify the qualities and values of our great party. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize her service to this institution, her country, and her community. I ask that we all join to offer our gratitude to Mrs. Ruth Wood for her many years of dedicated service to our Nation.