[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10903-H10910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE VALUES OF CONGRESS ARE POISON TO THE SENSIBILITIES OF THE NATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Madam Speaker, the impasse between the 
Congress and the President has now held this great body in session 5 
days beyond our planned adjournment date. The principle disagreement is 
a typical one of whether this Nation will redistribute greater portions 
of the taxpayers' wealth or devote it to debt relief and the people 
themselves. Our failure to resolve these matters has delayed us from 
returning to our home States, to our constituents, and most of all to 
our families.
  A few days ago, I came to this floor and addressed the House on my 
thoughts about the public morals and of the Nation's character. I 
directed that address at my three daughters, and tonight I intend to 
express to the House my thoughts about my son, Justin, who is 9 years 
old and wondering, I am sure, why his dad has been gone so long. He 
knows, I think, the importance of the Nation's business in Congress, 
and he knows I would not remain away for trivial reasons.
  Madam Speaker, it is significant that a major or portion of today's 
debate involves the issue of public education. I believe the Republican 
agenda is the proper one, to send more education authority to the 
States, to local schools and to every family. Our opponents have the 
opposite idea. Theirs is to expand the scope of the Federal Government 
in this important area, to federalize various aspects of a 
traditionally decentralized system.
  Now their plan is to grow the size of the Federal Government at the 
expense of State and local autonomy and liberty, and I raise this 
issue, Madam Speaker, because the debate coincides with one of the most 
historic decisions this Congress must resolve, and that is the matter 
of impeachment of the same chief executive who would be charged with 
commanding the education authority in question.
  Education is about values. Public education is about public values. 
And the education of America's children is about the future of human 
civilization and life on the entire planet.
  As a father of four children, three of whom attend public schools, I 
will tell you this:
  The last thing we should do is give the bureaucracy in this city more 
power to manipulate the Nation's local schools. The values of 
Washington, D.C., are poison to the sensibilities of the Nation. There 
is no one, no one at

[[Page H10904]]

the White House whom I would trust to shape the academic structure of 
our schools, much less convey the moral precepts of our Declaration or 
shape the character of our children. In fact, our purpose here in this 
Congress should be just the opposite.
  The values of America are strong. Our moral purpose has been defined 
by 222 years of glorious history as a mighty Nation based on simple 
precepts, that we are governed by basic truths, self-evident ones at 
that.
  Our purpose, Madam Speaker, should be to apply the values of America 
to this city, not the other way around. The voices of decent Americans 
should be heard over and above the petty partisanship and unruly law-
breakers of this capital.
  For the truly patriotic Members of Congress, I know that this is why 
you are here at this very moment in time. Your courage is an 
inspiration because through you the decency of the American people 
speaks, and I want my son, Justin, to know that the innocence of a 
little boy is the hope for America, and he is the reason I am here.
  So, as we debate whether to export the values of Washington, D.C., to 
Colorado and every other State, I want to make a case for the young 
boys and girls all over America, that they may be raised up in spite of 
this terrible folly that has transpired over the past several months 
just at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Madam Speaker, my message to my son is as follows:
  Justin, how confusing it must be to grow up at a time when public 
behavior differs so much from what you know to be good, honorable and 
right. There are things I want you to know and remember forever. 
America is the greatest Nation on earth because it is a Nation under 
God, and we have come so far as a people because throughout our history 
great men and great women have looked to the Almighty for direction in 
making all the decisions that have affected you and me to this very 
day.
  And I believe with all my heart that he has blessed America. America 
is not great because of Congress. It is not great because of the 
Supreme Court, or the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, 
or because of the presidency; not because of our military might, our 
natural resources or our prospering economy. No, America is great 
because common people with big dreams and caring hearts have maintained 
the faith that there is something bigger and more noble to pursue. 
America is great because of you and your sisters, little boys and girls 
just like you. You are the messengers that we will send into another 
time. And what message will you carry, what message will you carry with 
you when you one day lead as all American citizens lead?
  As your father, I do not want you to lose hope because of the 
disgrace of certain leaders, I do not want you to be confused about 
what is good and wholesome or why America is great or what it will take 
to keep this shining Nation glowing bright. America needs great men and 
women now more than ever, and America will need them always.
  Now I have had the privilege to meet so many, many great men and 
women and know them well, and our history is replete with many more. My 
hope for you has always been that you might one day be called by your 
peers a great man.
  One of my favorite presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, he once said and I 
quote, the best boys I know, the best men I know, are good at their 
studies or their business, fearless and stalwart, hated and feared by 
all that is wicked and depraved, incapable of submitting to wrongdoing 
and equally incapable of being not odd, but tender to the weak and the 
helpless.
  These are the words I was taught as a boy. The rules which govern the 
behavior of truly great men are the same in the office as in the home. 
In the heart and in every action there is no separation.
  Now some will say that it is perfectly okay to be immoral in one's 
private life or so long as one's public life is respectable.

                              {time}  1900

  They say a decent man need only be good in the eyes of others, not 
good in his heart or good when no one is looking. They say it is okay 
to tell some lies, as long as one tells some truths.
  An honest man need not be totally honest, in their estimation. One 
need not be faithful or loyal, just likeable. One can be selfish to 
strangers, so long as one is generous to friends; can be cruel to 
adversaries, if he is kind to supporters. They believe that there can 
be victimless crimes. They believe the end justifies the means. They 
say they are sorry, but do not stop doing what they are doing.
  In all these things they are wrong. I submit that what matters most 
is what is in a person's heart. Good people do what is right, even when 
it would be easier to do wrong. They do what is right when no one is 
looking.
  People who are worthy of our respect hold themselves to high moral 
standards in every area of their lives. When the camera is not rolling 
and they are behind closed doors, good people are faithful. Good people 
are kind to everyone, not just their friends. They know that wrong 
actions always hurt someone. They know that wrong deeds diminish the 
doer as well.
  There is no honor in a victory if someone cheats. How one 
accomplishes something is as important as what is accomplished. When 
good people make a mistake, they tell the truth. They recognize that 
people have been hurt by their actions and they apologize. They do not 
continue doing wrong. They are willing to submit themselves to 
authority. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, these are the best men.
  Some question the need for honor and integrity and truth and 
leadership. They seem to think that the ability to wield power is 
sufficient. Character does not count, they claim; results are the only 
measure, they say.
  Justin, just imagine if this were true for sports. People who are 
caught cheating would still get trophies and medals. When cheating is 
allowed, victory is meaningless. How one plays the game is as important 
as winning.
  I think Teddy Roosevelt would have agreed that great men must first 
be good men. There cannot be effective leadership without honor and 
integrity. In fact, a man of integrity and honor provides leadership 
wherever he goes. In his home, in his office, in school, in his church, 
in his circle of friends, he is an example to others.
  President Roosevelt was considered by many to be a great man, and, 
for the most part, our Nation has been led by great men.
  Justin, the news of recent months have revealed stories about the 
behavior of a man who is very different. The television, the 
newspapers, Hollywood, these institutions might even persuade a young 
boy that this kind of behavior is somewhat normal, understandable, 
maybe even excusable. Young boys today are led to believe that everyone 
does these kinds of things.
  Justin, no, they do not. No, they do not.
  The kinds of things you have heard about and about which little boys 
giggle during recess are not normal. The example of the White House is 
not the way we live at our House, and, if I accomplish nothing else in 
Congress, I hope to successfully impress upon you this point. In that I 
would be most pleased.
  You are my highest responsibility. I thank God every day for you, 
that he has allowed me to raise you in America.
  Just a few hours ago somebody out in the hallways behind the Congress 
gave me some advice and asked me to pass it along to you, and it is 
good advice. It is good advice for all young boys in America.
  I might say for any of my colleagues who are interested in acquiring 
this document, just please call my office, and I will be happy to pass 
it along or refer you directly to the source.
  Number one, when people say marriage vows do not matter, you must 
honor marriage. Americans have always believed that marriage vows 
matter.
  Number two, treat women and girls with dignity and respect.
  Number three, character does matter. One of the most damaging aspects 
of the scandal is the idea that character in our leaders does not 
matter, so long as we are prosperous and at peace. That cannot be true. 
When you think throughout the history of America, all of the great 
moments in our existence, we do not remember the great heroes in our 
history because of some economic plan that they devised, because of 
some road they built or bridge they

[[Page H10905]]

constructed or some war that they won or some budget that they crafted. 
Take a walk around Washington, D.C. Those individuals who are enshrined 
in brass and marble are enshrined because they were men of character 
and women of integrity. That is what we remember. That is what makes 
America great. Character does matter.
  Number four, honesty is the best policy. Lying is unacceptable.
  Number five, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is 
the code of justice.
  Number six, take responsibility for your actions. Do not blame others 
if you are caught doing something wrong. Today we see numerous examples 
of people in public life who blame others for their wrongdoing. Do not 
do it.
  Number seven, take responsibility, and that means accepting 
consequences. The higher your position, the greater your obligation to 
observe the law.
  Number nine, because we are all imperfect, we must submit to the rule 
of law.
  Number ten, put principle first.
  Those are important words to live by. I hope you will never forget 
them.
  Your mother and I have done everything we possibly can to give you 
these words of wisdom and occasions for guidance, so that you will not 
be distracted or discouraged when you see the kinds of examples that 
have been exhibited in the highest offices in the land.
  Here is what other officeholders and famous Americans have said about 
character and how it does count.
  Samuel Adams said, ``It is not possible that any state should long 
remain free where virtue is not supremely honored.''
  Our first president, George Washington asked, ``Can it be that 
providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with 
its virtue?"
  John Adams said, ``Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without 
private, and public virtue is the only foundation of a republic.''
  Abigail Adams said, ``Above all things, support a virtuous 
character.''
  Thomas Jefferson said, ``Never suppose that in any possible situation 
or under any circumstances that it is best for you to do a dishonorable 
thing, however slightly so it may appear to you.''
  James Madison said, ``But I go on this great republic in principle, 
that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of 
virtue and wisdom.''
  Frederick Douglas said, ``The life of the Nation is secure only while 
the Nation is honest, truthful and virtuous.''
  And the Bible, Proverbs, says, ``When the righteous are in authority, 
the people rejoice; and when the wicked rule, the people mourn.''
  Honor and integrity does matter. Honor and integrity matters always. 
The rest of the world looks to the United States of America for 
leadership and guidance for precisely that reason. They know that the 
Declaration of Independence was something that brave men and women shed 
blood over, that the principles are self-evident truths, that we are 
all created equal, endowed with unalienable rights, to life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness. And to that declaration and to that 
concept, our settlers, our forefathers, those who led the westward 
expansion, carried with them a vision for all Americans that we will in 
our moments of truth stand for those same principles and stand up for 
the Declaration of Independence and continue on that great revolution 
that they started 222 years ago this year.
  They said at the end, ``And in support of this declaration with a 
firm reliance upon the protection of divine providence, we mutually 
pledge to ourselves and each other our lives, our fortunes and our 
sacred honor.''
  Honor does matter. It is what launched a country, it is what 
preserves us today. And it is how we should live, at home, at work, at 
school, and in the White House.
  There is more great advice for us to live by, and I want to finish 
with this.
  We all have gifts that differ according to the Grace given to us: 
Prophesy in proportion to faith; ministry in ministering; the teacher 
in teaching; the exhorter in exhortation; the giver in generosity; the 
leader in diligence; the compassion in cheerfulness. Let love be 
genuine. Hate what is evil. Hold fast to what is good. Love one another 
with mutual affection, outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag 
in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord, rejoice in hope, be 
patient in suffering, persevere in prayer, contribute to the needs of 
the saints, extend hospitality to strangers. Bless those who persecute 
you, bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice. Weep 
with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be 
haughty, but associate with the lowly. Do not claim to be wiser than 
you are. Do not repay any one evil for evil, but take thought for what 
is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible as far as it depends on 
you, live peaceably with all. Never avenge yourselves, but leave room 
for the wrath of God, for it is written, vengeance is Mine. I will 
repay, says the Lord.
  No, if your enemies are hungry, feed them. If they are thirsty, give 
them something to drink. For by doing this you will heap burning coals 
on their heads. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with 
good.
  Madam Speaker, my son really is, and my three other daughters, are 
the most important things in my life. My wife and I work very, very 
hard to raise up a family where these children are given the guidance 
that we have been given.
  These children really are the messengers that we send into a distant 
time, and it is important that they understand that these dark days 
that we are enduring presently here in Congress in dealing with an 
unfortunate question which we must resolve can be just a temporary 
occasion from which this Nation can emerge even greater. That is my 
hope and my prayer. It is my message to my son Justin, and in a second 
I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Madam Speaker, earlier today our negotiators with the White House had 
been engaged, with the Senate, with the White House negotiators and 
others in trying to craft an appropriations bill to pay for the 
government. The longer we stay here in Washington talking, the more 
expensive it seems to get.
  This Congress agreed earlier on in the year that we would work hard 
toward a balanced budget, and it was fairly exciting, I would say, for 
most people throughout the country, certainly my constituents back home 
in Colorado, when the numbers began to come in showing we have achieved 
those objectives, that we balanced the budget as a Republican Congress, 
in fact four years ahead of when we promised originally in the last 
election season. The budget we promised to balance in the year 2002 is 
in fact balanced this year in 1998.
  The President of the United States has even gone to the point of 
heralding a budget surplus and devising plans on how to divvy up that 
surplus and how to spend it, and that really is what stalls us here in 
Congress now. Five days ago we would have adjourned, were it not for 
the President wishing to break his faith with that earlier budget 
agreement. Setting the surplus aside for additional spending is 
something that the Republican Congress is really not interested in, yet 
that is what the President is insisting upon as we stay here to 
negotiate with him.
  We managed to pass the first tax cuts in 16 years, capital gains tax 
cuts that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan says 
is driving the most prosperous economy in the world today. In fact when 
he testified just at the other end of the Capitol before the Senate 
Finance Committee approximately one month ago, Chairman Greenspan said 
what is driving economic prosperity in America is capital gains, that 
the capital gains tax reduction has allowed for trillions of dollars in 
private capital to be available to be reinvested in the economy.

                              {time}  1915

  What that means, Madam Speaker, is that private risk-takers, 
families, farmers, business owners, small business owners as well as 
large, are taking the risks and making the investments to create jobs, 
to create wealth, to circulate and recycle that private capital in the 
economy over and over and over again in a way that has driven up 
consumer confidence, that has driven up investors' confidence, that has 
driven up every single indicator, or most indicators, in the American 
economy.

[[Page H10906]]

  By lowering taxes, the capital gains tax, in this example, we have 
lowered the effective rate on the American people, but at the same time 
driven up the tax revenues collected by the Federal Government, because 
we generated an economy based on growth. By taxing the growth in the 
economy more often, more frequently, at a lower rate, we have managed 
to make for an occasion when the budget balances earlier than we had 
thought.
  We also cut the inheritance taxes or the death tax. We have gone back 
for more, when it comes to death tax cuts, just recently. The farmers 
and ranchers throughout the eastern plains of Colorado tell me that is 
a critical tax. It is one that suppresses the farm economy, and they 
say that we have unleashed, to some extent, economic productivity in 
farm country by lowering the capital gains tax rates.
  As many of these farmers and ranchers approach retirement age, they 
are looking for ways to hand the farm over to their children. It 
becomes prohibitive, as a result of the capital gains tax, to hand the 
farm over to the families presently, but establishing an estate 
structure to allow for the farm to be passed on to descendents in the 
event the current owner passes on or dies is the way most farms are 
actually broken up today. They are broken up because upward of 50 
percent of the value of the asset, the farm, has to be given to the 
government. The family has to go visit the undertaker and the IRS tax 
agent on the same day, selling off equipment, selling off quarters of 
the farms. It makes for an economic entity that often just cannot 
survive economically.
  Mr. Speaker, the inheritance tax is a devastating tax to America's 
farmers and ranchers. I would hope that we will be able to continue to 
press forward, not only with providing some relief for the inheritance 
taxes, but also reducing the demand on the other end, by shrinking the 
size of the Federal budget, slowing the rate of growth in Federal 
spending, so that the demand for onerous tax revenues can be 
diminished; so we can abolish the inheritance tax, for example, the 
death tax.
  Imagine that, getting rid of the death tax. That is our goal on the 
Republican side. That is what is at stake in these debates that are 
taking place downstairs and tomorrow on trying to achieve some kind of 
compromise on this appropriations agreement.
  Madam Speaker, our plan also called for a $500 per child tax credit, 
in our belief that families are important and essential as the most 
central social unit in American society. We believe that finding ways 
to relieve the burdens on families is important, and we will continue 
to press for those, to make it easier to send our children to college, 
to save money for their health care, to put money aside for their 
college education, to put money aside for the things that any family 
believes to be important for their children.
  We have also made, in this particular appropriations agreement that 
we are fighting for today, a number of significant steps to try to free 
up local schools, so that we can educate the children of America 
better.
  There are two differences of opinion, certainly, here on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. The Democrats, their plan calls for 
hiring more government bureaucrats, growing the size of the United 
States Department of Education, tying more strings and red tape to the 
dollars that leave Washington, D.C. and go back home to the districts, 
to the people who worked hard to raise the money to send it here in the 
first place, so the bureaucrats could play games before they send it 
back, and generally to expand the authority and influence of 
Washington, D.C. over and above our local schools and our local 
communities.
  We are for local control of education. The President insists that 
beltway bureaucrats, not teachers, parents, and local school districts, 
control education policy, including even deciding what type of teachers 
the District needs. I think that is ridiculous.
  Our idea is pro-liberty, pro-freedom. We talk about the liberty to 
learn and the freedom to teach, cutting the red tape, cutting the 
strings, cutting the rules, cutting the bureaucracy that this city 
likes to attach to our city back home, so that teachers can do their 
jobs as they know best how to do, so that administrators can lead their 
schools in the directions that mirror the values and the priorities of 
their communities, so that school board members can make the kinds of 
decisions that they were in fact elected to do without the unfortunate 
and unnecessary intrusion of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  We passed the Dollars to the Classroom bill, Madam Speaker. The 
Dollars to the Classroom bill was the legislation that insisted that 95 
percent of every dollar that Washington currently spends on education 
actually makes it to a classroom.
  The only opposition we had was from the other party, the Democrats. 
When it comes to distributing the Federal government's money, in the 
classroom or in Washington, the Republicans chose the classroom. The 
Democrats chose Washington.
  We are also fighting for a strengthened military. The President has 
allowed our defense budget to shrink to dangerous levels while he 
expands our commitments overseas. Our soldiers, our troops, our sailors 
and airmen, are overseas engaged in police actions of various sorts, 
without clear direction from their Commander in Chief, without clear 
guidance as to the nature of their mission, in many cases without being 
on one side or the other, just standing in between warring parties, 
trying to resolve civil wars where America's interests are not all that 
clear, yet at the same time ignoring troubled hot spots around the 
world where America's interests are very apparent.
  It is unfortunate when we lack the kind of leadership that the chief 
executive ought to be able to provide, and that most chief executives 
over our history have been able to provide, and do so in a way when our 
troops are underfunded, when they do not have the support and the 
backup and the equipment necessary to do the job and do it right, and 
walk into any situation confident, knowing that they will never lose.
  That is what America ought to represent overseas. That is what our 
military strength ought to show. That is what every soldier who wears 
the flag ought to be able to convey, because they are Americans and 
they matter to us.
  Protecting our budget surplus is something that we believe in. The 
President wants to spend that surplus on more Washington bureaucracies, 
and even stopped the middle-income tax relief to accomplish that goal. 
When it comes to winning the war on drugs under President Clinton, 
teenage drug abuse has soared. His administration would even allow free 
needles for heroin users and other drug addicts. We are committed to 
reversing that trend, stopping the needle exchange and winning the war 
on drugs.

  We stopped the President's $130 billion in tax and fee increases. It 
is not enough for President Clinton to spend the Federal budget 
surplus. Remember, his budget called for $130 billion in tax and fee 
increases to finance his bigger government, taxes on middle-income 
families, retirees, those who save, and job-creating businesses.
  We are working hard to stop the President's $150 million in new 
spending. The President's budget asks for 85 new Washington spending 
programs, including 39 new or expanded entitlements. The entitlement 
spending alone accounted for nearly $53 billion for 5 years.
  Do Members realize that when we cut taxes last year and relieved the 
tax burden on the American people, the American people became more 
productive? They invested more wisely and they worked harder. When 
consumer confidence went up, people consumed more, they invested more, 
they spent more. Private capital was recirculated through the economy 
at greater frequency. We taxed it more at a lower rate, we generated 
more revenue to the Federal budget and for the Federal Government than 
even our best economists had predicted.
  What we proved last year, and again this year, is that President 
Reagan was right, that we can cut taxes and balance the budget quicker, 
improve the economy faster, in a way that allows us to save social 
security and pay down the debt even quicker. We believe that to be 
true. The Members are showing that we are right.
  Really is what is at stake is whether we are going to allow this 
president

[[Page H10907]]

today to put the brakes on robust economic growth by passing a bigger 
budget than the country needs, by passing greater spending than the 
country has to have, and by further delaying the reductions in tax 
cuts, reductions and tax cuts that the American people so richly 
deserve.
  We know that is a winning strategy on our part. We know it is a 
strategy that the American people want. We are willing to stay here as 
long as it takes to see that prudence prevails in these negotiations 
that are taking place downstairs.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I think it is real important for us to 
just have a good balance between reducing spending and trying to fund 
necessary programs.
  This Congress has done a great job towards balancing and protecting 
and preserving Medicare, protecting and preserving social security, and 
reforming welfare, and providing, as the gentleman has stated, the 
first tax cut in 16 years.
  I still think the American people are overtaxed. We have to be very, 
very careful with how we spend the money that we get from the 
hardworking American people. On the same hand we are going to continue 
to push for these things, even if we do not get the full load this 
year.
  I think it is very important for us to stay at the table, get the job 
done, make sure that education is run as much as possible on the local 
level, not out of Washington bureaucracies, not out of State capital 
bureaucracies.
  We have stood strong for lowering the teacher-to-student ratio. We 
want more teachers in the classroom, but we do not want those teachers 
to work for Washington, we want the teachers to work for the local 
school board. We want the local school board to be able to make the 
decisions.
  It is similar to the COPS program, the community police officers on 
the street. In my area in Statesboro, Georgia, they have utilized COPS 
grants to put police substations in different housing developments, in 
high-risk crime areas. What has happened as a result of that is crime 
has gone down in this crime-infested area, and the little children are 
looking up to policemen. They are making friends with the policemen. 
Instead of running from policemen and seeing them as an enemy, they see 
them as a good citizen, and, if you will, a father figure, in many 
cases. It has been very positive.
  The reason why that COPS program I think has worked in Statesboro, 
Georgia, is because they do not rely on Washington to tell them how to 
spend the money or where to spend the money and when to spend the 
money. We want to do the same with education.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. The history of the country since the 
mid or late seventies has been to grow the size of Washington's 
bureaucracy when it comes to education. The Department of Education was 
created during the Carter administration. It has consistently grown and 
grown and grown.
  The percentage of Federal funds or Federal involvement in our local 
neighborhood schools has grown dramatically, and I know the impact in 
my community back in Colorado has not been positive by the Federal 
Government's manipulative efforts here out of Washington.
  I am curious as to what the impact of the growing Federal bureaucracy 
has had on the schools in the gentleman's local neighborhoods and local 
schools back in Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me tell the gentleman, I will give three examples. 
A teacher in Saint Mary's, Georgia, told me that she had just returned 
from Athens, Georgia, where she went to a seminar where they taught 
teachers from all over the State how to behave around students.

                              {time}  1930

  What they meant by that is one has to be careful to never be alone 
with a student because they might do something to the student. They 
should never go to a bathroom or a gym locker room alone with a 
student.
  These are prudent things, but then they went on to say one should not 
ever hug a student and one should avoid being with a student after 
class hours. Now think about that for those who may be a little slow on 
algebra, need to hear the grammar for a second time in order to get it. 
I had to often go back after class and talk to the teachers. They are 
telling these teachers not to do that.
  The worst part is she told me they were told not to hug the students, 
and she said I live in an area where we have a lot of young families, a 
lot of military families, dads are away, on ships in the Navy a long 
time. Some of these kids are actually from a broken home. They need a 
hug a lot more than they need an A.
  She went at taxpayers' expense to hear from the bureaucrats at the 
State Department of Education, who heard from the bureaucrats in the 
Washington Department of Education, do not hug your children down in 
Saint Marys, Georgia. I think this teacher was capable of making her 
own decisions. A teacher in Darien, Georgia, I asked her how much 
paperwork she has to do each day beyond grading papers in the normal 
paperwork that comes with being a teacher and she said she spends about 
30 minutes a day; 30 minutes a day. That is 2 to 3 hours a week filling 
out forms of statistics, often which are meaningless to the bureaucrats 
in Atlanta, who send them to the bureaucrats in Washington.
  What we are trying to do, and I think this budget agreement is moving 
in that direction, is to give more power to the local teachers.
  If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to show him 
some of the education components that we have passed in this Congress 
this year, which we are trying to get, and I think we are going to be 
successful in getting a lot of these in the budget, the Higher 
Education Act, the A-Plus Savings Account Act. Now unfortunately that 
was vetoed. $500 million more for special education. The students in 
special education have particular needs that are not always met by the 
normal funding process.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. This is one of the most important 
points, I think, in the Republican accomplishments for education. The 
special education program, and the funding for special education, is a 
matter of civil rights. The Supreme Court has determined that the 
Congress has now a legal obligation to really look out for the children 
who are of special needs, that they deserve the kind of education, the 
highest quality of education possible, to live the American dream as 
all students would.
  Yet, when the special education programs were created, this Congress, 
under Democrat leadership, has consistently eroded the funding for the 
program. So here again, we have a liberal model of government 
bureaucracy that establishes the rules and slowly drains away the 
funding that you need to comply with those rules.
  Today we have many, many school districts, in fact every school 
district throughout the country is trying to deal with the red tape, 
the rules, the regulations, which are fine. Some of these rules make 
sense and they lead to noble and worthwhile purposes and we need them, 
but these schools also need the funding necessary in order to meet this 
mandate from the Federal Government.
  This is a huge, unfunded mandate, and one that we are committed to 
resolving. By placing an additional $500 million in this particular 
line item, we have dramatically increased the percentage of Federal 
funding for special education students.
  This is a point of contention between the White House and the 
Congress. In fact, the President opposes our efforts to increase 
special education funding in this appropriations bill. He would rather 
take that $500 million and spend it on a free needle exchange program, 
spend it on other kinds of ridiculous programs that are a high priority 
over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not up at this end of the street.
  We are committed here. This is why these negotiations are carrying on 
as long as they are, because we are committed to funding this program 
for special education students to a much higher and greater degree than 
we have been able to do in past years. It is a real remarkable 
turnaround for the American people.
  I know when I hear from school board members, administrators and 
teachers from back home, they really have their

[[Page H10908]]

eye on this particular line item. They are really hoping that the 
Republicans win out on this debate, that we are able to beat the 
President on this particular topic because they know the children back 
home who have special needs, who need additional funding, who need this 
particular line item, who are protected under the civil rights laws of 
our country now, and this is the one of the few legitimate areas of 
Federal funding that this Congress is constitutionally bound to deliver 
as determined by the Supreme Court.
  Mr. KINGSTON. A number of parts of this are so important, teacher 
testing for teacher competency, Reading Excellency Act, high job skills 
training. One item I wanted to talk about, though, school nutrition, 
now I am on the Committee on Agriculture and my friend, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) also was formerly on the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies. We work hard to protect school nutrition, to make 
sure that our children have a good balanced meal, and it is not just 
lunch.
  They often need to have a breakfast program, because the only warm 
meal that they get is at the school. So we want it to be a good meal. 
We want to make sure that the food is safe. We want to make sure that 
the food is nutritious and that it is quality. We do not want a 
situation where some broker is coming in there with some special deal 
to pawn off on American school children some third grade beef.
  So we have worked hard to make sure that our children are served 
consistently good quality meals. We think that is going to make also a 
better education product, but these are things that Republicans and 
Democrats can and do agree on, and we move in the right direction of it 
with this budget agreement because we believe there is so much that we 
do agree on, and unfortunately so on in the negotiating process we go 
at it like it is the World Series and there is only one team that can 
win.
  We have a vision that is different of government than the Democrats. 
Yet, when you put the two visions together, as we often will in a 
budget agreement, America wins; not Democrats, not Republicans, not the 
White House, not Congress but America. That is what these negotiations 
are all about.
  One of the things that I do want to talk to the gentleman about a 
little further is the level of reduction in government spending, how we 
are moving in a direction where we are bringing down the level of 
government spending and we think that it is very important to bring 
that level down consistently because the smaller the growth of 
government, the bigger the growth of the private sector, and that is 
where jobs are created. That is where the budget actually gets balanced 
and that is where more quality goods and services get to people.

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Remember just last year, during the 
State of the Union address, the President stood right behind where the 
gentleman is standing right now by just a few feet, stood here and 
announced to all of us assembled in this Chamber and also to the 
country that the era of big government was now over; signaling that he 
was now going to join hands with the Republican Congress and fight for 
a balanced budget, to fight for reduced spending, to keep us on that 
trend line that the Republicans had established as a long-term goal for 
the Nation.
  I think that the Republican Party has done a good job and the 
Republicans here in Congress have done a good job conveying the message 
to the country, and persuading the country that less spending is 
better; that more savings at home through tax relief and through 
smarter investments and a stronger economy is more liberating, provides 
more freedom for the American people and they have really sent us all a 
message, Republicans and Democrats alike, that we need to start doing 
some more belt tightening, that there is still a lot of fat in 
government, that we are still funding programs that we do not need. 
Yet, when the President came over just last week and said, wait a 
minute, this plan we had all agreed on up to this point of balancing 
the budget, of trying to set money aside for Social Security, for other 
important purposes, is something that he does not agree with anymore. 
Heading into an election, just a month out from the election, he has 
gone back to his old ways and his friends over on the Democrat side, 
they are just joining him almost instinctively because now they are 
back talking their old language again, spend more money, spend more 
money, delay tax cuts, do not talk about paying down the national debt; 
do not talk about rescuing Social Security; do not talk about Medicare. 
Let us spend money right now while we have got it in our hands. That is 
the way they won elections year after year after year.
  I am just curious as to the gentleman's opinion. I do not think it is 
going to work this year. Does the gentleman think it is going to be a 
successful formula for liberal victories around the country? Do the 
American people really want to see this Congress spend more money?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I believe that the American people are interested in 
less government overall. They had more control over their lives and 
more control on a local level. If a local city wants to do something, 
provide a service, and then they want it in Colorado but they might not 
want it in Georgia, people want that decision to be made in Colorado 
and in Georgia, not in Washington. Unfortunately, as the government 
grows, it is all up to some unnamed, faceless Washington bureaucracy to 
say this is what is good for the people of Georgia and Colorado and all 
of the States east and west of them.
  There are not that many States east of Georgia right now, but the way 
the government is expanding they might put a few people out there on 
pontoons or something. One has to be careful with this crowd.
  The reality is, though, the average hard working American, in my 
opinion, wakes up in the morning, scurries to get ready for work, both 
mom and dad, and get the children shoehorned into their clothes. In my 
house, and I know in the gentleman's house, we are full of children and 
the gentleman knows that their shoes disappear overnight. Even if they 
put them in a particular place, the shoes seem to walk under their own 
power, and somehow there is always a book, even though they have packed 
their backpack the night before there is a book that is missing, so 
somewhere in that dynamic the kids have to be dressed and organized and 
then fed, again, good nutritious breakfast so that they will be good 
learners.
  Then they have to be scooted off to school to the bus station or drop 
them off in the car pool and then run off to work.
  At work, we go back to a pile of paper or jobs that we could not 
complete the day before and we work real hard for that. Then we get an 
hour for lunch but we have to cut it off because we have some stuff to 
do. We are supposed to get off at 5:00, and it is kind of hard but the 
day care center closes at 6:00 so we have to push through, leaving some 
more stuff at work, to get the kids and then get home on time, maybe 
run by the grocery store to get something on the way.
  This is the modern nineties marriage. This is the modern nineties 
family experience. These folks do not sit around and watch us 
necessarily on C-SPAN, as brilliant as we are, and they are out saying, 
I am spent. By the time I get the family fed, get myself unwound, get 
the dishes done, get the yard work finished for the day and whatever 
daylight is left, finish with the kids' homework and get them in bed 
and bathed and all the good stuff, it is over with. People do not sit 
down and read the paper and think about national policy.
  What they do is say we voted. We expect the Members of Congress to do 
a good job. Republicans or Democrats, we expect them to put their party 
differences aside and do what is good for the country, and we want our 
government to work. By working, we want a budget that is balanced.
  This Congress has balanced that budget for the first time since 1969 
because of reductions in wasteful spending, and slowing down the growth 
of government. They want a Medicare system that is going to be there 
for them and the future, not one that is going to be imperiled year 
after year and fixed for election year purposes only. They want one 
that is solid, which this Congress has solidified on a bipartisan 
basis. They want a Social Security that is reliable.

[[Page H10909]]

  We have put aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security. For the first 
time in 40 years, Social Security has been protected. They want to know 
it is there for them. They also do not want to pay 45 to 50 percent of 
their income in taxes. They feel their taxes are quite adequate, and we 
ought to do well with the money we are already taking out of their 
paycheck.
  That is why they are happy that this Congress has cut taxes for the 
first time in 16 years, and they want us to do it again because they 
are tired of busting their tails and having us share in it just because 
we have the power to do so.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. This is a point that I think many 
Americans are actually in tune with and understand. It takes a lot of 
hard work to shrink the size of this Federal Government. It takes a lot 
of hard work for the Congress to go do battle with those bureaucrats 
across the street and throughout the country to reduce the burden on 
taxation, to squeeze more efficiency out of the Federal Government. 
Every time we want to make some agency or some program do more with 
fewer dollars, there are a certain number of comfortable bureaucrats 
who are inconvenienced by that line of thinking, yet that is the way 
most Americans work every day.
  The farmers and ranchers who live in the gentleman's district and 
mine, they know what it is like to squeeze an extra mile out of the 
tractor.

                              {time}  1945

  They know what it is like to, to put in a few more bushels in an acre 
by whatever way they can. Sometimes that's investing in technology or 
research or better seed stock or perhaps better fertilizer, what have 
you. But the American people understand continuous improvement. They 
understand continual efficiency measures. It does take hard work.
  The Democrats, on the other hand, they look at balancing the budget, 
tax cuts, more efficiency as doing nothing. See, they measure success 
when they were in charge by how much money they can spend, how much of 
somebody else's money they can spend on the charities of their choice. 
Our measure is very different and I think more in tune with the 
American people.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the 
interesting part, the gentleman is talking about the farmer, is he is 
putting his savings back into production.
  That middle class taxpayer out there often, when they have little 
money left over at the end of the month, and they are planning on 
taking a nice vacation in the summer time or adding onto their house or 
buying a new car, inevitably the dryer breaks or the refrigerator 
breaks down, or the transmission falls apart.
  The money always seems to go back into the trappings of working and 
trying to be productive, sometimes the rat race. I mean, they have a 
hard time liberating themselves from it. I think that is why it is so 
important for to us remember that, when we are spending money, it is 
not our money. It is the American people's money.
  If we are walking down the street, and we find a wallet, the wallet 
has $100 in it. We do not go rush out and say, okay, here is what I am 
going to do with $100. We say, oh, man, a wallet. Somebody has lost 
$100 how do I get it back to them? Oh, let us see, here is their 
address now. I am going to return this money and the wallet, and they 
are going to be happy, and I am going to make share day. That is what 
we do.
  Here we have a surplus, people have overpaid, and we are saying, 
okay, how do we spend it. That is what I am very concerned about, that 
there are members of the administration who are taking this approach 
that, look, we have got this surplus, we are going out and obligate 
ourselves a new government and spending on new programs.
  What we are saying is, give part of it back, put the rest of it, 90 
percent, and protect it for Social Security purposes because we have 
never protected money for Social Security.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, let me pick up where the 
gentleman left off with the analogy of finding a wallet. When we get 
elected to Congress and we walk into the door, they give us one of 
these. We get a little wallet of sorts.
  Inside, this is a plastic card. This is our voting card. Many people 
do not know how this works. There is a little computer chip inside of 
this one that says this is Bob Schaffer's voting card from the 4th 
District of Colorado.
  When we walk on the House floor, we put the card in the little boxes 
behind the chairs here, and we vote. When it comes to spending money, 
many of our Democrat colleagues and people over in the White House look 
at this voting card as some kind of a credit card, a remarkable credit 
card wherein we never have to pay back. We spend other people's money, 
and we can spend and spend and spend, and we personally never get the 
bill. Instead, the bill gets sent to our children.
  Where we stand right now, $5.5 trillion in debt from using this card 
too many times, without responsibility or accountability. To the point 
now, when we divide that $5.5 trillion by every man, woman, and child 
in America, it comes out to a little over $20,000 per person. That is 
what has been the result of using this card with reckless abandon when 
our Democrat opponents were in charge of this Congress.
  The President downstairs is negotiating with the Congress right now, 
trying to see how long he can keep us here at election time, trying to 
see how many promises he can make for spending more money on programs 
that sound good at first, he is trying to persuade Members of Congress 
to pick up this card and spend again with reckless abandon and do it in 
a way that will push any prosperity that America is enjoying now on to 
future generations.
  We are determined to stand here and say, no, that we are not going to 
leave for home until we are convinced and able to stand proudly in 
front of our constituents and say we did our level best to continue 
this downward de-escalation of government spending, that we have tried 
to raise the amount of revenue that the Federal Government generates, 
not through higher taxes, but through more economic productivity. That 
is our promise and our message and what we are here fighting for 
tonight, and the reason we are here now.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention, the gentleman talked 
about the amount of national debt. The debt service is actually about 
$2,000 per family. We pay I think it is the second largest expenditure 
in the budget is interest on the national debt, which runs to about 
$2,000 a family, which would be half a year's college tuition. It would 
be a down payment on a new car, or it could be a nice vacation. So the 
interest on the national debt is already something we are facing.
  Since the gentleman is from Colorado, and I have a mama and a sister 
and brother-in-law and nephew out in that great State. I also have to 
brag about one of my best friends two of my best friends, Ross and 
Paloma Fox, whose son Richard just got a full 4-year college to the 
University of Colorado. He is 6'10". He is going to be a Buffalo out 
there. I know that is not in your distict. But he is a great guy.
  I just want the gentleman to know, since he represents Colorado 
State, and I want him to know I have known Richard Fox, this 17-year-
old boy, all my life. I know his brother David. They are both great 
kids. I know their families.
  But I just want the gentleman to know that, when Richard Fox and the 
Colorado Buffalos go up to Colorado State in Fort Collins, I am going 
to be cheering for him. I want the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) to know that I hope they win, and that Colorado State can go 
win the national championship because they are not going to be able to 
beat Richard Fox and team. I just have to have this personal brag, 
because he is a good Georgia boy.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I sure appreciate that, 
and I am grateful that we are able to maintain our good friendship in 
spite of the disappointment the gentleman is about to suffer when that 
contest takes place.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I guess, in our time to close, let us just 
say, this Congress has worked and has balanced the budget. This 
Congress has worked to protect Social Security. We have worked to 
protect Medicare, not just for the next election, but for the next 
generation. We have reformed welfare. Thirty-seven percent of the 
people that were on it in 1994 have now gotten off of it.

[[Page H10910]]

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, that, by the way, is 
about 2\1/2\ million American families which are no longer in welfare 
in the last 3 years.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Which are very significant. That is not just measured 
in tax dollar savings, that is measured in people who are happy, who 
are independent, greater self-esteem, greater satisfaction, because 
they went out and found a job, and working they are working their way 
up the ladder.
  Finally, this Congress has cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, 
which we believe the American people are overburdened, and they need to 
hold as much as their own money that they earn as possible.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
helping with the special order tonight to shine light on what has, I 
think, historians will record as one of the most productive Congresses 
in recent memory.
  We have managed to balance the budget ahead of schedule. We have 
managed to turn the authority out of Washington and back toward the 
States and cut taxes for the first time in 16 years.

                          ____________________