[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10841-H10847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE BUDGET PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I and a group of 
colleagues come here tonight to discuss the approaching conclusion of 
the budget process. A lot of people do not get too excited about 
budgets, but that is really what it is all about. Whether it is our 
family, our business, or the

[[Page H10842]]

government, the budget is the working document of how we are going to 
spend our money, how we are going to use our resources, and what our 
priorities are.
  I find it pretty exciting this year, as we come down to this budget 
conclusion, that we really have the mechanism in place to balance the 
budget and not use any Social Security. That is going to be historic, 
because for decades the Social Security fund has been used routinely to 
fund general government.
  Now, this process has been going on for a while. It started back in 
February when the President came and addressed us and he gave us his 
State of the Union message and presented us with his budget proposal. 
That proposal is a lot different than I think what we are going to end 
up with, I hope, because he had $42 billion of new spending. He had $19 
billion of tax increases. Not tax cuts, increases. And those were 
soundly rejected here a short time ago by this body, and should have 
been.
  The budget framework was created by the Committee on the Budget, and 
this process started right after the President's message. And, 
actually, they held hearings and worked on it for many weeks. On March 
25, both the House and Senate Committees on the Budget presented their 
budgets to this House, and the House and Senate both approved a budget 
proposal on March 25. Now, there were differences between the House and 
the Senate, which there always is, but they brought their programs 
together and, on April 15, we passed a conference report that was sent 
to the President that was our budget outline for this year.
  The Committee on Appropriations then started their work. And as a 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, I can tell my colleagues 
that hearings are held. I do not think a lot of people realize the work 
that goes into it, to outline where the cuts should be, where the 
increases should be, what the changes are, what are the changes in 
priorities. There are 13 working subcommittees in the Committee on 
Appropriations that work on each of their part of this process.
  So we are close to completing that process today without spending 
Social Security. Unfortunately, most Congresses have not completed this 
process of sending 13 bills to the President for him to veto or sign. 
They usually do four, five, or six, and then when it gets tough and 
short on time, they go to the proposal of having an omnibus bill. This 
is where the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, and the 
Speaker and the minority leader of the House would go up to the White 
House and sit down with the President and negotiate this omnibus 
spending plan.

                              {time}  1815

  Now, I guess the problem that I have had with that since have I been 
here is that that throws away all the work that the appropriators did, 
that throws away all the information that came in the hearing process.
  Four or five people write our spending plan. And, of course, using 
Social Security to balance the budget, it was easy to do. But it has 
been tougher this year because the Social Security lockbox that we 
passed earlier took a hundred-some billion dollars away from this 
process.
  So it is, again, why I am excited about this year's process that we 
are not allowing the President and four or five leaders of Congress to 
just sit down and decide how we are going to spend the people's money.
  This year, I believe, and this week we will complete our work of 
having all 13 bills in front of the President. He has had 12, he signed 
8, and he has vetoed four, if my information is correct. And, 
hopefully, tomorrow or Thursday he will get that 13th bill up to him.
  Now, that is pretty good. We have had two signed for every one he has 
vetoed. So the President has agreed with Congress on two-thirds of what 
work we have sent him. And from what I read, the differences are not 
real big. I think they are not insurmountable. So I think we are 
chugging down that rail to again having this budget process completed 
without spending Social Security. Bill by bill, we will negotiate and 
finalize this process.
  Now, to make this work there has not been a lot of cash sticking 
around, there has not been a lot of money to spend. In fact, we have 
had to say, how can we look for 1.4 percent savings?
  Now, my colleagues, is there any House budget, is there any business 
budget, or is there any government budget that cannot find 1.4 percent 
that is in fraud, abuse, or just plain waste or just plain lack of 
management? I believe there is the ability to save 1.4 percent without 
cutting programs that affect people out in the hinterland.
  Because we all know here in Washington, and I am a product of State 
government and local government and business, I want to tell my 
colleagues, I have been surprised at the growth and the size of the 
Federal bureaucracy. There are a lot of good people there, and I am not 
here to bad-mouth them. But there are huge bureaucracies. There are 
huge costs. The Federal Government spends a whole lot more money in 
managing Government percentage-wise than State and local governments 
do, in my opinion. Because, historically, Congress has never had any 
limits on what they spend.
  So I think it is exciting when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, came up with a concept of 
a 1.4 percent savings for each department to look within themselves, 
within their own operating budgets, and look for ways to save 1.4.
  I think that is pretty doable. I think the American public would find 
that pretty doable in their own household budgets, in their own 
community budgets, in their State budgets. There just has to be waste, 
fraud, and abuse of 1.4 percent in every budget.
  I am pleased to be joined tonight, and I will call on one of them 
now, from people from Texas and California and South Dakota and my 
colleague from Pennsylvania. So we are from all over the country 
agreeing on what we must accomplish in this budget conclusion process.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) who 
is from the Fifth District of Texas. He is in the Results Caucus, and 
he is also a member of the powerful Committee on Rules. So I thank him 
for joining us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for 
bringing this information to the American public tonight.
  Obviously, what we are talking about here is the budget process where 
we are attempting to make tough decisions in Washington, D.C., to 
ensure that we balance the budget, that we do not spend Social 
Security, and that we ensure that the Government is fully funded, as we 
say in the Results Caucus, every single dollar that the Government 
needs but not a penny more.
  Tonight what I would like to do is run through with the American 
public what we are trying to do now that we have gotten to the very end 
of this process. And we recognize that we are probably going to perhaps 
end up being slightly over when we aggregate all the bills together 
what we would spend. So we are trying to make sure that there will be 
provisions by which the President and the Congress will act.
  What we are talking about here is, if we exceed with all of our 13 
budgets, if we go over that amount of money, which we really do not 
want to do, but if we end up at that, that we will have a provision 
that says any amount that is over this budget amount, so that we do not 
spend Social Security, will then come as an across-the-board budget 
cut. We are estimating tonight that it will be anywhere from 1 to 1.4 
percent.
  Where does this come from and how much money does that equal? Well, 
it is about $3.5 billion in outlays. All the money will come directly 
from discretionary funds, with the knowledge that here in Washington we 
work off a mandatory budget.
  A mandatory budget is those things that are Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid. They will be exempted from this 1- to 1.4-
percent budget cut, which means we will not deal with any mandatory 
spending on that side that we will cut but, rather, it will be in 
discretionary. It will equal about one penny of a dollar that the 
Government gets. One penny we are asking the Government to give back 
across-the-board.
  Now, what is interesting about this is that when we look at this we 
are saying that this budget savings will be done to ensure that Social 
Security is taken care of.
  What I would like to now get into a debate and a discussion about 
with the American public is to talk about those things that today and 
have been happening in Government that we think

[[Page H10843]]

fall under the auspices of waste, fraud, abuse, or waste fraud and 
error; and that is the large Government programs that we know could be 
run better, that we know that if we will say to the bureaucrats, that 
if we will say to the people in the agencies, we want you and expect 
you to prioritize in a better sense the opportunity to manage your 
budget, that you would then have a 1-percent savings across the board.
  That is what we want to spend the remaining part of this hour to talk 
about, those opportunities that the Government Accounting Office, GAO, 
has documented for year after year, good ideas for people to know why 
this can be done without harming anyone or the essential services of 
Government.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas for his comments.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding and my friends from Texas and California and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) also for joining us here this evening 
and for the leadership that each has taken the respective ways to 
address this issue and to help us drive home the message about what we 
are attempting to accomplish here in this Congress.
  I would like to share, if I might, just a statement that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), Speaker of the House, made today 
regarding this whole issue of the Social Security Trust Fund and what 
we are talking about doing in terms of reducing Federal Government 
spending, doing away with waste, fraud, and abuse, but also as this 
applies to individual Members of Congress.
  Because there have been some questions: If you guys are so serious 
about taking care of waste, fraud, and abuse of the Federal Government, 
how about yourselves, how about your own salaries? This is what the 
gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) had to say:

       Protecting the Social Security Trust Fund has been the 
     number-one priority of the Republican Congress. In order to 
     further that goal, the Congress will consider legislation 
     that will shave back Government spending in all discretionary 
     budget programs. It will also shave back the pay of Members 
     of Congress by one percent. The pay of all other Government 
     employees in all other branches of Government should not be 
     affected by this legislation.
       Republican Members of Congress believe that the Government 
     can find a penny on the dollar in waste, fraud, and abuse in 
     order to protect the Social Security Trust Fund. We also 
     believe that they can set an example by shaving back their 
     own pay by that same percentage.
       I hope the President and the Democrats in Congress will 
     drop their opposition to our common-sense plan to protect 
     Social Security.

  I would say, Madam Speaker, that this whole debate over the budget 
reminds me a little bit of when I was growing up a conversation I had 
with my father. My dad told me once, because I had a dog that would not 
obey, I could not get this dog to do what I wanted it to do, and he 
said, well, it is the nature of the beast and that in order to tame the 
beast you have to apply discipline.
  Well, it is the nature of the Federal beast to spend money, not 
because it needs to but because it is there. And it is our job to help 
tame the Federal beast and to apply the discipline that is necessary to 
see that we find the waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in Government 
programs and to root it out so that we can spend our tax dollars on 
those most important Federal programs and priorities, like Social 
Security.
  It is pretty simple. It is Social Security or it is defense 
contractors charging the Government $714 for an electronic bell that 
you can get at your local hardware store for $46.
  Responsible Government bodies live within their means. Responsible 
Government bodies know where tax dollars should be spent and where they 
should not be spent. Tax dollars should be spent on Social Security.
  Now let me tell my colleagues a little bit about where their tax 
dollars should not be spent. They should not be spent on $850,000 to 
Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream to help them develop and distribute ice cream 
in Russia. This comes from an Agency for International Development 
Inspector General record that $850,000, Federal dollars, went to Ben 
and Jerry's Ice Cream to help them develop and distribute ice cream in 
Russia.
  Tax dollars should not be spent on deceased people receiving food 
stamps. Again, according to the Committee on the Budget report, 
approximately 26,000 deceased people, people no longer living in this 
country, received $8\1/2\ million in food stamps. That comes from the 
Committee on the Budget report.

  Tax dollars should not be spent on convicted murderers receiving SSI 
Disability payments. Again, according to an AP Wire Service story, 
there is a convicted murderer who received more than $75,000 in SSI 
Disability payments during his 14 years on Death Row.
  Furthermore, the SSI fraud exceeds $1 billion annually.
  Those are things that we should not be spending taxpayer dollars on. 
The taxpayer dollars should not be spent on $1 million outhouses at 
Glacier National Park.
  Now, this may come as a surprise to some people around this country, 
but there actually was an outhouse built in Glacier National Park at a 
cost of $1 million to the taxpayers. I have to tell my colleagues 
something, that to get there you have to climb 7,000 feet and walk 6\1/
2\ miles. In fact, the reason this thing cost so much money is because 
it took 800 helicopter trips to get up there to build the outhouse.
  Now, I dare say that if anyone in this country, with the exception of 
those who might be an Olympic class athlete, who has walked 6\1/2\ 
miles and climbed 7,000 feet, the last thing they are probably going to 
need is an outhouse. But, nevertheless, an outhouse was built at a 
million dollars in taxpayer expense.
  Now, I would have to tell my colleagues that some people probably 
think that a million dollars is chump change in a big Federal budget, 
but where I come from, in the State of South Dakota, a million dollars 
is real money, folks. It is real money.
  I cannot help but think how one retired person could use a million 
dollars or, furthermore, how far $1 million would go if it was left 
where it belongs, in the Social Security Trust Fund, helping secure 
retirement for our retirees and for those who are paying into that 
system.
  What we are talking about here, very simply, is million-dollar 
outhouses or a secure retirement for every person in America who is 
retiring now or hopes to retire in the future.
  I think the choice is very, very clear. Saving one percent in waste, 
fraud, and abuse allows us to save Social Security. It is that simple. 
I would also add again in response to some of the suggestions that have 
been made that the Speaker has announced earlier today that, as an 
expression of the good faith of this Congress, that that one percent 
that will be applied to the agencies of the Government will also apply 
to the salaries of Members of Congress. We believe that we need to lead 
by example.
  Now just let me say, in closing, that I had the opportunity a week 
ago Saturday to hunt out on a farm near Kimball, South Dakota, hunt 
pheasants, which is one of my favorite pastimes; and I was hunting with 
a gentleman who has been farming for 37 years and who is 60 years old 
and hopes in the very near future to retire. And as I was discussing 
that with him, I said, what will you do when you retire? He said, well, 
you know, I hope to take my farm and cash rent it out and use the 
income off the cash rent for my retirement along with Social Security 
and that will provide the basis for my retirement.
  If he knew that his tax dollars were being used for $714 electronic 
bells and $1-million outhouses at the expense of his retirement by 
taking away Social Security, I think he would be outraged, like most 
Americans would.

                              {time}  1830

  Are we or are we not going to protect this man's retirement? That is 
the question before this House and that is the question before this 
Nation. We here today say yes. We will protect America's retirement 
security. Today we are waiting for the President's answer to that very 
same question. And so are the rest of American taxpayers. Can we find 
one penny, one copper penny out of every dollar in government spending 
to figure out a way to root out waste, fraud and abuse out of

[[Page H10844]]

the Federal Government? One penny out of every dollar of Federal 
spending is all it takes to allow us to keep our promise and our pledge 
to the retirees in this country and to everybody who faithfully year in 
and year out pays into the Social Security trust fund. That is what 
this debate is about. I hope the American people will tune in because 
it is your future that we are talking about.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the opportunity to speak 
to this issue this evening.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from South Dakota 
for his comments.
  Madam Speaker, now we go to the West Coast to hear the West Coast 
message. Out there it is a little early in the evening but we are glad 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) representative from the 
Second District of California, a member of the powerful Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget, is here to share with 
us his thoughts on balancing the budget.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for taking this 
time on this incredibly important issue. I would like just to say what 
an exciting time this is for me. I am now in my seventh term, my 13th 
year in the House of Representatives, representing the Second District 
of northern California. I am also in my seventh year on the Committee 
on the Budget and also seventh year on the Committee on Ways and Means 
which is over Social Security.
  A number of years ago in the Committee on the Budget I became aware 
that not only prior to 1995 when the new Republican Congress came in, 
in 1994 and prior to that time that we were running 200 to $300 billion 
a year budget deficits, spending more than what we were bringing in. 
But really it was worse than that, because for some 30 years we had 
actually been spending Social Security and we had been borrowing that 
and spending it on the budget, on government spending on Federal 
programs. I began back then to fight, at least on the Committee on the 
Budget to at least, at minimum, at the first step be honest with the 
American public. If we are spending this Social Security money 
dedicated for Social Security out of the trust fund for ongoing Federal 
programs, then at least let us let the American public be aware of it 
and let us show them really what our budget deficit really would be.
  I am so very pleased that at the beginning of this year, 1999, that 
the Republican Conference, members of the Republican Party within the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Budget made a 
commitment that beginning this year we were not going to spend Social 
Security money as we had been for about 30 years. I authored 
legislation, the Social Security lockbox legislation, that came before 
this House back in May, and that legislation passed overwhelmingly, 
417-12, putting this Congress on record that for the first time in more 
than 30 years we were not going to spend Social Security. We had 
another bill that came up.
  Well, with that let me mention now that in order to have a balanced 
budget, in order not to spend Social Security, we basically have two 
choices: Those choices, number one, is that we raise taxes which comes 
from hardworking Americans, to raise the extra money so as not to spend 
Social Security. That is choice number one. But there is also another 
choice. That choice is a tough one. That choice is what Americans do 
every day in their families, what small businesses do, what every 
company that stays in the black does, and, that is, there are times 
when you make difficult decisions, you tighten your belt, you set your 
spending priorities. If you do not have enough money coming in and you 
set those priorities and you determine what are some dollars we are not 
going to spend. Well, that is what this Congress has decided that we 
are going to do, this Republican Congress that was voted in, took 
office in 1995.
  We had a vote here just about a week ago which put out the tax 
increases that President Clinton had proposed in his budget. Those tax 
increases were defeated virtually unanimously in this House. I believe 
there was only one vote in favor of those tax increases. So, therefore, 
we know what we have to do. We have to tighten our belts. What does 
that mean? As the gentleman from South Dakota mentioned, we are talking 
about one penny basically, one penny out of a dollar that we are 
somehow going to find in fraud or abuse or in priorities that can be 
set somewhere else in our government programs, that do not include, by 
the way, Social Security or Medicare but other spending programs that 
we are going to trim back. One penny out of a dollar. We are not 
talking about 10 cents out of a dollar or 20 cents out of a dollar. We 
are talking about basically somewhere between one penny and 1.4 cents 
out of every dollar. Can we do that? Of course we can do it.

  I would like to continue, as my good friend from South Dakota was 
mentioning, some examples. These are some examples that have been 
pointed out to us in our budget this year. Here is the first one. 
``That's a Big Lost and Found.'' The most recent government audit found 
that Federal agencies were unable to account for over $800 billion in 
government assets. That is a GAO, General Accounting Office, audit.
  Another one, erroneous Medicare payments waste over $20 billion 
annually. $20 billion. We are talking about trimming back about $3.5 
billion. There is 20 right there.
  Another one. One out of every $18 spent in the section 8 housing 
program is wasted, according to HUD's own Inspector General. Another 
GAO audit.
  Another area we can save, delays in disposing of more than 41,000 HUD 
properties cost taxpayers more than $1 million per day. Let us just get 
on the ball and do what we are supposed to be doing. $1 million a day.
  Another one, FAA employees are using a program designed to 
familiarize air traffic controllers with cockpit operations for 
personal travel, including extended vacations. One employee took 12 
weekend trips in a 15-month period to visit his family in Tampa, 
Florida. Another DOT IG report.
  Another one, ``Palaces for Park Rangers?'' The Park Service spent an 
average of $584,000 per home at Yosemite when comparable houses near 
the park were being built for between $102,000 and $250,000. A report 
from the Department of the Interior IG report.
  And then last but not least, ``Degrees for Deadbeats?'' The 
government lost over $3.3 billion on students who never paid back their 
student loans.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, we are all in this together. If every 
government agency can find just one penny out of a dollar in waste, 
fraud or abuse, seniors and future beneficiaries can be assured that 
the raid will end and their Social Security will be protected. We can 
do it. And despite the moaning and groaning of some who are supporters 
of big government, we will do it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from California. 
Recently the General Accounting Office talked about Medicare. It is 
administered by HCFA, one of the largest agencies in this country and a 
very important one. But the GAO report estimates that $20 billion is 
paid out annually for inappropriate claims. If they could just cut that 
by 10 percent, they could save $2 billion.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I 
would like to follow up on what the gentleman from California has 
talked about, when he talked about one penny savings out of every 
dollar that is being spent, which I think is very reasonable. What I 
would like to do is to take just a few minutes to give some real live 
examples of how the government has not figured out what the right hand 
is doing and the left hand is doing.
  The Results Caucus has spent a great deal of time working with the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on a lot of legislation 
which is critical to the success of this government. I would like to go 
back and point out some of the areas and the statutes, the laws that we 
operate under and the reason why we have these. One is called results 
orientation. It is the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 
known as the Results Act. It was implemented so that we would have 
agencies' missions and strategic priorities that would be established, 
where we would require government agencies to be able to implement 
within their

[[Page H10845]]

core mission statement. We would have results-oriented goals, we would 
talk with them about goals that they were expected to achieve; and they 
would produce performance data, once again so that the right hand would 
know what the left hand is doing.
  We have been engaged in financial management, the Chief Financial 
Officers Act of 1990, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the 
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. These were done 
so that we would have annual financial statements. They were done so we 
would have timely and reliable information and data that would help the 
managers of the government to manage those assets that they have. And 
it would help us to look at the cost achievement results.
  Lastly, we have information technology as a priority area. There was 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. 
This was done to help provide more information for the relationship 
of investments to the achievement of performance.

  What has happened since we have had these laws in place? A lot. The 
government has improved upon its performance. But even today, we as 
Members of Congress believe that there is so much more to be done. The 
GAO in a report that was released on March 31, 1998, cited some 
examples of those things where the government cannot find from its 
right hand to its left hand those assets and resources and cited as 
``missing and unaccounted for'' include the following: I will show you 
a great picture because we have got a reward that we will offer when 
you can find these. It is the return of two tugboats valued at $850,000 
each to the Federal Government. These cannot be found. The Federal 
Government cannot tell us where this is.
  The next one, once again, we will offer a reward. Have you seen me? 
This is one missile launcher. This missile launcher comes at a cost of 
over $1 million. Once again, we do not know where it is.
  The next item. Lost jet engines, two $4 million aircraft engines. If 
you happen to find these, the government cannot find it. We need it 
back. You paid for it. The taxpayer paid for it and we want it back.
  We also have a floating crane worth $500,000. Nobody knows where it 
is.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what I am suggesting to you is that this 
government as broad and big as it is, it should be better at accounting 
for those assets and resources that it has been given. We are as 
Members of Congress trying to provide the correct legislation, the 
right oversight and enough information to where the government can work 
properly. But I believe that when we insist upon a 1 percent across-
the-board savings that must be given to the taxpayers so that we do not 
get into Social Security, now what we have done is we have required 
government to do the same things that is done not only in our own 
homes, around our own tables but in small businesses and boardrooms all 
across this country. It is called prioritize. I am hoping that we will 
have a government that in the future will look at their assets and 
resources in a better way that will help us all.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. It is a pleasure to welcome my 
colleague, my neighbor in the northern tier of Pennsylvania. We 
collectively guard against New York coming down. We cover the northern 
tier of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) of 
the 10th District has been a great new Member of Congress. He brings 
strong community leadership credentials with him, a strong businessman, 
good sense. I have found him a person who is not afraid to speak up. He 
is very effective. It is just great to have the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) here with us tonight.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Pennsylvania, let us 
summarize.

                              {time}  1845

  This is a very simple solution to a problem that only government 
could make so complex. We have had 435 people working for 10 months in 
a bipartisan manner to get 13 spending bills, 13 appropriations bills, 
put together and live within a budget. We are down to the end of the 
time, and we have a hole. It is not a very big hole. It is 3, 4, $5 
billion. In the general scheme of things around here that is not a lot 
of money. In other years we just spend it and take it out of the Social 
Security money. But we have pledged to the American people that we will 
not raise taxes and that we will not spend their Social Security money.
  Madam Speaker, we all know that Americans pay too many taxes, and we 
all know that that Social Security fund should be sacrosanct. It is a 
contract with the American people, and we, as their representatives, 
must protect it.
  So those are our criteria. We will not raise taxes, we will not spend 
the Social Security money.
  How do we come up with this $4 billion?
  Madam Speaker, business solves this problem every day. Family budgets 
solve it every day.
  Several years ago, when one of our great American corporations, 
Chrysler Corporation, was about to go bankrupt, Lee Iacocca said, ``We 
will share the pain equally.'' Everybody took a cut or a saving, 
everybody. It worked. Today Chrysler has repaid their government loans, 
and they are a very successful, sound American company.
  So let us do the same. Let us apply common sense, take an across-the-
board budget cut. Only in politics would people argue against an 
across-the-board budget cut because it is the right thing to do. It is 
so simple that in the world of politics where everybody is fighting for 
their region or their issue we have people that are fighting this very 
simple proposition.
  So we only have to find 1.3 or 1.4 percent savings. What budget could 
not find a 1.3 percent saving?
  You have been given examples tonight that HUD properties, because we 
are not managing quite well enough, costs us a million dollars a day. 
That is $365 million. There is a good one. Does that mean HUD is poorly 
run? No. It means that there is one thing in HUD that we need to pay 
better attention to. We need harder work and better management, and in 
my 30 years in business and two-thirds of that on the school board we 
always needed to work harder and manage better, and the Federal 
Government is no exception.
  As my colleagues know, 26,000 diseased persons received 8.5 million 
in food stamps. Does that mean the food stamp program is bad? It is a 
wonderful program, but we need that $8.5 million to go to the right 
people. We do not need it to go to people that are dead, that somebody 
is cashing their check. Hard work and better management.
  Madam Speaker, I could go down through this and talk about $714 bells 
that should be $46. There are many, many examples in this huge Federal 
Government where we can save money.
  Now this is a very, very simple solution. You ask every department to 
save 1.3 percent, and I agree that we should start with our own salary. 
Only when the impetus comes from the top can you expect every soldier 
and every worker to do the same, and we are asking our defense people 
to do more with less. We need to set the example here in our own 
salary.
  So, Madam Speaker, I think that while we have worked very hard, the 
appropriators on defense and interior and education, health and human 
services, agriculture, that work has been done. We just need to get 
together and take our savings and make this budget come together.
  It will be a historic thing. It has not happened in almost 30 years 
that we have paid down the national debt, lived within the budget and 
not spent the Social Security money. I think we should come together in 
a bipartisan manner, find these savings and pass a budget. It is for 
the American people, and they deserve it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from 
Pennsylvania, my neighbor who helps me guard the New York State border.
  It is interesting this morning when we started the day with our 
conference many Members said, ``Well, does this cut include our 
salaries?'' Well, the announcement was made this afternoon that 
decision was made, and I agree with it. Decided that across-the-board 
cut in discretionary spending will also apply to salaries for Members 
of Congress. Now I think that proves we are serious, we are serious 
that we are going to live within our means.

[[Page H10846]]

  He went on, the Majority Leader went on to say:
  ``Since January House Republicans have stated our commitment to 
stopping the 30-year raid on Social Security. No one said this would be 
easy. We've done the heavy lifting. This week we will complete our 
spending bills and prove that we can fund the government without 
dipping into the Social Security fund.''
  ``The President said he shares our commitment to stopping the raid on 
Social Security, and he has vetoed four spending bills, and of course 
we're going to send him probably another one tomorrow. But we intend to 
work with him to get the job done, make our commitment real. As the 
sign of how serious we are we will ask more of ourselves than we are 
asking of any government employees. While we ask every government 
agency to root out waste from its budget. Members of Congress will not 
only root out an equal percentage of waste from Congress' budget, but 
will also cut their on pay.''
  Now I think we are sending the President a message also: Mr. 
President, manage a little better.
  As my colleagues know, I have always been frustrated both at the 
State level with Governors and at this level of Washington with the 
President. We do not talk much in campaigns about how they are going to 
manage government. That is not as exciting. It is about what new 
programs we are going to fund and how these new initiatives are going 
to make the world better and safer and how everything, all the problems 
that we know of, will go away if there is one more government program, 
if the Federal government will build one more bureaucracy and funnel 
money out to our communities, it will solve all.
  Now, we know that does not work. There are thousands of federal 
programs that funnel money out.
  Now one of the differences I noticed, a whole lot more of it gets 
chewed up in bureaucracy in Washington than it does in most States and 
local governments because we never challenge our Presidents to manage 
government. As my colleagues know, we really should be rating the 
President on how well he has managed each and every bureaucracy.
  I have heard Presidents talk recently and in the past as if some 
agency was something they were concerned about. That agency just must 
do better, but whoever is President, Mr. President, that is your 
agency, that is your management that is needed. It is your direction 
that is needed to say, ``Stop the waste, stop the fraud, stop the abuse 
of taxpayers' money.''
  We all know that one of our disagreements currently is foreign aid. 
Now, as my colleagues know, foreign aid is always a controversy. We 
have Americans who do not think we should have any foreign aid, we 
should keep all our resources. But we always come to a compromise. But 
I think the President who wants 4 billion more in foreign aid is not 
supported by the majority of taxpayers. I have not had a clamoring to 
increase the foreign aid budget since I have been here. In fact, I have 
a lot of opposition to much that we do in the foreign aid budget from 
my rural conservative district.
  But, Mr. President, do we really need 4 more billion in foreign aid? 
Can we not make do with what is there?
  Now the education department. I had the privilege last session of 
serving on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and found it an 
exciting challenge. But if you talk about a department that chews up a 
lot of money that never gets out to our school districts, look at the 
Department of Education. I mean I believe the figure is maybe 30 
percent that is chewed up in bureaucracy. There is a state bureaucracy 
in every state government that is strictly paid for by the Federal 
government to manage the Federal programs, 50 of them. Then you have 
the Washington bureaucracy who we all know that I have found them to be 
one of the lease sensitive departments about what Congress thinks, and 
when they are insensitive to Congress, I think they are insensitive to 
the American taxpayers because that is who sent us here, a department 
that could very easily find more than 1.4 percent in savings in my 
view.
  EPA, 15 or 16,000 employees in a centralized bureaucracy in 
Washington. Could they squeeze 1\1/2\, 1.4 percent? No problem. Now we 
would have a few less bureaucrats, but we still have all the programs 
that they run, should have little or no impact out in the districts.

  And also I guess the administration. Maybe we are asking. Recently 
there was a foreign trip, and 1700 people went on that trip. Now I am 
sure it is necessary to take guests on trips, but could 1,200 have got 
the job done? Could 1500 have got the job done and saved a few taxpayer 
dollars? I think so.
  So all we are saying is to this part of government that is important 
to us, that is vital to us, pull in the belt a little bit, cut a few of 
the excesses, cut a little of the waste like the American taxpayers 
historically do. They trim their budgets all the time, that is how they 
balance them. Local governments do. States who are allowed to build 
deficits have to pay as you go. But here in Washington we have gotten 
so used to not really worrying about how much money we spend because we 
just raise taxes enough to pay whatever the bill was when the end of 
the year comes.
  Well, Madam Speaker, that day is over. The day of using Social 
Security is over, it is done, and it is time for Congress, this 
administration to sit down and have a good healthy discussion about our 
spending priorities and balance this budget, conclude it in the next 
few days with not one penny of Social Security. It is doable, it is 
workable, and it is just time to bite the bullet.
  At this time I again welcome my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, what is 
interesting is that I have heard speakers, four or five of us tonight 
who have gotten up to talk about why this is important that we do not 
spend Social Security, why this is important that we find the savings 
from a trillion $700 billion plus budget and we are not yelling and 
screaming. We are here speaking to the American public in a regular 
voice, a regular tone because I believe we are optimistic. We are 
optimistic about the positive things that are occurring in Washington, 
D.C. that we, as a Republican-led Congress, are finding ways to get our 
work done. We need to give credit to our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle because they, too, have done some responsible things. The 
White House, the President signing these bills as he should. What we 
are trying to do is to make sure that the American public understands 
that we will not and must not spend Social Security. This year for the 
first time in 39 years Social Security was not used to fund the 
government operations. What we want to make sure is that we make that 
streak continue so that we do not do it next year, and that is why this 
1 percent across-the-board savings to protect Social Security that will 
save $3.5 billion must come internally as a result of a challenge, a 
challenge to the entire government, a challenge that the House of 
Representatives and the Senate are engaged in, and that is why I 
welcome the news that we have from the Majority Leader, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey) and our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), to say that the Congress should be included in that 1 
percent budget.
  What it will do is I believe it will mean to a manager of the 
government that they will now focus more clearly and carefully on their 
own mission statement, their core and basic functions that they must 
provide. It will require them with the impetus, the knowledge, the 
direction, the authority and the responsibility to make sure that they 
look across their areas and cut 1 percent of their budget.
  Why do we need to do this? We need to do it because there is lots of 
money that can be cut.

                              {time}  1900

  Another example that I had not heard one of my colleagues state 
earlier, but that I found very interesting, it is that the government 
spends $1 billion on the Job Corps program, but a survey of the initial 
employers of former Job Corps students show that 76 percent of students 
had been laid off, quit or been fired from their first employers after 
100 days of starting their new jobs.
  Well, you see, if I were in the Department of Labor I would have 
known about this because it came from my own inspector general. I would 
be willing to look at my $1 billion program

[[Page H10847]]

and ascertain what is indigenous to our program that is not working? 
And, if the program does not work properly, if the return to the 
taxpayer is not there, if the benefit to the beneficiaries, the people 
who were expected to gain something from this $1 billion, if it is not 
working, then they need to do something different. They need to look at 
the money and the resources and the way they are spent.
  So I think that this is going to be yet another opportunity for 
government bureaucrats, for agency heads, to look inward within 
themselves, to have the optimism that they can be in control of their 
own future, to provide services, which is what this government is all 
about, to people who do need those outreaches of government, and to do 
the right thing.
  So I am very excited about the opportunity to challenge government. 
Instead of just throwing more money at them every year and more and 
more and more, we are now going to challenge them in a way and say we 
know you can find the 1 percent. We have talked about these savings all 
across government tonight. They exist in every single agency, and I 
think it is going to be a wonderful day for every single government 
administrator and the heads of these agencies to know that with the 
challenge, that they can accept it and excel, because of the mission 
that we have of not spending the future retirement of each and every 
American today, but rather to keep it into a fund that is ready for 
them in the future, is what will help and benefit all Americans.
  I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be with you tonight. I 
know the people of Pennsylvania are well served. You have enthusiasm 
and integrity, coupled with the background and experience, and I want 
to thank you for allowing me to be here.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. We thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Tonight we have heard about tugboats that cost $875,000 apiece that 
were lost; a surface-to-air missile launcher that cost $1 million that 
was lost; 5 aircraft engines, including two that cost $4 million that 
were lost; a floating crane worth $500,000 that was lost. We heard 
about Medicare spending $20 billion annually, or paying $20 billion 
annually for fraudulent payments, or what they believe to be fraudulent 
payments.
  You know, it is kind of hard to think that you could not save a penny 
when you look at all those examples. We have one here of a nice 
courthouse in Brooklyn, New York, that cost $152 million. The New York 
Attorney General's office has arrested 16 individuals suspected of 
kickback and bribery schemes in the construction of this courthouse, 
that is from the Citizens Against Government Waste, and $4.3 million 
used to tear down 19 naval radio towers. Again, that is another one 
pointed out by Citizens Against Government Waste. It seems pretty 
incredible to think that you just cannot save a penny, a little more 
than a penny, out of every dollar.
  Now, my experience in state government, this was sort of a routine 
thing. We often passed budgets that cut general government 2 to 3 
percent, and what that was is we said department managers, you have to 
cut the fat out of your general government line item. You cannot go out 
there and cut the hand that serves the people, because the same 2 
percent, to save 2 percent or 3 percent, you do not need to do that.
  If state governments can cut 2 to 3 percent of savings out of general 
government, Mr. President, you can too. Instead of talking about new 
programs, let us talk about managing the ones you have.
  I vividly remember the gentleman who served us so well as Attorney 
General, Richard Thornburg, who was Governor of Pennsylvania and who 
was a real good fiscal manager. I served the whole time he was Governor 
of Pennsylvania in the state legislature.
  He was a tough fiscal manager. Every department was asked to become 
more efficient. Every bureau was asked to reorganize and provide their 
services, do away with unneeded paperwork and become more efficient.
  The state historically had, I am going on memory here, but think I am 
accurate, about 103,000 employees historically. When he left office 
after 8 years of governing I believe they had 88,000 or 89,000 
employees.
  I had a district office in my district, and I want to tell you, the 
service improved, because not only did we have less employees, 
paperwork and waste and redundant things were done away with, 
departments were asked and forced to manage themselves, bureaus were 
asked to provide the services more cost effectively, and they did.

  Government can become more efficient if it has leadership to take it 
there. Now, I think we have just begun maybe a new cycle. I think this 
is something we ought to be looking at with some routine. Mr. 
President, this year trim another percentage out of general government. 
That is not where people are served; that is where bureaucrats are 
served.
  In my view, this is a very appropriate way to look for savings that 
could, as happened in Pennsylvania, improve the quality of government, 
improve the services, because they are managed better.
  Mr. President, it is time to manage each and every department a 
little bit better. It is time to look for waste and incompetency and 
root it out. It is time to reorganize the structure of government so it 
can be more efficient and better serve the needs of the people.
  Let us save a penny out of every dollar by finding the waste, the 
fraud and the abuse, and make sure that we never again balance the 
budget by using Social Security; that we look to live within our needs; 
that we save a penny or two pennies, whatever it takes, whenever it is, 
and pay down the debt.
  It is time for the American taxpayers to be assured that their 
Federal Government is going to live within its means, it is never going 
to look to the Social Security trust fund again to be used for general 
government purposes, and we are going to concentrate on making the 
programs we have work better, or do away with them.
  We have had a hard time doing that. But the President should be 
leading us. His administrators know as well as anyone that there are 
programs that have lost their usefulness, and it seems ironic that 
Congress and the President in the past have had a hard time, because 
times change, priorities change, needs change, and the needs of 1984 
may not have a whole lot to do with it. But the programs that were 
started in 1984 are still running. It is time to squeeze that penny 
until we have our fingerprint in it, that we save that penny and a 
little bit more out of every dollar of the taxpayers' money, and that 
we, once and for all, balance the budget, make Social Security safe and 
just make government more efficient.

                          ____________________