[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2044-H2049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2315
                     VALUES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) is 
recognized for the balance of the time until midnight as the designee 
of the majority leader.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I first want to compliment 
the previous speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), on 
his thoughts and ideas about health care and the proposals that he has 
set forward. And we certainly look forward to learning about those 
proposals and possibly working to provide our opinions and thoughts and 
perhaps assistance in moving in a very similar direction of caring and 
compassion for those who are so afflicted.
  But proposals seem to be few and far between here in Washington with 
respect to a number of issues that we have been dealing with in recent 
days and in recent weeks. And we, as the Republican party in Congress, 
have been fighting very passionately and forcefully about issues and 
proposals that are designed to help the American taxpayer, to help the 
American family to unleash our economy and allow for a greater 
prosperity throughout the country.
  And with this in mind, let me yield a few moments to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding, Mr. 
Speaker, and I am pleased by the fact that he joins me in this Chamber 
tonight along another newcomer to Washington, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady).
  Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the earlier portion and 
presentation offered by our friend in the minority, I could not help 
but think of three dates, two occurring in this month and another that 
will come in October.
  We should note for the calendar that this is the 1st of April. And 
while I doubt no one's sincerity, the absurdity of some of the comments 
which preceded us in the minority Special Order I guess should be 
tempered by the fact that this is, in fact, April Fool's Day. And we 
know that that is the second favorite holiday in the minority's 
calendar, because the minority party and those always tied to the 
culture of spend and spend and spend some more really have as their 
favorite holiday April 15, when everyone must send in their tax 
returns.
  And for evidence, despite a frantic effort to get away from words 
that were read in the Record here last week, my friends, my colleagues 
and, Mr. Speaker, the citizens who join us beyond these walls via 
television should look to this quote and understand all the frantic 
posturing and postmortems cannot change what was said on this floor. 
The Chief Deputy Whip, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, who stood 
opposite in the well, said this last week, quote, the fact is that 
Democrats are not for tax cuts.
  Now, I could amend that statement because I know a lot of common-
sense folks who offer party label second in the Sixth District of 
Arizona who are hard-working Americans who are pleased by the tax cuts 
they have this year, hanging on to more of their own money to save, 
spend, and invest as they see fit. And in the frantic way in which the 
minority, the congressional folks who are tax and spenders, tried to 
back paddle on this statement tonight, I could not help but note that 
the scenario they offered brings up a third date on the calendar, 
October 31.
  Because, sadly, it seems that the minority, so bankrupt of ideas, so 
bereft of new energy at times, offers what is a rhetorical terrorism to 
victimize the most vulnerable in our society by setting up these 
scenarios that can only be described as part Orwellian, part Kevorkian. 
And so, we heard it again tonight.
  There are many positive things to talk about and to report to the 
American people tonight, Mr. Speaker, as the new majority continues its 
quest for common-sense conservative government with the notion that the 
people of America should hang on to more of their own money and send 
less of it to Washington. And that is why I am so pleased to join my 
friend again from Colorado and my friend from Texas.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman from Arizona.
  Wednesday night is freshmen night, typically. The freshman class is 
one that tries to reserve an hour every Wednesday to talk about the 
values of our Republican party. We are joined by many other Members 
from other classes, senior Members, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) is, who has been one that we look to for leadership and 
guidance, one who inspires us and who is a great colleague for us as 
new Members.
  Our goal and objective in these Special Orders is to really draw the 
distinction between the two parties that are here in Washington, 
because it really does matter. People think that there are two parties 
that are somehow the same. And there are votes on occasion where our 
votes seem to be commingled. But, by and large, the philosophies that 
divide us and separate us are legitimate issues; they are legitimate 
cause for having two sides.
  Thomas Jefferson observed 220-some-odd years ago that, in all 
political systems there really are two sides; there is the side that 
believes in more government, the side that believes that the government 
is the best way to organize our societies, and then there is the other 
side that believes that we should look to individuals and families and 
people as the definitive feature in establishing the character of a 
society or community.
  Well, we, as Republicans, differ very greatly from our Democrat side, 
the Democrats being the side that does believe in more government and 
that government is the organizing factor in our society. And the quote 
that my colleague highlighted here is probably most indicative that I 
have seen in recent days about the difference between them and us.
  They believe that there is no cause for tax cuts. In fact, they have 
worked routinely in this Congress to increase taxes to oppose every 
effort that we have made as the Republican party to turn more wealth 
away from Washington and back to the people of the country and to the 
States.
  That philosophy of less government, more reliance on States and 
individuals, is something that we fight for all the time and routinely.
  I want to yield, if I can, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), 
who is leading this Congress with a bold plan, a bold idea, a bold 
proposal to rein in the size of Federal Government, the scope of our 
government by a responsible mechanism that is used in several States 
called sunsetting.
  So, with that, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

[[Page H2045]]

  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership of 
the freshman Republican class in 1998.
  The Fourth of July is one of my favorite holidays. And this past year 
Kathy, my wife, and I were watching fireworks over a lake in my 
community in Woodlands, Texas; and I thought as I watched the fireworks 
this year that it was ironic that Fourth of July has two meanings for 
America this year. It is not only in 1997, as usual, our day of 
independence, but this year it was the first day most Americans started 
working for themselves because July 3 was what we call cost-of-
government day in America.

  That means that, for most American families, we work from January 1 
to July 3 just to pay tax, just to pay our State, local, Federal taxes; 
and the cost of regulation on most families now reach to July 3. That 
is over half the year. That means in a lot of families we have got one 
parent working just to pay the bills and the rent and put food on the 
table, and we have another parent working just to pay their taxes.
  Like my colleague, I have had the opportunity to work in State 
government and in city government, and I can tell my colleagues now 
serving the Congress that it is at the Federal level where we waste far 
too many of the resources we have.
  Our goal in the Republican Congress is to shrink the size of Federal 
Government, to give more power back to the communities and, more 
importantly, leave them their money and resources to solve the problems 
and make decisions themselves. Well, big government has a life of its 
own, especially in Washington.
  Former President Ronald Reagan said, ``There is nothing closer to 
immortality on earth than a Federal agency.'' And that really is true. 
Our government continues to grow. And I am convinced that we can never 
really shrink Washington just by slowing the growth of spending. We are 
going to tackle and address wasteful spending, abolish obsolete 
agencies, and really get into duplication to give power back to our 
communities and our families.
  Sunsetting is a simple concept, and it is proven because it is used 
by more than 20 States. I want to set an expiration date on every 
Federal agency, every program, every department, every commission, 
every bureau, every council where they go out of existence unless they 
can prove their value to us. And not what they were worth a hundred 
years ago, as the board of tea examiners were when they were first 
created, or 40 years ago or 20 years ago, but do they deserve our tax 
dollars today and are they needed today?
  Sunsetting puts every agency up for review to take away the sacred 
cows, and for the first time it shifts the burden of proof. Rather than 
Congress and taxpayers today having to convince America that there is 
not a single use for an agency, it shifts that burden to the agencies 
to prove to American taxpayers that they deserve our tax dollars today.
  In Texas, we view sunsetting over the years and in that State we have 
eliminated 42 State agencies and saved $60 million for taxpayers. That 
is in the State. I am convinced at the Federal level we can do a 
hundredfold that.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And, again, I think what the gentleman from Texas 
advocates, Mr. Speaker, points up the vitality of our system of 
federalism where we can look to the States for the examples proffered 
there.
  Now, to be certain, what works in Austin may not be readily accepted 
in Boston; what is embraced in Harrisburg may not always be the case in 
Phoenix. And yet, taking a look at what States do in terms of seizing 
the initiative, I know, for example, right now the State of Arizona is 
coming to grips with the whole notion of school funding; and they are 
working in the House and Senate working on those ideas. Who knows what 
will come from those notions?
  But, again, as we have seen with welfare reform, as we have seen with 
so many different issues and certainly those that lend a notion of 
fiscal responsibility and accountability, we look to the States. And I 
cannot help but notice our friend from the Republic of Texas, known as 
the Lone Star State also, perhaps with a distinction as the sunset 
State, and I think he hit on something that is so vitally important 
because it should be our mission here; and while we do point out 
differences and while we celebrate differences in philosophies, the 
fact is that we also look for common ground across the board, across 
the aisle.
  And we have been able to make some changes here in Washington based 
on those examples, perhaps not as formalized as the gentleman offers 
here tonight, perhaps the first halting few steps made in the 104th 
Congress, that historic Congress where the balance of power that the 
American people confer on this Chamber was changed to a common-sense 
conservative majority when we eliminated over 300 wasteful and 
duplicative programs and in the process reduced spending by some $54 
billion.
  Now, to be sure, Mr. Speaker, that was just a start. Much more 
remains to be done. And that is why I am so enthusiastic about our 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) bringing this idea to this Chamber, 
showing again the wisdom of the notion of transferring money, power, 
and influence out of Washington, where sadly those resources had been 
wasted, and making sure that the power rests preeminently in the 
States.
  Because in most cases, there may be some exceptions, but in most 
cases power closer to home, the ideas coming from home to Washington 
can help reinvogorate our constitutional republic. And that is the 
essence of what is going on. Again, it just stands in stark contrast.
  My colleague from Colorado and I were in the cloakroom watching the 
theatrics on the other side tonight, how instead of ideas they wanted 
to take something that was just simply a policy notion, not even 
articulated in the fashion that they would bring it to the floor, but 
yet to market fear, they take a legitimate proposal, twist it, change 
it to scare people.
  I would just like to see their proposals. I would just like to see 
some new ideas from the other side. I think they, too, should look to 
the States and look to the people and listen for answers.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. The gentleman hit the nail on the head. 
Because anybody who was observing the House floor just 20, 30 minutes 
ago when the left wing of the Democrat party was here speaking could 
see very clearly that they are in fear themselves of these ideas, these 
Republican ideas about changing government, lowering tax rates, 
constraining the size of the Federal Government. They are afraid of 
those ideas.
  If they really do represent a philosophy, as they do, a philosophy 
that is constructed entirely upon the notion of power obtained through 
government, then any idea that threatens that power structure is a real 
threat to their way of life and changes life as they know it. That is a 
frightening notion to people who love big government. And I will tell 
my colleagues why. Because it does turn the tables and changes the 
dynamic.
  Right now in Washington, as we have discovered as Members of 
Congress, a tremendous amount of the leverage belongs to the 
bureaucrats. They know they are going to stick around forever, these 
people in government, these bureaucrats, and my colleagues and I we are 
going to come here and serve a few terms and do the work that the 
people have sent us here to do and then we are going to go back and 
live in a society that we have helped create and the laws that we have 
cast votes upon.

                              {time}  2330

  But those bureaucrats are going to be here forever. They know, as 
long as they can keep the rules rigged as they are today, that their 
life is going to go on and on unimpeded.
  What really frightens these left-wingers over on the Democrat side of 
the aisle is that our ideas would really force the country to ask this 
question: If we were to start all over again today with this program or 
that program, would we create it to be what it is today? And pick an 
agency, any topic. There is not a single agency in the Federal 
Government, I would submit, that this Congress would ever establish 
just as it is now if we started all over again. We would not do it.
  You take a look at the IRS. It is volumes and volumes of absolute 
nonsense. Nobody would sit down and invent that system. But the reason 
we have it is because the rules are always in favor of the government 
and the bureaucrats and these policies that are

[[Page H2046]]

never ever challenged. And that is what sunsetting accomplishes.
  Mr. BRADY. If I may continue on with that, I made a point about how 
good bureaucracies are playing the game up here. They are so much 
better than us citizen legislators will ever be. As you know, just in 
my first term, I have already observed the Washington Monument defense, 
which is, if you have a $100 million agency, and you propose to cut 
one-tenth of 1 percent of their budget, they will immediately state 
those were the funds that we were going to use to keep the Washington 
Monument open. If you cut our budget, I guess we will just have to shut 
down the Washington Monument to America's visitors, which you know is 
ludicrous, but they are able to scare the American people.
  And sunsetting, what I like about that, is it, not only does it 
target obsolete agencies and prevent them from playing budget games, 
but it also targets duplication. We have today, just in Washington, we 
have 600 different programs to aid inner cities. We have 300 different 
programs for economic development. Just for children at risk is a good 
example. For children at risk, we have 116 different Federal programs 
administered by 13 different agencies.
  What are the chances a tax dollar will ever get to a child who really 
needs it. More importantly, what about the family that sacrifices from 
their children to send tax dollars to Washington to have it wasted to 
that extent.
  Sunsetting targets that type of duplication, insists on 
accountability. More importantly, the State, and the gentleman from 
Arizona pointed out, at the State level, we know, when you sunset an 
agency, for about 2 years before that agency's date is up, you cannot 
believe how responsive they get. They start answering their mail. They 
are quick to return phone calls. They start to understand that they 
have customers to serve.
  Some of them think it is the legislature who are their customers, 
but, in fact, it is taxpayers. But the issue of accountability begins 
to creep in. The good agencies already know what customer service is 
about. But agencies that are wasting our dollars duplicating programs 
that are obsolete in their mission and refuse to understand who their 
bosses are, they struggle under sunset. Thankfully, they ought to.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, in hearing 
his remarks and not only taking a look at what went on in real life 
down in the Republic of Texas, in the Lone Star State, in that 
legislature how those programs have worked, I could not help but be 
struck upon a couple of comments he made dealing with the realities 
that American families confront now, not only the burden of taxation, 
but the hidden cost of regulation.
  And lest anyone misunderstand, because I have a funny feeling in view 
of what some folks in this chamber say distinctly and want to come back 
and amend, and certain ad campaigns that have existed in the past to 
take legitimate comments out of context, lest anyone misunderstand, we 
are not talking about the abolition of regulation. We understand a 
modicum of regulation, Mr. Speaker, is reasonable, rational to make 
sure that infrastructure and systems exist.
  But what is worth noting is the fact that, when our Founders wrote 
the Constitution, the first three words in the beautiful preamble are 
``We the people''. They did not write we the government.
  What is unique about our system is the fact that it was, as Catherine 
Drinker Bowen wrote, the Miracle at Philadelphia, because our Founders 
devised a system, a notion that was, dare we say, at that time in 
history, considered by the Europeans and others, extreme for our 
system, was based on the notion, our constitutional republic was 
founded on the notion that rights are conferred upon the people by God 
and, in turn, the people confer rights upon the government.
  So as I hear the plans that my friend from Texas brings up, it calls 
to mind and brings to mind a piece of legislation that my colleague the 
gentleman from Colorado and I cosponsor here in the House, sponsored in 
the other body by a former colleague in this chamber, now Senator 
Brownback of Kansas, the Congressional Responsibility Act, another tool 
to use to reign in runaway regulation.
  Because following the beautiful preamble to the Constitution, Mr. 
Speaker, in Article 1, section 1 of this great document, it reads, and 
I quote, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
Congress of the United States,'' all legislative powers.
  Yet, what we have done for the better part of this century, initially 
with the best of intentions, is to empower the unelected. Congress 
gradually in ceding that control and that authority to the executive 
branch has essentially, and pardon me, Mr. Speaker, and those at home, 
turned its back, turned its back on the American people, turned its 
back on the responsibilities.
  So now seemingly daily in the Federal Register you have Washington 
bureaucrats drafting regulation, and these regulations, if they are not 
strictly adhered to, carry with them sanctions. Sometimes those 
sanctions can include fines or imprisonment, sometimes both.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not an attorney. J.D. does not stand for 
jurist doctorate. I think that is an asset. But you do not have to be a 
lawyer to realize that, in essence, what has happened is that Congress 
has placed lawmaking authority in the hands of the unelected.
  I know my colleague from Colorado had a very interesting experience. 
One of his committees, he was explaining it to us, his epiphany, if you 
will, for the way Washington has come to work when we are talking about 
the regulation railroad, and we are not talking about locomotion so 
much as bureaucratic inertia.
  Could you share your experience on committee? Do you recall? You 
spoke so eloquently at our press conference about your days sitting 
with the ag folks, and someone came I believe from the Department of 
Agriculture. And it is a great, great story that stuck in my mind 
because you said that you leaned over to a more senior member of the 
committee and you said, ``Wait a minute. This guy is making law. He is 
     bringing up law.''
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. That is right. We were in the Committee 
on Agriculture talking with people from the Department of Agriculture, 
the regulatory bureaucrats who preside over the daily lives of farmers 
and ranchers and the hard-working people of America who produce our 
food. These bureaucrats were explaining their program, hearing Member 
by Member around the committee table talk about their frustration with 
these rules and regulations and our desire to see them change.
  I leaned over to the senior Member sitting to my right at the time, 
and after I had finished asking some questions and speaking and raising 
some pointed issues with these bureaucrats, I leaned over after it was 
all over, and I said, you know, I said I am starting to get the feeling 
they do not care all that much what we have to say or think.
  I remember his comment back, and he said just basically what I said 
before. He said that is because, after you are long gone, Mr. Schaffer, 
those bureaucrats are still going to be sitting in those chairs 
answering to some other people, who it is going to take them a few 
years to figure out that nobody cares what they have to say either. 
That really needs to change.
  The amazing thing is, our Founders were brilliant, wise leaders who 
had the perception to look years out in the future. Drawing upon their 
learned experience and knowledge about government systems, they were 
able to look out and realize that we needed a system of government 
where the people really are in charge and acknowledging certain 
inalienable rights, as they said right in our Declaration, that we have 
these rights, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. God gives us 
those rights. They are not invented by the government. We loan those 
rights to politicians at election time.
  In America the people really are in charge. And 220 years ago when 
these guys cooked up this idea in Philadelphia, it was a radical idea 
throughout the world, a world at the time that was governed by kings 
and dictators and oligarchies of sorts. To actually put the people in 
charge was something that, 220 years ago, was thought to never last 
very long.

[[Page H2047]]

  But over time this Congress has given more and more and more 
authority over to the bureaucracy. Those individuals on the other side 
of the aisle that we heard just a half hour ago are, in fact they 
represent the party that has been struggling and fighting this 
Declaration and Constitution, those documents which are an obstacle to 
their ideas about governing.
  They have given authority away from the people, taken it away from 
people, given it to the government. They have created a huge welfare 
state. They refuse to consider any efforts to reduce the tax burden on 
the American people. I say this, the Democratic party has become the 
tax collectors for the welfare state.
  We are here, and we frighten them. We frighten those folks because we 
are talking about giving authority back to the people. We are talking 
about lowering the burden of government when it comes to taxes. We are 
talking about sunsetting all regulatory functions of the Federal 
Government, in fact, putting a termination date which at some point in 
time will force every single bureaucrat to account for their actions, 
to account for their necessity and, in the end, prove their merit and 
usefulness in order to continue in existence, a huge departure between 
what they represent on the left hand, what we represent here in the 
center of American political thought in the conservative Republican 
Party.
  It is the reason they come here and yell and scream and are 
frightened every night, because we are winning on the street. The 
American people realize that our pro-freedom, pro-liberty message is 
resonating with every single American across this country who are fed 
up with this liberal social way of life. They are looking for liberty 
and freedom, and that is what we are here to talk about tonight as a 
Republican Party.
  Mr. BRADY. To follow on what the gentleman said, we have been 
fighting big government since the very beginning. Our Founding Fathers 
and mothers did know there would be a struggle.
  The other day in reading a book on Thomas Jefferson, I stumbled 
across a letter that he had written during his first term stating that 
he was hard at work trying to abolish agencies that were no longer 
needed in our Federal Government. That was at the very infancy. Already 
the bureaucracy was starting to take hold.
  Two of the things I like, I think, also about sunset is that in real 
life at the State level, when an agency knows that they are coming up 
for sunset, they are also less likely to write regulations that are so 
far afield from what Congress or the legislature intended.
  As you know, we write a bill that is 10 pages long. An agency writes 
regulations that fill a thousand pages. The mayor may not have to do 
what the original intent of Congress or the legislature intended.
  But under sunset, when they know they are coming, every agency knows 
they are coming back routinely in front of taxpayers, the customers and 
users of their agencies, and Members of Congress to justify their 
responsiveness and their service and their quality, it changes things.
  Also, under sunset, because we do not just single out the Department 
of Education or the Department of Commerce or any other program, every 
agency is held accountable. It puts American taxpayers back into the 
driver's seat. They have an opportunity when we set these dates to 
come, not just before Congress to give us their opinion on the quality 
of service and whether we need them, but through the Internet, through 
meetings held in their communities, through talking with us, give us a 
real life value to whether that agency is worth our dollars today or 
not. As a result, good agencies get better in service, and bad agencies 
go away as they should.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, to hear this, and again, 
knowing the deliberate distortion that may be inevitable from those who 
fear most returning power to the hands of the citizens, I think we need 
to make this point, again, just to say this: When our friend steps to 
this floor and advocates the notion of sunset, he does not imply that 
every bit of government will sunset. He simply asks for increased 
accountability. That is important. That is one of the notions behind 
our Congressional Responsibility Act that I would like to outline, Mr. 
Speaker, for those who join us during this time this evening, and that 
is also something that I think we can make manifest in rules as we 
reevaluate our budgetary process.
  I am pleased tonight that our Speaker pro tempore is the gentleman 
from Iowa who joins me with service on the Committee on Ways and Means 
and also is one of our delegates, if you will, to the Committee on 
Budget where he does that work. That is one of his other committee 
assignments, almost a liaison, if you will, between the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Committee on Budget.
  We have been engaged in some discussions born of my first experience, 
an epiphany that I had based on experience here during my first term 
when I served on the Committee on Resources and on one of the 
subcommittees responsible for national parks. We called in the director 
of the National Park Service. And sitting next to him was, in essence, 
the agency's accountant.

                              {time}  2345

  Of course here we use a fancy title for accountant. It would be the 
Inspector General, the person who goes over the receipts, takes a look 
at the tax dollars that come into the agency.
  And I will never forget what transpired on that day. The Inspector 
General who had the responsibility for the Park Service with the 
Director of the Park Service sitting alongside told a congressional 
subcommittee in essence that the National Park Service could not 
account for some $73 million of taxpayer money.
  Now I know some folks around here talk about billions and trillions; 
73 trillion may not be too much. But I tell you what, to an American 
family, to the hard-working people in the Sixth District of Arizona 
and, I submit, to the people in Texas and Colorado and people from 
coast to coast in Alaska and Hawaii $73 million is real money. And I 
suppose for the television cameras it made for great television to have 
folks kind of rhetorically beat up on the Director of the Park Service, 
but there was no recourse.
  And so what I think we ought to do, and I have talked with our 
Speaker Pro Tempore this evening, the gentleman from Iowa, and others 
on the Committee on the Budget, I think we ought to consider a rule 
that henceforth, when governmental agencies cannot account for 
taxpayers' funds, as the audits and reports come from their respective 
inspectors general, then automatically for the next year that amount of 
money be automatically impounded from that particular agency's 
administrative account because, as one of my colleagues said on that 
day to the Director of the Park Service, were he a director of a 
business, were he chairman of the board of the corporation, what he had 
done that day would be tantamount to a criminal offense that would land 
him behind bars. But instead all he endured was the wrath of a few 
congressional subcommittee members and, I am sure, the disdain of those 
who joined via videotape that discussion on C-Span.
  There must be ways for us to seek accountability.
  And so I hope that as we review the budget process with the gentleman 
from Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, as many of us 
take a look at this, that we take a look at restoring accountability 
whether it is through sunsetting or through more budgetary rules that 
require accountability to the citizens of this country or through the 
Congressional Responsibility Act which says simply this, Mr. Speaker:
  That henceforth, when the regulators formulate their regulations, 
those proposed regulations would not be printed pell-mell in the 
Federal Register after a certain amount of time for public comment. No, 
instead those proposed regulations should be returned here to Capitol 
Hill, to this Chamber and to the Senate, and voted on by the duly 
elected constitutional representatives so that in that way, Mr. 
Speaker, those of us who are sent here to represent the people can be 
held truly accountable.
  Now it may come as no great surprise that that notion is fought by a 
lot of folks, and let us be candid about it, my colleagues. A lot of 
folks on both sides of the aisle, be they liberal or conservative, do 
not like that idea because they do not want to take that 
responsibility. Some folks who are into the

[[Page H2048]]

notion of careers in Congress would rather not have that 
responsibility. But I would submit to you that that is the 
responsibility we should have.
  And to those who say, oh, with a raft of regulations there is too 
much for Congress to ever cover, you could not do it, I would simply 
point out it has been my experience in this Chamber, both in this 
session and certainly in the 104th Congress even with that incredibly 
ambitious schedule we had some days where we would have ceremonial 
debate followed by ceremonial votes to name Federal installations after 
noteworthy Americans, I do not criticize that practice. I simply say 
this:
  If we have the time in the Congress of the United States to engage in 
those largely ceremonial votes, do we not have time to live up to 
Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution? Should we not take the time 
or make the time to do that? And that is what this is about. Despite 
all the rhetoric and what we can expect, the intentional distortions 
sadly that will emanate, which I guess is part of the theater of the 
absurd that often encumbrances Washington, what we are about here, Mr. 
Speaker, is not a revolution, nor is some on that side who curiously do 
not believe there is any controlling legal authority would call it a 
reinvention. We are not about that. Instead what we are about is a 
restoration, a restoration of constitutional obligations taken on by 
those to whom power is conferred, a restoration of power in the hands 
of the citizenry and an acknowledgment that, whether it is regulation 
or taxation, that the American people work hard for the money they 
earn. They should be able to hang onto more of it, send less of it here 
to this city, because, as my colleagues have both pointed out, when the 
money remains in the hands of Washington, the money is spent.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. You know there are some people here in 
Washington who really hang their hat on and pretend that they are 
somehow holding government accountable through the reauthorization 
process. You know, we talk about that a lot in Washington to a lot of 
folks back in our districts; they do not know what reauthorization 
means, but this is when agencies come up for reauthorization or review. 
It is not a sunset, it is just when the Congress feels like it getting 
around to looking at an agency again from A to Z, and there is no 
compelling need to make any meaningful reform. The Congress could 
decide to do nothing, and the agency will go right on as if no one was 
looking.
  You know that is what many people here celebrate as holding 
government accountable, but the reauthorization process does not work. 
And you know you hear about this all the time. The Higher Education 
Reauthorization Act is going to be coming to the floor here soon, just 
program after program. We are reauthorizing programs, and that is the 
only time when this Congress makes any kind of an attempt to evaluate 
or review these agencies, but again it does not have the real teeth of 
sunsetting or termination dates on these regulatory programs. No 
bureaucrat is ever forced to come and prove the worth or merit of their 
program or their job or their function of government to this Congress, 
and it takes a majority vote voting in the affirmative to repeal a 
program rather than what ought to occur here is that it takes a 
majority of votes, majority vote in an affirmative way, to keep a 
program. And that is what we are trying to turn around and really turn 
the tables on government to give the leverage to the people of America 
to pry bad programs out of the system and to strengthen, retain and in 
fact improve those programs that can be improved and that are worth 
keeping.
  Mr. BRADY. And to follow that point just a little farther we have 
now, we are entering the 21st century, and every part of our life it 
seems is changing. Every industry, every profession, every small 
business has undergone a great deal of change, but government has not; 
the same programs, the same nonaccountability. In sunset, which is the 
bill number by the way is H.R. 2939, it is the Federal Sunset Act of 
1998, and it has 80 cosponsors on that bill, changes government, gives 
back control to taxpayers, just demands accountability. And, more 
importantly, it insists that our agencies serve our taxpayers and their 
customers.
  And people will say, well, wait a minute now. You cannot sunset the 
EPA.
  Well we are not picking winners and losers. Every agency is up for 
review. But frankly, and I do not agree with a lot that the EPA does, 
but if we spend money to preserve the environment, I want that money to 
actually work to clean up a dirty area or a pile of tires.
  And people say, well, you cannot sunset the Social Security 
Administration.
  Well, we are not sunsetting the benefit, we are sunsetting who 
delivers it. And frankly my seniors, many of whom we have a lot of 
trouble trying to get their benefits to them, frankly they live month 
to month depending upon those dollars. And their attitude is, if the 
administration is not going to to get their benefits to them on time to 
those who have earned it, then find someone who will.

                              {time}  2355

  Find someone who will get it to them effectively, because the goal 
here I think in government is not to make ourselves bigger and create 
more agencies. It is to deliver our services the most cost effective 
way, to people who need them, and to make sure that a dollar that we 
spend, that when we take in people's hard-earned tax dollars, actually 
gets to the people who need them.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Since my colleague from Texas raises the specter of 
Social Security by example, I think it is important to reiterate, Mr. 
Speaker, what transpired here on the Hill today as we take a look at 
preserving and protecting Social Security for today's seniors and then 
making that system stronger through innovation and personalization in 
the days ahead.
  It brings to mind the fact that, mindful as we are of the time and 
the few minutes, about 5 minutes that remain, for us to share with the 
American people tonight Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the fact that 
during this recess I will be back in the 6th District of Arizona with 
town halls talking to seniors about how best to preserve Social 
Security, how best to preserve that trust fund, and then looking to the 
baby-boom generation and those of the third millennium, or the 
Generation Next-Agers, or beyond, to see how best to deal with the 
problem.
  I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased about the Social 
Security task force that we have assembled in the 6th Congressional 
District of Arizona with people who are very, very interested, who have 
a stake in this, as today's seniors on today's program, as soon to be 
seniors, as baby-boomers, and as Generation Nexters, or third millennia 
children. They are working together to try and take a look at this 
system. I eagerly await their report and to hear from the people as we 
return back to listen to our constituents to decide how best to solve 
problems.
  Again, I cannot help but comment on the irony of those who preceded 
us in this chamber, who had invented almost out of whole cloth, but 
instead out of deliberate distortion, scare tactics about a legitimate 
question of tax reform. And I think, Mr. Speaker, to couch that 
properly, we should say this: I could not help but note the irony that 
the three who stood here in this chamber had embraced just a few years 
before a soup-to-nuts plan for socialized medicine that was derived in 
a back room behind closed doors down at the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, a program that was doomed to failure because it was never 
debated by the American people, nor shared.
  So we do not shrink from the notion of debate; we welcome it. Whether 
on Social Security or tax policy, or overregulation or overtaxation, we 
welcome debate and decisions. But we want to hear from all the people, 
not lock people away and sequester them behind closed doors and then 
emerge with some Rube Goldbergesque scheme. Instead, it is the basic 
goodness and wisdom of the people which will prevail and which I look 
forward to hearing in my town hall meetings when I return home.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap-up by 
summarizing a number of things we have discussed in a very quick way, 
and that is we really are talking about a great number of ideas to 
shrink the size of the Federal Government, to return authority and 
wealth and power

[[Page H2049]]

back to the people, and basically to give more freedom and liberty to 
Americans throughout the country wherever they may be.
  But the reality is, there is about two minutes left until the end of 
April Fool's Day here in Washington, D.C. in the eastern time zone, 
which means that in 14 days, a little over 14 days now, at about this 
time, American taxpayers throughout the country are going to be lining 
up to get to their Post Office to file their tax returns in time in 
order to stay within the law of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code.
  I hope they will be thinking about this conversation tonight, and 
maybe contrasting the difference between our Republican message of 
freedom and liberty and lower taxes and the Democrat message of more 
government and no tax cuts, no tax cuts.
  The tax collectors for the welfare State, as you have pointed out in 
the quote you brought here tonight, have stated right here on this 
floor just a few weeks ago that the fact is that Democrats are not for 
tax cuts. That is the real difference between the two parties. We 
really are looking for ways to liberate the American people, to lower 
tax rates.
  Here is something I want to point out. Families paid 5 percent of 
their income in Federal taxes in 1934. Today, the average family pays 
20 percent of its annual income to the Federal Government, the highest 
since World War II. That is no April Fool's Day joke.
  Right now the average American family pays about 40 percent of their 
total income in State, Federal and local taxes; 40 percent. That is no 
April fool's Day joke either.
  Our goal and our vision in general terms and over a broader context 
is to lower the effective tax rate on the American family to no more 
than 25 percent. That is something we are not joking about either. We 
are quite serious about it.
  We will be back at this microphone time and time again talking about 
this vision of freedom and liberty, lower taxes and less government. I 
thank the Speaker for recognizing us today, and allowing us to 
participate in this special order.

                          ____________________