[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 15, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1064-H1070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE PRIORITIES OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, just across the street here, the Committee 
on the Budget is working on unveiling the blueprint for the Federal 
budget. We do this every year to pay for everything from social 
security for our senior citizens to Head Start programs for America's 
preschoolers.
  The budget, introduced by House Republicans this week, has a few 
important priorities. I would like to spend the next hour talking about 
those priorities.
  First, we save and protect social security by walling off the money 
and making sure it cannot be spent on anything other than retirement 
for America's seniors. We pay down public debt.
  Republicans disagree with the Democrats and the leadership coming out 
of the White House, the Clinton-Gore team over there, on the matter of 
spending. We on the Republican side do not think it is right to make 
our children pay tomorrow for money that we are spending today. We 
think, frankly, that we ought to have the courage to find the cash to 
pay for the things we want to buy now, rather than make my children and 
their children pay for it many, many years from now at many times the 
expense, after we factor in interest and just the general cost of 
bloating the Federal debt.
  We also provide Americans with relief from the unfair tax on marriage 
and the unfair social security earnings limit, which penalizes senior 
citizens who want to work beyond retirement age. In fact, for those who 
earn over $17,000 this year, they will be penalized. They will actually 
have to pay dollars back to the Social Security Administration for 
every $3 over that $17,000 cap that they earn. For every $3 they earn, 
$1 has to go back to the government.
  I just met with some constituents out in Colorado just last week at 
Wal-Mart, and found a number of individuals working there beyond 
traditional retirement age. One woman approached me and said she had to 
write a check. It was for $88. She said it was not the dollar amount 
that bothered her so much as it was the principle of the thing, the 
notion that just to work she has to pay. If she wants to be ambitious 
and continue being productive in the work force, she has to pay the 
government back as a result of this penalty.
  We found the funding in our budget to eliminate that penalty 
altogether, and make it possible for people to go on working beyond 
retirement age without fear of being penalized and punished by their 
government for their entrepreneurial spirit, their dedication to work, 
and for their personal enterprise.
  Finally, we strengthen funding for important priorities like 
education and defense, so both our children and our Nation have a more 
secure future.
  These are the things I will be fighting for as the budget continues 
to work its way through Congress. These are the things I will continue 
to work for as I will help Congress craft a budget that meets the needs 
of people of all ages across my district in the Eastern Plains of 
Colorado.
  Over the course of this next 55 minutes of the special order, we 
expect other members of the Republican majority to make their way down 
to the

[[Page H1065]]

floor to talk about the various components in the budget bill that they 
find to be of particular interest to themselves and to their districts 
and to the American people at large.
  I think the first and most dramatic reality of this budget, and a 
point of tremendous pride, deals with the Social Security surplus. The 
reason is because we have accomplished something this year that for 
many, many years the people in the media and our Democrat colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle said could not be done, and that is to save 
Social Security and to stop raiding the Social Security fund in order 
to pay for the rest of government.
  In fact, the President would like to continue dipping into Social 
Security to pay for the kinds of spending and new programs and growth 
in government that he envisions for the country and that the Clinton-
Gore team has been promoting.
  Our budget does something very, very different. First of all, that 
budget reserves every penny of the Social Security surplus to 
strengthen the Social Security program.
  Here are some key points. The budget creates a safe deposit box to 
assure the Social Security surplus is not spent on any other government 
programs. It reserves the entire Social Security surplus, $978 billion, 
over the next 5 years to pay down the debt held by the public. It 
reduces the government's interest payments to the public, thereby 
making funds available to pay Social Security benefits.
  I brought a chart along here, Mr. Speaker, that shows exactly where 
we have come and how the history of this has gone. We have stopped 
raiding Social Security and spending beyond our means. This chart 
represents total spending for every dollar that comes into the Federal 
government. This is just tax dollars. This does not take into account 
the Social Security contributions of the American people.
  As we can see, way back over here in 1995, the government was 
spending $1.23 for every dollar it brought in in terms of tax revenues. 
A portion of that, the blue portion here, 6 cents, involves Social 
Security spending, and 17 cents involves additional public debt. In 
other words, this is what the addition to the debt was back in 1995. 
The brown area here is financed by the tax dollars that the American 
people sent here to Washington, D.C.
  This is what we inherited when Republicans took over the majority in 
Congress. This chart, if we could look backward into the past, 
continues here. It starts even higher with greater quantities of 
deficit spending and spending here in Washington.
  What changed this chart and began to move our country in a direction 
of more responsible spending, as we see here, is a change in the 
leadership of the House of Representatives. This was the year that the 
American people threw the Democrats out of the majority in the House 
and Senate both and instituted Republicans as the majority party, 
because they believed that we were sincere and that we were quite 
intent on our promises to be more responsible with the taxpayers' 
dollars in Washington; that our goal would be to reduce the deficit 
quantities of spending in Washington, D.C. as quickly as possible.
  If Members will remember, at the time we proposed a Contract with 
America, which were ten items that we promised we would introduce if 
elected. One of those promises was that we would find a way to balance 
the budget and actually get to the point we are here in 1999 in 2002. 
In other words, we suggested that we would accomplish this goal not in 
1999, but 2 years from where we are now, and we managed to come in 
fully 4 years ahead of schedule.
  So I think as a Republican majority we have in fact proven to the 
American people that we were serious about getting the Nation's fiscal 
house in order. We were quite serious about eliminating these huge red 
blocks in fiscal spending that are the legacy of the Clinton-Gore era 
of reckless, runaway spending in Washington; that we would reduce this 
in this case in 3 short years, and beyond that, stop raiding the blue 
area here, which is the Social Security funds that were used or 
borrowed essentially to pay for the rest of government spending.

  It is an exciting accomplishment, and one that has solidified and is 
a commitment that is made in a more forceful way in the budget that is 
making its way as we speak from committee over here to the House floor.
  Let me go through these numbers again. In 1995, the budget entailed, 
for every dollar in spending or for every dollar in taxation, tax 
revenues, about $1.23 in spending. In 1996, we reduced that to $1.16. 
In 1997 we reduced that to $1.09. In 1998 we reduced it to $1.02. In 
1999, we managed to spend dollar for dollar. It was the first year that 
we no longer borrowed funds or increased the size of the debt in order 
to pay for government.
  In 2000, we are actually spending less. In the year we are in now, we 
are actually spending less on government than the revenue coming in. 
That is significant because it allows us to reduce the debt much more 
quickly than we had anticipated.
  Just by way of example, in 1998 we put $51 billion into debt relief 
reduction, into public debt reduction. In 1999, we put $89 billion into 
debt reduction. In 2000, we put $178 billion into public debt 
reduction.
  That is what we can achieve by being more responsible and frugal with 
the taxpayers' dollars, realizing that this government spends far more 
money than it needs to, and that the Federal government in general 
simply taxes the American people too much. So we have some things we 
need to accomplish.
  We do have growing needs in the country: Defending our Nation, for 
example; trying to find ways to get dollars to classrooms to help the 
students throughout the country who rely on certain Federal programs 
for their academic pursuits and goals.
  But we also think that a government that taxes the American people 
too much and keeps too much of that cash here in Washington is a 
government that is irresponsible, so we want to take some of this 
savings and return it to the American people. That is a significant 
item, and I will spend a little more time on that, too.
  But the other thing we want to do is make sure we pay down the 
national debt quicker. We think we can do that not only through being 
responsible and frugal, as we have been, as we can see over the last 
few years from 1995 when the Republicans took over the House right on 
up to today, but we also believe that by returning a portion, about 
one-third of the surplus savings that we are realizing back to the 
American people, that we can continue to stimulate the kind of economic 
growth that has made for a robust economy for our Nation that has 
resulted in tremendous prosperity.
  What Republicans believe that is very, very different and 
distinguishes us from our friends over on the other side of the aisle 
is that the American people can spend their money more wisely than the 
government can. That is a huge distinction between the two parties. We 
are seeing that not only in the presidential race, but we are seeing 
that with respect to the debate of whether reducing this debt is a good 
idea.
  There really are people over on the Democrat side who would prefer 
these red blocks to continue, who believe that the government can do 
better at spending the American people's cash than the American people 
themselves can. We, on the other hand, are firmly convinced that the 
American people make wise decisions about making family investments, 
about making investments about whether to expand the farm, buy new 
equipment, buy new business equipment; whether to buy a new business, 
whether to hire a new employee, whether to invest in education and 
improve the marketability of one's own children or themselves, for 
example, when it comes to obtaining marketable careers and jobs in the 
work force.
  All of these are important items, and I am excited that the budget 
that the House Committee on the Budget is about to send over here to 
the full Chamber is one that just keeps us on track of spending less, 
saving more, and putting money aside for quicker debt relief.
  I am joined here by a couple of Members who I know share my concern 
for not only staying on track with a responsible budget plan, but also 
for making sure that the dollars we do spend get those priorities and 
items that we need most. One of those is education.

[[Page H1066]]

  The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) is one of our 
colleagues who has been one of the most forceful advocates of getting 
dollars to the classroom. She is one who has also been an articulate 
spokesperson for the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act. 
This is the one program that the Supreme Court requires the Congress to 
fund, and since that requirement has gone into place the Clinton-Gore 
team has not allocated the funds necessary to make this unfunded 
mandate work smoothly back in our home States. It ends up robbing our 
classrooms of the vital resources that are needed in order to reach our 
children.
  It is an item that we have been working on in common, and our 
constituents care about equally, I believe. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

                              {time}  1815

  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come down tonight to talk a 
little bit about the budget and about public education, because really 
the reason that I got into public life is a concern about public 
education and how we are going to prepare kids for the 21st century.
  I was very pleased to see what was coming out of the Committee on the 
Budget this afternoon, because we have had a lot of discussions about 
things; but when it really matters is when they start to get the 
numbers down on paper.
  I wanted to see, like many of the people in this House and actually 
on both sides of the aisle wanted to see, a balanced budget that 
protected Social Security, did not raid Social Security anymore; but 
within that budget, we wanted to see some priorities.
  National defense is certainly one. All of us know that we have been 
eroding our national defense over the last decade, and we may pay a 
price for that in the lack of readiness.
  But the second and the one I would like to talk a little bit about 
tonight is education, where we are going on public education in this 
country.
  There may be folks today who are listening to me tonight who remember 
when all a kid needed to get ready for school was a Big Chief tablet 
and a number 2 pencil. It is not that way anymore. We do not get 
protractors and slide rules in high school anymore.
  We are on the verge of the 21st century. It is a wonderful 
opportunity, but it will only be an opportunity for our children if 
they are prepared for that century with a great public education. I do 
not mean just some kids. I mean, every kid in every neighborhood.
  We can no longer tolerate the gaps between rich and poor, the gaps 
that have grown since many of these Federal programs were instituted, 
like title I, between rich and poor, and black and white and brown. 
They have grown wider. We cannot afford that as a Nation if the 21st 
century is to be just as much of an American century as the 20th 
century was.
  So what are our dreams for the next decade? What do we want to see 
with respect to public education? How is that reflected in the 
commitment we are beginning to make here tonight and today with the 
next year's budget?
  I think that there is kind of a myth out there that the Republican 
Congress does not care much about education. It always bothers me. It 
bothers me as a parent. It bothers me as a Member of Congress. I try to 
spend a lot of time talking with people about it because I think it is 
a myth, both in terms of financial commitment, but also in terms of 
personal commitment to the future of children. Because I happen to be 
one of those folks who believe that, unless America does have a strong 
system of public education, we cannot survive as a democracy. It 
requires an educated populous. We have to remain committed to that for 
every child.
  I would like to talk a little bit about what is in this first budget 
with respect to education, this first look at this year's budget. For 
elementary and secondary education, the budget that came out of the 
committee today in the House Committee on Budget provides an increase 
of over $2.2 billion over the last fiscal year, fiscal year 2000, and 
an $20.6 billion increase over the next 5 years. That is a 9.4 percent 
increase in our commitment to public schools and Federal funding of 
public schools. That is the largest increase in the budget for the 
fiscal year 2001.
  So the priority in the budget for this next year will be twofold: 
Defense, but first and foremost, public education.
  The one area where we really differ, aside from how much money we 
should put into it, with the administration is flexibility. I want 
somebody making decisions about my child education who knows my son's 
name. I want teachers and principals and parents to have as much 
control as possible over the way that dollars are spent. I want those 
dollars to get into the classroom where they can pay for books and 
bricks and teacher salaries and teacher training. I do not think that 
Washington has the answers on public education. I have much more 
confidence in the principal of our local school than I do confidence on 
anyone that works in a Federal building here in Washington.

  So where is the money going in education in this budget, and where 
have we been over the last 5 years? Over the last 5 years, this 
Congress has increased education spending by 26 percent. Last year, 
fiscal year 2000, we added $200 million over the previous year, a total 
of $1 billion more than the President requested in his budget.
  The emphasis was on special education kids, and that is what I want 
to talk a little bit about here with this chart. The Federal Government 
assumed a responsibility for special education, that there is a civil 
rights issue around special education.
  When we passed the IDEA Act originally, we promised to pay for 40 
percent of the cost. But the Federal Government never met that 
obligation. The States and local school districts still have to meet 
those Federal requirements. So because the Federal Government did not 
pull its share of the load, States and local governments are having to 
foot the bill; and that money that could go for other priorities in 
education goes to special ed to meet the Federal requirements.
  So the first requirement of this budget is to say let us meet the 
obligations the Federal Government has already assumed with respect to 
education and IDEA.
  In the 2001 budget that just passed out of the Committee on Budget 
today, there is a $2 billion increase in IDEA funding, and that will 
boost us up to 12.6 percent of the cost of educating a special needs 
child.
  This is the IDEA funding here on what we have done since 1996, and it 
shows the President's request, and it shows the amount that the 
Republican Congress has put into special ed, which every single year 
has been larger than the President's request. We want to fund our 
obligations before we bring in new programs and new programs created or 
controlled in Washington, and get this money down to the kids that need 
it in special education classrooms across this country.
  I also want to talk a little bit about title VI, which is for 
innovative programs in education. It is not a huge program. But it does 
have a lot of local flexibility to fund things that, maybe, are just 
too much for a local school's budget, but they want to try something 
new, they want to try a new curriculum, they want to try teaching math 
using manipulatives or whatever they want to do.
  Title VI is that kind of flexible funding. Every single year, the 
President has proposed to eliminate this funding. Every single year, 
the Congress has said give the local communities some flexibility and 
some funding to make some decisions, and fund title VI.
  We are going to do that again. It was funded at $365 million last 
year, and we are going to continue to fund that in this year's budget, 
despite the President's request to zero out the program again this 
year.
  Impact aid is a major issue for those of us in the West with a lot of 
public lands. I see the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is here.
  If one is in the Four Corners area of New Mexico, the counties there 
are 90 percent Federal land. So if one is funding one's schools based 
on property taxes, it is really tough. Fortunately, in New Mexico, we 
do not have property taxes that are funding our public schools. A lot 
of schools do.
  What this says is, when the Federal Government owns the land, they 
have got to make a contribution to that school system; and that is what 
impact aid is for. It is the same if one has got a huge military base 
in one's town. There are kids there, and there is land

[[Page H1067]]

that is owned by the Federal Government. It is kind of the contribution 
in lieu of taxes that might otherwise go to the local community.
  Again, the President has requested very small amounts of money for 
impact aid, and the Congress consistently over the last 5 years has 
increased that funding.
  I do not know if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) would like 
to comment on impact aid.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) will yield, I would like to reiterate the point about impact 
aid, because we talk so much about education. Certainly it is our 
philosophy within this common sense majority, as the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has outlined, to transfer dollars and 
decisions back home, home to the family, home to the local school 
boards, home to the teachers.
  But there are three clear and compelling places where the true 
Federal involvement in education cannot be disputed. As the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico reiterated, for children, dependents of men and women 
who have worn the uniform of our country, who are on active duty. So 
military dependents. For Native American children, because of the 
tribal trust treaty obligations ratified by the United States Senate 
and part of our law. Also for children within the District of Columbia. 
We have clear unassailable constitutionally mandated Federal 
involvement in education. Impact aid really affects, more than anyone 
else, children of military dependents and Native American children.
  I watch with curiosity many things that go on here in Washington. I 
can remember before my colleagues on this floor joined me in this 
endeavor, relatively early in my time here, I introduced an amendment 
to add some $18 million to impact aid funding that would come out of 
the National Labor Relations Board. That is the Taj Mahal down the 
street encased in marble where each of the five commissioners has a 
private shower, a private dining room, and a private car, and, oh, yes, 
up to 22 lawyers working under his or her supervision.
  To put that into perspective, across the street at the Supreme Court, 
an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court can have three clerks, three 
lawyers in his or her employ. The Chief Justice of the United States is 
only given five attorneys.
  But when I came here and offered that modest amendment, the hue and 
cry from those who claim to be friends of Native Americans and who 
claim to want to add money to school funding for construction was 
resounding. Sadly, the modest amendment was defeated.
  Yet, here we have again ample evidence, as the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico points out.
  We all are certainly enthralled in hearing our President come and 
stand at that podium and offer a masterful, empathetic, sympathetic 
oratorical review. But the advice we learned long ago is not to listen 
necessarily to what is said; watch, instead, what is done. Plenty of 
folks can come and talk the talk. But can they walk the walk?
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) provides the evidence, 
the promise of the President in meager requests, the reality of 
Congress stepping forward with those funds for those schools where 
there is a clear and compelling and, ofttimes, described as a 
constitutional role to provide dollars for education.
  It has been very interesting for our time here in Washington. We 
understand the notion of three separate and co-equal branches of 
government. But promises made by the executive are seldom followed up 
unless the responsible actions are taken here by a common sense 
majority. The gentlewoman from New Mexico offers that ample evidence.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) will continue to yield to me, I would like to talk a little 
bit about some of the other things that are going to be in this budget 
that came out of the committee today.
  One of the things that I hear from kids in my district about is going 
to college. Fortunately, in New Mexico, we do have a program to give 
scholarships to kids who graduated from high school and who keep their 
grades up and can go to the University of New Mexico or New Mexico 
State.
  A lot of kids, to get to college, which some of them want to do 
because they know they need to go, they need grants and loans. Most of 
us in this Congress required grants and loans and scholarships to go on 
to school.
  The Pell Grant is one of the biggest ones funded by the Federal 
Government. This is what has happened with Pell Grants, the maximum 
award for Pell Grants since 1991. The change since 1995 is startling.
  Americans and Republicans are willing to invest in education. They 
are willing and we are willing to say to a kid, if you will go to 
school and work hard and go to college and get a degree, we all know 
you are going to be contributing more to this country, because you have 
got a great education. We will provide that opportunity through Pell 
Grants.
  The cost of a college education is going up. That means that the 
amount that a kid can get through a Pell Grant needs to go up, too. So 
we have made that continued commitment, and we will do so again in the 
budget this year.

                              {time}  1830

  We want a great school in every neighborhood. We want teachers that 
are well trained and that can work with us as partners in the education 
of our children. We want charter schools in this country to give people 
choice. Tomorrow, along with my colleague from Colorado, we will be 
introducing a charter school loan guarantee fund bill. The biggest 
barrier to charter schools in this country is they cannot get the 
capital money to fix up a building or a storefront in order to open and 
operate because most of them cannot get bond money.
  So we are introducing a bill that will set up a Federal loan 
guarantee fund, so that people who are trying to set up charter schools 
can go to a bank and, without all of the signatures and putting their 
houses on the line and so many other things that people have been 
willing to do to start charter schools, there will be a Federal loan 
guarantee available there if the bank will loan them the money.
  The concept in the bill is to make a $600 million Federal loan 
guarantee program, which should leverage $9 billion in public school 
construction in charter schools through the private markets. And what 
does that mean? It means a charter school, instead of paying 11.5 
percent in interest to redo that old building or to redo the shopping 
mall, strip mall site for their school, can pay 5 or 5.5 percent. That 
is a lot more money that can go into teachers' salaries and materials 
for that charter school that does not have to be paid in interest. And 
we should make that investment in choice and public charter schools.
  I call on the administration and my colleagues, because I expect this 
will be a bipartisan bill, to see if we can get this moving and get 
this through this year. I think it is up to us to commit ourselves and 
recommit ourselves to a decade of dreams for American education. We can 
no longer afford to leave any child behind, and that is why I wanted to 
come here tonight.
  I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me, listening to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico, that people monitoring our proceedings and 
this discussion during this special order might be confused actually to 
see on the charts that Republicans are leading the way of investments 
and dollars in education. Confused, I say, because the media and our 
friends on the other side of the aisle have year after year tried to 
persuade the American people that we somehow are unconcerned about 
quality schools around the country.
  We are not just talking about spending more money, although in the 
case of these priority projects we are talking about spending more 
money, but in the case of the Individuals with Disabilities and 
Education Act, this is an acknowledged obligation we have under the 
Civil Rights Act to carry out this program. And the problem is that 
this administration is, frankly, not interested in spending dollars on 
a program that we are obligated to carry out. They instead would like 
to keep the Federal Rules but have our local school principals figure 
out how to come up with the dollars to pay for it.

[[Page H1068]]

 So in the case of the four examples that were just presented, these 
are priority items for us. The IDEA program is our highest priority in 
the education budget this year.
  But I want to keep it all in the proper context, again going back to 
the budget track record since the American people threw the Democrats 
out of the Speaker's chair, out of the majority, and put the 
Republicans in charge. We have dramatically dropped the amount of 
deficit spending in the country. What we are talking about today are 
the fruits of prioritization.
  For too long in this town, Democrats, when put in charge of our 
national budget, talked about spending, but only spending. They did not 
talk about prioritization, picking those programs that truly make 
sense, that are truly in the best interest of the country, and getting 
rid of lesser priorities that, frankly, we have gotten rid of. And most 
Americans have not noticed that they are gone. That is the way we are 
able now to show and to establish for the House and for the American 
people that a Republican majority in Congress has delivered a balanced 
budget fully 4 years ahead of schedule.
  We have eliminated these deficit spending blocks that my colleagues 
see here in red. We have ended this business of borrowing money from 
the Social Security Administration in order to pay for the rest of 
government, which is represented in the blue blocks, and now we are to 
the point where we are actually spending fewer dollars in Washington 
than the American people send us, which allows us to establish 
priorities, to make priorities for the American people, which the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico just described with respect to education.
  We have other priorities, too. Not only do we want to elevate the 
stature of those priority programs that make sense for America's 
schoolchildren and for the defense of our country and for seniors and 
so on, we also want to send a certain amount of that money back home to 
the people who work hard to earn it, and we want to work harder to pay 
the debt down quicker. And we can do all these things by just being 
smarter in Washington.
  That is what the American people believed we would do when they gave 
us the majority. They understood that the Democrats were incapable of 
building a responsible budget. They threw them out. They took the gavel 
out of a Democrat Speaker's hand and put it into a Republican Speaker's 
hand; and we are here now, in 2000, getting ready to bring a 2001 
budget to the floor which keeps us on track for more responsible 
spending.
  I know the gentleman from South Dakota is one who has been 
instrumental in helping us fight the hard fights of bringing 
responsible budgets to this Congress and helping to make the priorities 
not just to spend more money but to spend money on things that really 
and truly do matter and are in the category of legitimate functions of 
our government at the expense of waste, fraud and abuse. I yield the 
floor to him.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, and 
would echo much of what he said, and the gentlewoman from New Mexico, 
who so very eloquently made the case for the investment that we have 
made in education, as well as the gentleman from Arizona and the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) here on the floor this evening, 
who all share the same commitment.
  I think that when we get right down to it on a very basic level, a 
budget is a statement of priorities. The budget resolution that will be 
adopted in the House, and I will admit I have not read the fine print 
at this point, but from all I have been able to gather about the work 
that the Committee on the Budget has under way, this is a budget that 
will be a reflection of the priorities that we have for this country.
  Now, the people of South Dakota, the hard working people in my State, 
day in and day out, month in and month out, year in and year out have 
to go about balancing their budget. They do not have the luxury the 
Federal Government has had for so many years of going so far in the red 
and mortgaging their children's future. That is what has happened here 
in Washington.

  So I think to suggest that we can, in a very straightforward way, 
make better use of the dollars that are at the disposal of the 
Washington government here and achieve the savings that are necessary 
so that people can keep more of what they earn and that we can 
distribute that power out of Washington and back home, I think is a 
very real commitment on the part of the Republican Congress.
  Now, I will say that if we look at the statement of priorities that 
was evident in the President's budget, it was, is, and always will be 
the extension of the reach of big government and higher taxes. Make no 
mistake about it, that is exactly what was in the President's budget 
this year; and it has been in the President's budget every year since I 
have been here. And the gentleman from Arizona who was here in the 
Congress prior to our arrival here knows that we have made hard 
decisions about trying to come up with ways to achieve additional 
savings, come up with a budget that makes sense, that finds the waste, 
fraud and abuse in the Federal Government and roots it out so that we 
are being responsible to the people of this country who, again, day in 
and day out have to go about the process of coming up with a budget 
that makes sense for them and their families.
  I just want to add that as I look at this budget resolution that we 
are in the process of considering this year. And look at the statement 
of priorities, it is a reflection of the things that we believe in 
profoundly. First off, I also have to note that if we look at the 
accomplishments of the past 5 years, which the gentleman from Colorado 
noted, where we have come from, the budgetary priorities that have been 
established in the last several Congresses since we took control of 
this institution, have allowed us to, for the first time since I was 8 
years old, in 1969, balance the Federal budget. Even more importantly 
than that, last year, balance the Federal budget without raiding Social 
Security. That is a remarkable accomplishment.
  And that is coupled with the first time in a great many years of 
actually retiring a portion of the 3.6 publicly held Federal debt. The 
last couple of years we have paid down $140 billion in debt. They said 
we could not do that. They said we could not reduce taxes. We reduced 
taxes in 1997, which has led to additional revenues. This program is 
working for the American people.
  This year, this budget is a further reflection of those same 
priorities because they make essential investments in areas like the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico mentioned, and that is education. A program 
that is near and dear to my heart and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) is impact aid, because we have a lot of federally impacted 
lands.
  Special Ed. The Federal Government made a commitment that it has not 
fulfilled, not honored. We have a promise to the American people and 
the school districts in this country that we need to live up to, and we 
move down the path farther this year toward honoring that commitment.
  The commitment to our seniors to protect Social Security and 
Medicare, to ensure that the programs that they rely upon in their 
retirement years are going to be there. We are, for the first time, 
walling off that money and saying we are not going to spend the Social 
Security surplus. That is a significant and radical departure from what 
has been happening in the past several years here in the Congress.
  Commitment to our veterans. Last year we increased spending on 
veterans health care by about $1.7 billion. This year, again, this 
budget resolution will recognize the commitment that we have to those 
who have served this country honorably and nobly. We need to ensure 
that we honor the promise that we made to them in the area of health 
care. This is a budget which will increase funding for veterans health 
care substantially.

  Farmers. My State of South Dakota, farmers and small business people, 
farmers and ranchers, people working the land and trying to make a 
living and have had to deal with the tremendous terrible cycle of low 
prices, bad weather, and everything else associated with it, this 
budget puts aside about $8 billion for crop insurance reform. That is 
the risk-management tool that producers can use to help manage the risk 
and manage, as best they can, to try to avert the devastating effect of 
weather disasters that are so frequent.

[[Page H1069]]

  Additional assistance, emergency assistance, to combat low prices in 
agriculture. We have made a commitment to our farmers in this country 
that we are going to stand with them and at the same time we are going 
to go after the markets that we have lost, to ensure we are doing 
everything we can to open additional market. And, frankly, there has 
been a tremendous failure on the part of this administration in that 
respect. But having said that, that is an effort that we will step up 
and intensify, to open those markets; and in the meantime we are going 
to see that our farmers have the income they need to pay the bills.
  Our families. We make a commitment to our families, because we are 
also including in this budget resolution a significant piece of tax 
relief. Earlier this year we passed the marriage penalty relief tax 
measure, which, unfortunately, is still hung up, I think, in the other 
body but, hopefully, will clear there and get sent down to the White 
House. And I would urge the President to sign it into law because this 
is an important piece of legislation that recognizes we can no longer 
punish and penalize people in this country in the Tax Code for making a 
choice to be married. We need to deliver the additional tax relief that 
is called for in the budget resolution.
  So we will make a commitment so that the families of this country 
have more money in their pockets to spend on their priorities, whether 
it is making the mortgage payment on the house, the car payment, day 
care payments, buying tennis shoes for the children, whatever that 
might be. Those are decisions that ought to be made in the family 
living room and not here in Washington. And that is again a reflection 
of our philosophy.
  We make a commitment to our children by ensuring that the funding 
levels are there for education and, furthermore, by ensuring that we 
continue to systematically pay down the Federal debt so that we are not 
saddling the next generation with an incredible, enormous burden of 
debt that they are never going to be able to get out from underneath.
  Finally, we make a commitment to our military by increasing spending 
on defense. The record of this administration on defense is deplorable. 
Regarding the military today, in terms of equipment, weapon systems, 
personnel, pay for military people, we are having a terrible problem 
with retention. This budget goes a long ways toward addressing the very 
important priority that we place on ensuring that we have a safe and 
secure America. And the only way that we can have a safe and secure 
America is to have a strong America. And that means investing, making 
the necessary investment, in our national security.
  This is a budget which is a reflection of our priorities. These are 
the things that are important to us as we begin to plan the future, as 
we move into this next century, and how best to allow the American 
people to realize their dreams and do it in a way that incorporates our 
belief in the principle of allowing them to make more of the decisions 
that affect their lives and distributing power from Washington, D.C. 
back into the living rooms of this country so individuals and families 
are making decisions and we are not wasting their money here in 
Washington, D.C. on new programs which, frankly, most of which do not 
do very much to help the hard-working Americans that we are here to 
represent.
  So I just would add this evening to what has already been said by my 
colleagues, that if we look at this budget as it is being proposed and 
the priorities that it places and how those priorities fit in with the 
priorities of the good people of South Dakota, this is a budget which 
honors our commitment to our seniors, to our children, to our families, 
to our farmers and ranchers, to our veterans, and to those who wear the 
uniform of the United States of America.

                              {time}  1845

  This is a budget which ought to be passed and that we ought to put 
into law and begin the process of moving forward in a way again that 
incorporates the principles and values that we here share and that I 
think are shared by the American people and continue to do the good 
work that has been started in paying down debt, reducing taxes, and 
balancing the budget and doing it in a way that is efficient and smart 
and does not waste Federal dollars and doing it in the same way that 
the families of this country have to do on a day-in and day-out basis.
  I am pleased to be here this evening to participate in this special 
order, and I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for 
yielding.
  I would again simply say, I hope we have a number of other 
opportunities to debate this issue. This is a budget that is right for 
the people of this country, it is right for America, and we need to 
move it forward.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all those who join us this evening to assess 
where we are headed with the majority budget plan which we will pass 
shortly from the Committee on the Budget for the American people to 
offer a roadmap that means continued prosperity for the American family 
for Main Street as well as Wall Street and all those avenues in 
between, for those who make their living from the soil in terms of 
farming and resource-based industries, and for those quite simply, Mr. 
Speaker, who work hard and play by the rules.
  In the 1960s, there was talk of a credibility gap. Sadly, in this 
town at this time with the current administration there exists a 
credibility canyon that, quite frankly, eclipses for its sheer 
magnitude the dimensions of that incredible wonder that is found in the 
State of Arizona, Grand Canyon National Park. And sadly, it is not 
beautiful. Because the ugly truth of this credibility canyon is 
beautiful rhetoric, notwithstanding, sadly, when it comes to the 
administration and those who, Mr. Speaker, some have dubbed the 
Clinton-Gore gang, we cannot listen to what they say, we must watch 
what they do.
  And even as we have seen the spectacle of our Vice President coming 
out for campaign finance reform saying he will renounce soft money, 
even on the same day when he directs his party to raise some $35 
million in the same soft money, he stands and says he does not want to 
have happen, even when he talks about campaign finance reform while his 
former campaign aid Maria Hsai is convicted of campaign finance abuses 
over an appearance at a Buddhist temple, the Vice President tells us he 
did not realize was a fund-raising event, even as we see these 
different words and actions and contradictions, not limited to the 
campaign trail, not limited to one's conduct in office, but part of the 
budget process, again, my friend from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) pointed 
out the gulf between the rhetoric of the administration, the reporting 
of those Washington journalists and the reality of what has been done 
here. And our colleague from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is quite right, 
the responsible, common sense, conservative majority understands that 
true compassion is not reflected with endless promises and 
pronouncements and phrases for focus groups and sound bites.
  We understand that governing is hard work; and, accordingly, we have 
fashioned a budget that emphasizes education not simply with dollars 
but understanding who controls or who should control the priorities of 
education: parents in the home, teachers in the classroom, and locally 
elected leaders who can reflect a community's priorities. We have also 
stepped into the breach, as our colleague from New Mexico pointed out.
  A point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago I was 
honored with a visit from my cousin, who is a very special person. She 
has Downs syndrome. She is now 32. And I think about her years in 
different programs living at home with her aunt and uncle, working 
hard, always learning even with the challenges she confronted; and I 
think about the local school district in which she lived where there 
were empty promises made by a so-called compassionate group in 
Washington that left the funding to local leaders even when they had 
promised to pay for those programs.
  This Congress has stepped up. In terms of national defense, this 
Congress has stepped up. Even as our

[[Page H1070]]

 President would strip those great funds and send them to Kosovo and 
the Baltic for misadventures, we have stepped up.
  We want to do what is responsible for people who play by the rules, 
for people who need a helping hand. And just as people have left 
welfare and gone to work, and just as the American people have more of 
their hard-earned money to spend on themselves and their families, to 
save and invest as they see fit, we present a budget that reflects 
those priorities.
  I am honored tonight to join now my two colleagues from Colorado to 
review that process, with the closing words, Do not listen to what is 
said. Watch what is done. Actions speak louder than words. This 
Congress is prepared to take the right kind of actions.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield the floor over to somebody 
who has done the hard work of freedom and help make some of the tough 
choices here in Congress, my good friend and colleague from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's providing some 
time for me; and I appreciate him taking this hour to explain to the 
American public that there, in fact, is a difference.
  We have all heard the lament, Mr. Speaker, when I go home, and I am 
sure when all of my colleagues, every Member of Congress, goes home; 
and some time or other someone says something like this. You know, 
there really is not all that much difference between the two parties. 
There is not really a dime's worth of difference between the two 
parties. I have heard it. We all have heard it. Sometimes I probably 
have said it.
  But I must tell my colleagues that there is nothing that brings home 
the reality of the situation more than a budget resolution and nothing 
more that defines the differences between the two parties that, in 
fact, do exist than the budgets presented by the President of the 
United States, in this case, and by the Republican majority in response 
to it.
  On February 7, 2000, President Clinton and Vice President Gore 
submitted their budget for fiscal year 2001. Their budget raises taxes 
and fees on working families by $250 billion. It creates 84 new Federal 
programs. It places Government spending increases on ``auto pilot'' 
and, as usual, takes a pass on any serious reform of Social Security or 
Medicare.
  Now, that is the reality of the Democrat budget. So when we say 
things like there is not a dime's worth of difference, we may be right. 
There is not a dime's worth of difference. In this case, there are 
hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of difference between the two 
parties.
  Because the Republican party has, in fact, submitted a budget set on 
priorities, as my colleague from South Dakota and my colleague from 
Colorado has indicated. We have, in fact, established education, 
defense, the preservation of Social Security and debt reduction as 
priorities.
  These are not the priorities of the minority party. These are not the 
priorities of the President. We all recall the President of the United 
States standing right there, Mr. Speaker, where the Speaker is right 
now and telling the Nation not all that long ago that, in fact, ``the 
era of big Government was over.''
  Now, words are supposed to have meaning. We are supposed to be able 
to define exactly what is meant when people use them. ``The era of big 
government is over.''
  Perhaps, in fact, he was right. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in Clintonian 
double-speak this era of big Government is over and what we are 
anticipating now is the era of huge government. Maybe that is what he 
meant. I mean, that is the only way we can interpret the words as 
applied to his budget. Right?
  What in here, 84 new programs, $250 billion more of taxes, what 
indicates to anyone that there is smaller Government on the horizon?
  How about the following: These are taken directly out of the 
President's budget. These are proposals for new programs in an era of 
huge government, which he would like to see us enter into.
  Let us see, new programs: Increase Amtrak funding by creating a new 
capital grant program for high-speed rail funded out of the Highway 
Trust Fund. Even though, by the way, Congress passed legislation to 
reduce Amtrak's dependence on the Government. It goes on and on. I am 
not going to read all of them, just a few I pick out as I go through.
  Create a conservation security program; income payments to farmers 
who engage in ``voluntary environmental efforts''; provide subsidized 
banking services in low-income areas; encourage the creation of low-
cost bank accounts; increase access to ATMs; and enhance financial 
education. All might be wonderful ideas. I mean, all these things sound 
great.
  What is the Federal Government's role in this and how do they fit an 
era of smaller government?
  How about funding greening the globe initiatives, increased debt for 
nature funding. Create an initiative to prevent the spread of HIV 
within African militaries. Fund a clean partnership. Build a visitors 
center, an interpretive center. And acquire lands to preserve World War 
II Japanese-American internment camps in the West. Provide homeless 
vouchers, set-aside incrementals. Provide welfare-to-work set-aside 
incrementals. Create a voucher success fund. Create a housing 
production fund. Create an Indian home ownership intermediary 
initiative.
  I mean, this all goes to Housing and Urban Development. Even though 
we know that HUD, of all the agencies of Government, and this is hard 
to say, I mean, when we are talking about the agencies that waste more 
of Government, I mean, I do not even know how we can prioritize it, it 
is so difficult. But let us look at what Congress discovered with HUD. 
They had hired hundreds of politically favored employees at salaries up 
to $100,000 a year each to promote department programs and publicize 
its activities.
  The department dubbed these things ``community builders.'' They have 
over 900 of these people, 10 percent of HUD's total staff, and these 
were never granted approval by Congress. The program was supposed to be 
reduced significantly and phased out by September 30, 1999. It has not 
happened. The President has asked for an increase in all of these 
things.
  I know we are coming to the end of this hour, and so I want to return 
to my colleague from Colorado for his closing comments. I just want to 
say this, that the next time anyone says to you there is not a dime's 
worth of difference between the two parties, say, you know, you may be 
right because I think there are really billions, hundreds of billions 
of dollars of difference between the two parties, as evidenced by the 
budget.
  This is the real world. This is not the world of rhetoric. This is 
where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. We can talk about era of 
less Government, but here is where we actually see what the President 
is talking about. Once again, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the 
President has, in fact, deceived the American public.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for recognizing us 
for this hour of special order to talk about the difference between the 
Republican vision of a budget that secures America's future and 
contrasting that with the Democrat version of a budget which simply 
spends us in oblivion and taxes us more.
  We hope the Republican version is the one that emerges victorious 
over the next few days, and we will commit our efforts to see to it 
that that actually occurs.

                          ____________________