I'm delighted to be here actually for anybody in public life. This is a wonderful opportunity. All of us have read editorials. We didn't like and to have the assembled editorial writers of the United States in one room to tell them what you think about those editorials seems to be a marvelous marvelous opportunity all or virtually all the Doug Floyd's editorials. So I will tell you that as far as he is concerned and I am concerned the spokesman review in the Spokane marvelous anybody from the Walla Walla union-bulletin here.they are wonderful to video I had the opportunity recently do. Have a lunch for a visiting Speaker of the House of Commons Bernhard wetherell. And he asked me what number of speaker I was and I thought I think I'm the 49 Speaker of the House of Representatives and 34th. Speaker of the House of Commons I said, well that's what we call in the United States with the speaker of put down and he said no eight of them were beheaded and he said two of them were beheaded on the very same day. And I expressed a polite opinion that the second speaker who accepted the office of speaker on a day when the king had just beheaded his predecessor was not the wisest. So maybe one of the more courageous speakers and he was certainly dead by evening. We don't space that type of risk in the United States Congress, certainly no one from speaker to any of the members risks be heading back to speakers job or responsibility. Historically was to speak the truth to The King and I hope that from time to time I will have an opportunity directly or indirectly to speak. What I think is the truth about the direction of the country. 3 divided government which we've had in that the federal level in the United States more or less consistently at least more years than not since the end of World War II with mostly Republican Presidential administrations and mostly democratically-controlled congress's is sometimes criticized by the political scientists as system May point to its weaknesses and pine for some kind of parliamentary system in which the unity of the executive and legislative branch can be established and foreign policies can be undertaken from political mandate which are carried forth from election to legislation. But the system is uniquely ours and I think in many ways we have proven that Democratic Congress has and Republican presidencies can produce important and meaningful progress at the federal level after all the Marshall Plan the Civil Rights bills. The following World War II of important legislation has been passed with a republican in the white house or a Democratic Senate Democratic Congress rarely the other way around And I sometimes read that we have been in office. We Democrats in the Congress so long that we have now a kind of Imperial, We have a House of Lords that is a said President Reagan said there was more turnover in the Supreme Soviet the old style spring Soviet as matter of fact of most incumbents do get reelected Republicans and Democrats, but that is not anything new in our history. Recently, there was a 98% re-election rate among contested incumbents being re-elected. There was 100% re-election rate in 1790. So it's been a fact of our history over a number of years. It doesn't however lead to the Assumption or lead to the fact that many people assume that the House of Representatives what is sent it doesn't change. I tried with some foreign correspondents a little test. Both of these have been in the United States for a few years. Anyway, I asked them what percentage of the House of Representatives changed during the administration of President 1980 to 1988. They guessed from 4 to 15% actual figures 55% of the house change during the Reagan Administration. If you go back to 1974 81% of the House of Representatives change, if you go back to the first came to Congress 1965. The number is 93% only 7% of the membership still in the Congress that were there when I came in 1865. Now the answer is the poorest people die people run for other offices people resign all sorts of things are correct, but we do get a tremendous turnover and it's good. It's healthy. We have the infusion of new political ideas from positions taken by members from both parties and to preside over the house was a great honor. I say everywhere that the first honor I'm grateful for the honor of my own constituents and sending me to Congress to represent them from the 5th District of Washington. But secondly, it's been a great honor for me to serve even for these 90 days as Speaker of the House. I think the mood is better in Congress today than it was a few months ago. But that is not to because I have become speaker or because of anything that I have done particularly, but because the the members of both parties I think decided that it was time to move away from the the harsh and divisive mood that was beginning to undermine comedy and cooperation in the house. We need to have an ability in the Congress to debate even to the bait vigorously. I say even passionately matters on which we disagree to take away that capacity would make the Congress less effective in representing the country, but we need to do it in the spirit and in a circumstance where we have mutual respect and not mutual recrimination where we have a sense of a responsibility to the institution and and to it since to strengthening it and not to use every opportunity to tear it down into in better relations between the parties and I think Much good has happened in recent months. And I hope it'll continue the relations were the Bush Administration. I think the still excellent. The president is enjoying a high degree of popularity in the country. And I don't think that strange he's an extraordinarily likeable Warren individual. I think what you see on the television is and what people read about in the paper is is reflected in the personality President Bush. He's he's interested in finding solutions to the nation's problems. He's anxious to work with Congress. He has an enormous number of friends in Washington and both parties. I'm always surprised by the degree of his acquaintance in Friendship reaching into every part of the political Spectrum in Washington, DC. And he enjoys the job and I think it's a great blessing when a president enjoys her job. It has enough strength and difficulties and problems that when you sent that he's relishing it at least part of the time and it's it's a wonderful thing for him and for the country now, as I said before we're going to have disagreements and I think some of those disagreements are going to come a bit to the floor in the coming weeks, but I want to assure you that as we debate them either as Democrats and Republicans in the in the house or the senate or between the Congress perhaps in the executive branch. It needn't and shouldn't and I hope it won't tear the fabric of mutual respect and cooperation that needs to exist between the two by branches of the government in between the two parties. Some of these issues are going to rise over a process of the budget called reconciliation. The reconciliation bill is the final step in the process of adjusting actual statutory law to meet the requirements of the budget agreement that someone quipped one time that it is a strange anomaly that only in the Congress of the United States is a word reconciliation a fighting word. Because it does involve some strong disagreements over things. For example this year like catastrophic health over so-called section 89 which of the health regulations statue to fly to business over a questions of different approaches to childcare and over issues revolving around the proposed capital gains tax reduction. I myself have taken a fairly strong position against the capital gains reduction a temporary capital gains reduction saying that it's ill-advised ill-timed inequitable unfair undesirable in general a pernicious. Other than that I'm open-minded about it. Seriously, I think the proposal with comes from a highly respected member of Congress at Jenkins and which was supported yesterday in the ways Means Committee by 13 Republicans and six Democrats passed out 1917 is going to be debated vigorously on the floor of the house when it reaches are probably in a couple of weeks my complaint about reducing capital gains taxes. It has several aspects one is that this is a two-year Bill. What's the rates down for two years and then raises them back up again and indexes the right from there on in that does nothing to encourage future investment in the country does nothing to encourage saving it merely rewards people who have appreciated access assess and one and opportunity to realize those assets in a lower tax rate the Wall Street Journal. Chart this morning indicates that 80% of the benefits go to people who aren't over $100,000 a year. In fact, you can't even tell from the charge quite what the total distributional effect is of the of the tax cut because some people have adjusted taxable incomes that are fairly low when they have broken comes in a very hot you can make $1000000 a year and have a gross income of a million dollars a year and they and adjusted taxable income at $10,000. And so it's it's not even easy to tell from those gross figures but it's clearly attacks that overwhelmingly benefits hiring come people. Now the problem is that it's not that I'm an economic popular because very frankly I have voted in 25 years in the Congress to reduce the marginal tax rates on higher income American from 70% to 50% from 50% to 38% and 38% to 33% and from 33% to 28% That wasn't just something that happened while I was in Congress. I supported all those reductions and I supported reductions in the inheritance tax in voted for unlimited marital transfers in and generally. I think I took the position that lower tax rates could be an instrument of stimulating investment and encouraging you cannot make activity. I don't have very much of a quarrel with that. But I do think there's a problem as we approach. Hey deficit, which is if it is not dealt with more seriously soon will put the country at Great Rift the moment. We have any kind of a business turnaround and provide a lower tax rate for people with very high income then a starting reporter single report on one of your newspapers would pay I think that's turning the tax system and Progressive of the totally on its head and it it's very extremely difficult. I think to justify will be much better. If we want to bring back Fender vents in the suggested and provide opportunities for middle and other income families to save money for their retirement, but for children's education for housing and I think we could support such an approach but however, the capital gains issue develops in the Congress, whatever the result it will have an impact I think on what we do about the deficit and what we do or haven't done more accurately about the deficit remains for me most important economic problem facing the country. Look at social problems education and drugs and crime and the growing disparity of income and stability in our families and major US cities and in rural areas as well or are key problems, but in terms of the of the economic situation the country, I think the continuation of the deficit at the high levels of a recent years has the most serious problem. I was the chairman in 1987 of the summit the budget, that followed the market crash. We were on the verge Republicans and Democrats House and Senate and executive personnel. Jim Bakker Howard Baker Jim Miller, we were on the verge of coming out with a much bigger plan than we finally realized. I think what we realized in past was important was significant valuable, but we almost realized would have been enormously important. It would have Frozen all expenditures. For 6 months including all cost-of-living allowances for all programs in the federal government. And it would have as some of us ought also Frozen all tax reductions for 6 months not change the reduction statutes but Frozen for 6 months, everybody would stand in place for 6 months that not only would be a great impact on that Year's budget but on the budgets of today because protectli cost-of-living allowances have a Wye Delta is a say in the budget business day affect many many out. Your benefits was a political difficulty in getting Republicans and Democrats to come together on a program. Because of the fear that the other party would make use of the vulnerability of the agreement. Republicans worried understandably worried that if they voted for Social Security Cola restraints, the Democrats might do with it done five years before and carried that issue to an electric and pick up 26 Republican seats in the House Republicans believe that the social security. Democrats were sensitive to the fact that if they came forward with the package with raised taxes as well if they would be charged with tax and spend Democrats. And consequently when we almost reached the agreement we started talking about how it would be presented. Are we going to try to insulate both parties from either one taking advantage of the agreement that we talked about her meeting with President Reagan and having an announcement on the White House lawn and having all of the participants of the summit together and having Frank fahrenkopf all the two national chairman and having Rudy boschwitz and John Kerry the Senate campaign chairman and having guy vanderjagt Anne Burrell Anthony the house campaign chairman and getting simultaneous statement on a tooth little party party leadership and can take whatever positions they want. We didn't reach it the kind of model that I think has to be reached. If you assume that we have to do something much more extensive about the deficit and if you assume that in order to do something much more seriously about the deficit there has to be some in Tyler with restraint there has to be some spending restraint and has to be some tax increase. I can assure you. However, there is not going to be any of that unless there is a willingness on the part of both parties to put the politics of taking advantage of those difficult position to say for example is not just a swipe at the Republican side Ed Rollins important figure in the Republican political system was asked earlier this year is filling breakfast in Washington Brewing lunch. But he said that he would attack any Democrats that voted for tax increase reporter said follow up Master Rollins. What about a program agree to buy the present President Bush sits down with a congressional leaders and they agreed on restraints and spending on a tax increase or would you do that? We said was still attack. What's going on? You said they do the thing down there in the White House. We do our thing up here and in Capitol Hill the Republican Congressional national headquarters. We're going to try to take advantage of each other in the deficit will be extremely difficult to do what I don't know what the president's be with. But I can tell you that there will be no taxes taking the side of tax and spend charges. There will be no taxes voted by the Congress. It's really no tax increases. Unless the president nominee permits it but endorse is it and sponsors as President Reagan did in 1983 when he fully supported the tax equity and fiscal responsibility axle call teff track television to endorse it to the country and I went on behind him to give the Democratic response and said one of those rare occasions. I think we're Democratic responses. The president is right. And if we have that Spirit of coming together at the Congress the executive branch Democrats and Republicans on the tub problems with the deficit. We will make one of the great Landmark events of bipartisanship and divided government. I haven't seen it yet. I must tell you I'm not terribly encouraged as we go into the second budget Year. We're committed by a budget agreement to keep talking and we will but it's hard to see our way through the kind of deficit reduction that we will have to make in order to reach a 64 billion dollar deficit reduction next year. We must keep hope alive. It's one of our political leaders says but the key to the kind of deficit-reduction at the country. I think so badly needs is an extraordinary degree of bipartisanship foreign policy. I think we had large measures of that bipartisanship. The Central American agreement is removing least it so far one of the most difficult and contentious issues of American foreign policy in recent years Central America. The only quick point I would make is that when people sometimes look back and say can't we sometime have that same bipartisanship in foreign policy that we had after World War II with Arthur Vandenberg and was Harry Truman and so forth. I think it made to some extent reflect a pessimism about what's actually happening because we're the exception I think of southern Africa from time to time particularly South African sanctions policy and with the exception of Central America and more particularly, Nicaragua Democrats and Republicans. On foreign policy over the last nine years of the Reagan Administration and Bush administrations there haven't been too many cases in the world. Will you could Mark out a Democratic or republican foreign policy position Democrats supported employment Pershing missiles and in Europe. They supported the agreement with the Soviet Union. We have generally had an enthusiastic support for our policy in Afghanistan. The policy of the United States has been somewhat confused in the Middle East with the confusion has been bipartisan. And with respect to Japan in the only probably to some extent with respect to trade has it been a tendency sometimes for the parties to to split so over all the exception of the budget. I tend to have high expectations for the ability of the congressman in the executive branch to work together. This is a wonderful time in the world history. As of Eastern Europe seems to be on the verge of moving toward Western parliamentary democracy at a speed and that nobody would have dreamt possible in recent years and it will be a tragedy if our budget constraints make it difficult for us to provide the necessary help that may be forthcoming to a country like Poland struggling to march from a communist prison into a Democratic Society because his one colonists in Washington Road today. We're simply broke don't ask us we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the defense of Western Europe since the end of World War II it would be tragic now if the fruit of all of that effort would be lost as events move fast toward democracy in Eastern Europe. Soviet Union and its relationship to the West again at a velocity which no one would have dreamt off even five years ago and we are still those of us who have had the opportunity to visit the Soviet Union pastures Thunderstruck by the events of of everyday experience. Martial art for me off the former Chief of Staff of the Soviet military and honored witness before the house armed services committee discussing details of the Soviet military budget to a respectful and applauding American Congressional audience. That couldn't have happened 5 years ago either in the Congress or in the Soviet military establishment. Mr. Yeltsin, the latest political celebrity from overseas running around talking to American Presidents been courtesy calls on past American presidents and calling for for a Ada to this rubbish off while he's criticizing him isn't sufficiently Progressive. All of this is a is in a way such a marvellous turn of events that one recent. Article of a great fashion at the moment pronounces that history is is over. And that we have achieved we have achieved everything kind of a typical I think American enthusiasm and optimism that the Millennium has arrived. I don't think any of us are this Illusion by that the Millennium has not arrived, but for many many. Events in the world today. I think the United States can take some passive credit 200 years ago. On March 1st, 1789 a group of Planters and Merchants and clergymen and lawyers met in New York in the first meeting of the House of Representatives. That was an experiment with practical parliamentary democracy. That would have and has had a long and magnificent history. By the way. I took them until April 1st to get a quorum. But when they did they pass the first Judiciary Act establishing the federal Judiciary the past the acts of Salvation the Departments of State Treasury post office and Justice the attorney general and the first 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights. No Congress so slow and starting achieved so much and its first session, but I want to assure you that if members of the public would be in the book rooms in the halls of the Congress Republican and Democratic And could have an opportunity to see if and be present at every private meeting in conversation. I believe they would have a higher sense far higher sense of the effort and commitment that members of Congress exercise today who I think in their own time and own Generation by trying to carry out that tradition of 1789 and a country that has had awkward fits and starts movements forward and movements backward is still a country square and excites the Polish Revival in reform and gives encouragement to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain that their countries to ensure the benefit of a free economic and political system and problems here at home. And we have many as you know, that is still something I think 200 years later to reflect on with pride and confidence. Thank you very much.