Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman would yield, I am also an original cosponsor of this legislation. But I want to go back to some things he said here, because now the projections that we are making for the future are based on revenue growth of about 4 percent increase each year. And yet our history over the last decade and a half has been at about 6.8, 6.5, over 6 percent. So if it does grow at 6 percent, which is a very reasonable thought pattern, a very conservative view, we could get to this surplus by as early as 2000. And then at 2000, we start into the National Debt Repayment Act, which then takes a third for tax relief for working Americans. And again, that is a good thing, because people do two things with their money once they have tax relief. They either save it, which is more capital and, therefore, more jobs that are created, or they spend it; and when they spend it, that stimulates our economy and, once again, creates more jobs. So we have one-third going to tax relief and then two-thirds goes to repay the debt. And that kind of gains momentum. As we pay off the debt, the interest goes down and we have more money available. So it is a very conservative plan. Historically, it looks like it very well could work, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

Mr. TIAHRT. About 17 percent of the Federal budget. Well, as that becomes less and less, it will make more money available to pay off more of the Federal debt. So it kind of gains momentum as we go on. As we pay off a portion of the debt, we pay less in interest payments. That makes more money available to pay off other parts of the debt and releases some of the burden that is on our children and on ourselves who are paying those additional taxes. So it is a pretty good plan. We are going to limit the growth of Government and allow extra revenue, surplus revenue that will be used to pay off the mortgage that this company has already taken.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in the present we are enjoying one of the strongest economies we have had for a long time. Our gross domestic product is up. Unemployment is at an all-time low in Wichita, KS, it is approximately 3 percent. We have the stock market setting new goals every week. And a lot of our economy is based on a perception. Right now the perception is that we are going to do something about the Federal debt. We are going to do something about the $355 billion that we will spend this year just to pay the interest on the Federal debt. By stopping the growth in our Federal debt, we will eventually get a lower interest level and that will mean more money available to build highways or provide for national defense or provide health care dollars or nutrition programs, the things that traditional people think that ought to be done by our Federal Government. So we have this very strong economy, and it is based on the perception that we will get to a balanced budget. There is finally hope out there that we are going to control the spending at the Federal level and that we are going to allow people to have more control of their own money. People do two things when they are more in control of their own money. They either spend it or save it, and both things are good for the company. If they save it, that makes more capital available. That capital is then invested in innovative ideas which become in reality new jobs, and they provide more goods, or people spend the money. If they spend the money, then that is also good because they create jobs to make the goods. And my colleague pointed out earlier that they want to buy for themselves or their children or their home or an automobile. So in today's economy, we have a very strong sense of hope, and people are having faith that we are going to continue to have a strong growth in our economy; and it is, I believe, based on the perception that we will control Federal spending and balance our budget and eliminate the Federal debt.

Mr. TIAHRT. In January of 1995, when the three of us were sworn in in the 104th Congress, the projected budget that we were looking at from the administration said we would have a $200 billion deficit in fiscal year 1996. And it pretty much continued all the way out to 2002 as a deficit of $200 billion per year every year. We then came forward, and all of us supported this plan, which is indicated by the red columns in the chart the gentleman has shown us, and said that we would get to a balanced budget by 2002. I think that was made with a reasonable set of judgments that could be called conservative, and, apparently, we have gone even beyond those expectations. The very first year of the plan we were ahead of schedule by $50 billion, I believe the gentleman told us; by the second year of the plan, we were ahead by over $100 billion of what we had projected; and now, as we approach the next 5 years of the plan, starting with fiscal year 1998, the gentleman is making the prediction that we will be ahead of schedule, of our new updated projections, and even get to a balanced budget by the year 2000. So we have 3 more years. Based on the judgment or the past experience in fiscal year 1996 and 1997, where we were $50 billion ahead of schedule and then $100 billion ahead of schedule, it looks very likely that we will get to a balanced budget by the year 2000 instead of waiting until 2002.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, if we go back to what we are currently paying this year on interest on the Federal debt, it is about $355 billion. That is our gross payments. It is not the net payment. But if we were to eliminate this debt and gradually pay it off, that means that our interest payments would actually become less and less and less. So right now it consumes about 20 percent of the Federal budget; is that not correct?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, when Thomas Jefferson sent Merriwether Lewis and William Clark off to the great Northwest, he had a great deal of hope for the future of this country. He saw it growing and prospering. Now, as we stand here in 1997, on the brink of a strong economy, we look forward and we have a great deal of hope, a hope of balancing the Federal Government, of controlling Federal spending, of giving a great deal of hope for the future for our country. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] for coming down here and showing us in very clear terms where we came from in the past as far as Federal Government spending, where we are today, and what we are looking for in the future, which I believe is very optimistic. Again, it is a picture of hope, the same type of hope that Thomas Jefferson saw when he looked toward the West back in the early 1800's, and it is the same type of hope, I think, as we look at the new century. We should have hope for a strong economy, of a way of paying off the debt so our children have a strong future, strong economy, with plenty of opportunity and a way that they can see that they can grow.

Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman would yield, when I think about how this is in relationship to the people in Wichita, KS, which is a big part of my congressional district, I think about a young woman that I met who works second shift at the Raytheon Plant. She has three children, and she is a single mom. When I asked her, ``What is the most important thing that the Federal Government could do for you?" she said, ``If you could give me some tax relief so I could take care of my three kids, I would be very happy.'' At that time, we were talking about a lot of other issues, raising the minimum wage; we were talking about whether we should work on some other social programs, how we could save Medicare, et cetera. But the most important thing to her was that she could take care of her family. And I think most Americans are that way, they would like to be able to financially take care of their family. Under the plan that we have put in place, we can achieve the goals that this country thinks is very important, balancing the Federal budget, paying off the debt we have, and giving more money to working Americans so they can take care of their families and take care of themselves. This plan we have on the National Debt Repayment Act achieves those goals that we have in common here in America. It reduces the debt and it gives tax relief and restores integrity to very important funds that we have now, the trust fund for transportation and social security, very important issues. So as we move forward into the next few years, it is very exciting to see our economy doing well, that our plans are starting to take shape, that there is promise and hope for the future. I think this is a wonderful time to be in Congress and to be in America because we see this plan coming into shape. It provides hope, does it not?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, any excuse is a good excuse if one does not want to do something. Let us see. What is today's excuse for voting against tax relief? Well, the tax relief is going for the wealthy. We cannot give the rich a tax break. Well, who are these so-called rich? Liberals say that if one makes more than $40,000 per year, one is rich. Well, that is bad news for the aircraft workers in Wichita, the air capital of the world, bad news because this will be the third weekend this month that single mothers have gone to work to work overtime, the third weekend they will miss spending time with their three children. They are just working to make ends meet, and somehow, somehow they thought being rich would be just a little bit better. No tax relief for the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, any excuse is a good excuse when you do not want to do something.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 223, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, any excuse is a good excuse if you do not want to do something. There are some here in Congress that would use any excuse to vote against tax relief for working Americans. Let us look at the capital gains tax relief. One popular excuse is it is only for the rich. Yet the IRS tells us that nearly three out of four that will benefit from this make less than $75,000 a year. Economists tell us that it will not cost anything, it will not reduce the Federal revenue; in fact, it will increase the Federal revenue. And let us look at the $500 per child tax relief. Some will say you do not deserve it if you make more than $40,000 per year. I guess if you make more than $40,000, they think you are rich and you should not control more of your own money, so they would vote against any tax relief. There are those that think working Americans do not deserve tax relief today. But remember, any excuse is a good excuse if you do not want to do something.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about what the gentleman from Wisconsin said about why this bill was vetoed in the first place. He mentioned the census sampling that we had in there. What we were trying to do was basically say that we do not want sampling when it comes to the census. We have a constitutional requirement that says actual enumeration. It means you cannot use sampling. We were trying to follow the Constitution. I know that is sometimes frustrating, but we ought to do it here in America. The other one was the continuing resolution that said basically that while we are trying to negotiate our differences between the Congress and the President, that we will not shut the government down, we will just continue the government at fiscal year 1997 levels. The President decided that was a key factor in why he should veto this legislation. It was not because we are going to spend $3.4 billion to pay disaster assistance. We went above and beyond the President's request for disaster assistance. We reached out to the people who were in need and said we will help them relocate. No, instead, he wanted the ability to shut the government down and so he vetoed the legislation. It was not because we added in $76 million for the women, infants and children's program, it was not that reason he vetoed it. He vetoed it because he wanted the ability to shut the government down. On January 3, 1996, President Clinton said, ``It is deeply wrong to shut the government down while we negotiate. I will continue to do everything I can in good faith in order to reach an agreement, but it is wrong to shut the government down.'' January 3, 1996. And yet he vetoed this legislation, denying relief to people in need because he wanted the ability to shut the government down. He wanted to shut the government down, contradictory to what he said on January 3. So I think we should be very up-front and honest about the reason why the President vetoed this legislation. He vetoed it because he wants the ability to shut the government down. Of course, he conveniently can blame us, and the media seems to carry on that message, but the bottom line was that it was not the disaster relief, it was not the aid to Bosnia, it was not the other things we were doing, it was because he wanted to shut the government down.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the reason the President vetoed the flood relief bill was because he wants to have the ability to shut the Government down. We put in a provision that said that if we cannot reach an agreement, we will continue Government. We will continue it at fiscal year 1997 levels. But no, that was not good enough for him. He wants to shut the Government down. The President wants to shut the Government down. The President wants to shut the Government down, and that is why he vetoed the disaster relief bill, not because of us, like the Congress wanted to shut the Government down. It is the President. We had a provision to prevent it from happening, and he simply wanted to say I want the right to shut the Government down and blame Congress, like he did last year, in 1995 and 1996. It is very simple. Once the truth is out and people understand it, they will understand why we want to continue the Government, we want to preserve what is going on. It is very simple. The President wants to shut the Government down.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TIAHRT. Would it be in order for us to reconsider the Frank Sinatra congressional award, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the President wants to shut the Government down. The President wants to shut the Government down. That is the reason for his veto on the disaster relief bill. He said it was not a clean bill, that there are riders. Can any of us name a spending bill that does not have riders? This one went from $4.8 billion at his request up to $8.4 billion. We have forward funding of FEMA, we have Bosnia relief, and we have other things. One rider says that if Congress and the President cannot reach an agreement, we will continue government until, until, we work out our differences. That is a good thing. Certainly no reason for a veto. The bottom line is the President thinks it is more important to shut the Government down than provide relief for those who suffered from a disaster. Mr. Speaker, the President wants to shut the Government down.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support a strong wall between abortion and other health-related services. This Congress should do nothing to spend U.S. tax dollars overseas to promote abortion. We as Members of Congress should not help abortionists push abortion. If my colleagues want to hear the type of philosophy this administration wants to fund, listen to a quote from the director of the U.N. Population Fund. China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth. Now the country could offer its experiences and its special experts to help other countries. This is a shameful statement. The forced abortion policy in China is wrong and immoral. This Nation should not use our hard earned tax dollars to push China's policy or this administration's abortion philosophy on other nations in the world. Mr. Chairman, we should build a strong wall between the abortion industry and other health-related services. We should promote health- related services, but let us stand up to the most pro-abortion administration in our history. Please support the Smith amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have a message for all of those in the middle class out there: Every time you hear the liberals attacking tax cuts as tax cuts for the wealthy, hold onto your wallets. Because when liberals talk about tax cuts for the wealthy, they are really talking about you, the middle class. That is right, Mr. Speaker. Tax cuts for the wealthy are code words for tax cuts for the middle class, and the big-government crowd will have none of that. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the same big-government crowd that acts as if they are doing you a favor by letting you keep what is already yours. Of course, they do not really think you are entitled to keep the fruits of your labor. The only thing the big-government crowd thinks that you are entitled to is the fruits of other people's labor. Surprise, surprise, the politicians are the ones who get to decide what to take and what special interest groups to give it to. Let us give the middle class a tax break and stop Washington from wasting so much of middle-class taxpayers money.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, politics is a funny business. Not too long ago, we were told that we could not balance the budget and cut taxes for working Americans. Well, the surprising thing is that most Americans never believed that nonsense. Most Americans knew that Washington could get by on less and that American families ought to get by on more. Business as usual here in Washington meant that every year the taxes went up, the Federal Government got bigger and people grew more and more frustrated. What did the politicians in Washington have to show for these tax and spend habits? A national debt of over $5 trillion. It has been a long time coming, but finally the American people have said enough, enough to irresponsible spending, enough to the tax policies that are holding America back. This balanced budget agreement is a far cry from what needs to be done to stop Washington from its wasteful spending ways, but at least it will bring the budget into balance by the year 2000, and it will make Washington spend a little less so that American families can spend a little more. It is about time.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, here in America we are taxed on the very first cup of coffee we drink in the morning. We are taxed on every gallon of fuel we expend just to get to work. We are taxed when we make a phone call. We are taxed when we buy something on the way home. When we get to our home, we pay property taxes on the house we live in. Then, God forbid, if we should die, we are paying taxes once again. We pay in life and we pay in death. Early this morning we did something about that by passing the balanced budget agreement. For the first time in 16 years we have hope of a little Federal tax relief for families that work. For the first time in nearly 30 years we will get to a balanced budget by the year 2000. Sweet dreams, America. Hope is alive.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk a little bit about AmeriCorps. We found out recently that in Colorado, AmeriCorps has built some hornos, H-O-R-N-O, and hornos are mud stoves that were used by the Indians some 4,000 years ago. And we have spent our American tax dollars at a park in Colorado to build these hornos, so that if we happen to be traveling through Colorado and we have the urge to stop and cook some tortillas or cook some food on these hornos, well, our tax dollars have provided that opportunity to us. Now, AmeriCorps had a good intent of trying to bring nonprofit organizations together, but these paid volunteers now have taken our tax dollars and they are starting to expend it in funny ways. We have now an opportunity in the very near future to eliminate this tremendous waste, so I just wanted to bring to the country's attention how their tax dollars have been wasted through this organization called AmeriCorps, which is a code word for paid volunteers.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. In this Congress we set to do a couple of good things with very good intentions. First of all, we wanted to provide some disaster relief to those who were caught up in this year's disasters, and this help is gravely needed, and the compassion of this country really reaches out to try to help those in need. The second thing that we wanted to do is to provide some supplemental funding for our young men and women in Bosnia. Regardless of our position on whether we should be in Bosnia or not or regardless of our position on the $6.5 billion we have already spent there, this additional money is needed because we are there, and both of these are very good intended. But that opened the door, and in slipped an additional $3 billion, most of it in this advanced funding for FEMA, something that should be considered later, and that alone is a good reason to vote for the Neumann amendment. But the real reason is that we have an overshadowing reason of the $5 billion that according to the CBO is not paid for in offsets, and we are talking about actually writing the checks, the outlays, versus the budget authority. So we have this $5 billion that is hanging out there that is going to show up on a bill for our children sometime in the future. So I think we should pay as we go, I think that we should be frugal and we should fulfill the goals of our good intentions, but we should not do it at the expense of our children. Therefore, I think we should vote for the Neumann amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of H.R. 914 and would like to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for bringing this legislation to the floor. Unlike the authorization of the seven- member panel of experts to examine exploding costs of higher education, the work of this panel will provide important information as we strive to make a college education an affordable reality for American students and their families. This legislation also contains language which is necessary for the States of Kansas and New Mexico to count the Federal impact aid they receive as part of their overall State education budget. This will save the State of Kansas $6.5 million this year alone. This technical correction will result in no costs to the Federal Government. It simply allows Kansas to recognize the Federal impact aid it receives as part of the State's overall education budget. Mr. Speaker, this provision has been approved by the members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. I appreciate the assistance of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for including this provision for the State of Kansas, and I urge the passage of H.R. 914.