[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 117 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8293-H8300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     VICE PRESIDENT'S ECONOMIC PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, a few of my colleagues will soon be joining 
me and we will be spending the next hour discussing the details of the 
Vice President's economic plan. Certainly during that period of time we 
will have a broad overview, but at this point I would like to just 
focus very narrowly on one aspect of the Vice President's plan.
  My colleagues may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Vice President was 
one of many voices that urged the President of the United States to 
veto the marriage penalty tax relief that was passed by this Congress 
and sent to the President. Soon after the President vetoed the marriage 
penalty tax relief, the Vice President announced that he would give 
marriage penalty relief by doubling the standard deduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably worth our while to realize what 
this means exactly in terms of the Vice President's claim that it is 
marriage penalty tax relief; certainly what it means by way of 
comparison with the marriage penalty tax relief that was granted by 
this Congress and vetoed by the President.
  The first thing my colleagues should realize is that in the 
congressional bill, written by the Republicans and passed on to the 
President, vetoed by the President, all married couples, irrespective 
of their filing status, received relief from the unfair marriage 
penalty. The Vice President's proposal that he now outlines only gives 
relief to those people who do not itemize their taxes.
  If a couple owns a home and decides to deduct their mortgage 
interest, they will get no marriage penalty relief under the Vice 
President's plan. If a couple gives to their church and deducts 
charitable contributions, they get no marriage penalty relief under the 
Vice President's plan.

                              {time}  1600

  If you, your spouse, or your child is ill and you deduct your 
skyrocketing medical bills, you get no marriage penalty relief under 
the Vice President's plan. If you or your spouse work at home and 
deduct the cost of a home office, you get no marriage penalty relief 
under the Vice President's plan. And, Mr. Speaker, if you jump through 
hoops to become eligible for one of the new credits that the Vice 
President has proposed, complicating our Tax Code even further than it 
is now, than the Vice President will not give you relief from the 
unfair marriage penalty. And, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, that is just the beginning of the serious concern I have 
with the details of the Vice President's plan.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, it is a commonplace observation in this town 
that the devil is in the details. Armey's axiom is, if you make a deal 
with the devil, you are the junior partner. And I am about to 
demonstrate in this next hour that indeed the devil that we do not want 
to make a deal with is in the details of the Vice President's plan.
  Let us take a look at the big picture first. The Vice President would 
spend the on-budget surplus, he would rob the Social Security trust 
fund, and he would provide a measly tax cut designed to manipulate 
behavior instead of giving meaningful tax relief.
  Madam Speaker, one of the things that we are very proud of in this 
Congress, one of the things that we have been able to do, thanks 
primarily to the success of the American people in creating an enormous 
economic success story here in America and the revenues that have 
accrued to the Government out of our economic success, is that we have 
managed to stop the raid on Social Security.
  Not only do we set aside 100 percent of all Social Security tax 
dollars that people find in their payroll stubs as FICA tax, 100 
percent of all Medicare tax surpluses set aside by this Congress, thus 
ending the 40-year raid on Social Security and Medicare; but we have 
even managed in this Congress to set aside a large portion of the on-
budget budget surplus.
  What is the on-budget budget surplus? That is the part of the budget 
surplus that accrues to the Government from your Social Security taxes, 
not from your Medicare taxes, but from your income taxes. So that we 
are now setting 90 percent of all budget surplus aside for debt 
reduction.
  The Vice President's plan would take all of that income tax surplus, 
which we call on-budget surplus, and he would spend it. But worse than 
that, he would renew the old practice, a practice that should be 
forgotten, of robbing from the Social Security trust fund for new risky 
spending schemes that we will talk about later.
  At the same time, he would provide a bureaucratic government-run 
prescription drug plan that is not guaranteed to bring the cost of 
drugs down. Indeed, Madam Speaker, the Vice President's one-size-fits-
all, you-must-join-the-Government plan threatens to force the price of 
prescription drugs up.
  Let us address his spending plans first.
  According to Vice President Gore's numbers, he would increase Federal 
spending by about $900 billion through the year 2010. However, the 
Senate budget committee shows a much higher price tag. They added up 
the numbers and found that the Vice President would spend $2.1 trillion 
of new spending and he would not stop there.
  Think of it this way: the Vice President's plan is 191 pages. That 
means that each page of his book would cost taxpayers an amazing $18.4 
billion per page. It means that for every dollar by which the Vice 
President would cut taxes, he would spend $6.75.
  If you look at the details, Madam Speaker, we find that Vice 
President Gore dramatically underestimates the cost of his new 
retirement entitlement program built on top of the Social Security 
program. That is not new. This has been a part of our problem 
historically in the past with Democrat Congresses that created new 
mandatory spending programs and dramatically underestimated their cost.
  The Vice President says his new retirement program, which is very 
similar to the Clinton universal savings account, which was a trial 
balloon which the Clinton administration floated until it popped, that 
this would cost $200 billion over 10 years.
  But an analysis by Dr. John Colgen of Stanford University shows that, 
if everyone eligible to participate in it, it would cost $160 billion 
in the first year alone. The Vice President says his plan would cost 
$200 billion over 10 years. Professor Colgen of Stanford University 
says, if everybody eligible participated, it would be $160 billion for 
the first year alone.
  The Vice President mistakenly calls this brand new massive retirement 
spending program a tax cut.
  True enough, it would be run through the IRS and that would give this 
agency still more power and control over

[[Page H8294]]

the lives of Americans. But this is no tax cut. Instead, the Vice 
President would give government checks to people, some of whom do not 
even pay taxes. Our budget rules would score it on the spending side, 
not on the tax side.
  Other parts of this Big Government agenda include massive new 
spending on energy, environment, transportation and crime, all 
important items on our policy agenda. But to pay for this, the Vice 
President would rob the Social Security system.
  Madam Speaker, we have stopped that raid on Social Security; and I 
believe that the American people would agree with me, there is no going 
back.
  Madam Speaker, I see the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), one of 
our brighter and younger newer Members of the Republican Caucus, has 
joined me; and I see he has some very interesting graphs there. So, 
Madam Speaker, I yield to Professor Ryan so that he can help us look 
into this case even further.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) for yielding to me, and I appreciate his leadership 
on this issue.
  I also serve on the House Committee on the Budget. We actually spend 
a great deal of time crunching these numbers, looking at the surplus, 
and evaluating the different plans that come through Washington that 
are being proposed.
  What we have done through the Senate budget committee's analysis is 
look at the different proposals, looked at what Governor Bush is 
proposing to do with the Government's surplus, looked at what Vice 
President Gore is proposing to do with the surplus. And as we did an 
apples-to-apples comparison and took a look at the priorities, it is a 
pretty stark difference.
  One of the things that I have heard as I have gone around my 
district, which is the First Congressional District in Wisconsin, is we 
talked to a lot of people about this election and the thing that really 
gets to me sometimes that I hear is that some people think there is not 
much of a difference, that there is no difference between who they pick 
in Washington.
  Well, I have got to tell my colleagues, of all the elections, this 
election is clearing about differences. The differences between the 
visions for America as proposed by Al Gore and George Bush are worlds 
apart from each other.
  To quickly summarize it, the Vice President wants to take the hard-
earned surplus, and the surplus by definition are people overpaying 
their taxes, the Vice President wants to keep it in Washington. He 
wants to spend it on new government programs. Governor Bush wants to 
pay off our debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, and give us our 
money back as we continue to overpay our taxes.
  But let us not just listen to me. Let us take a look at the hard 
numbers. I have here a chart that breaks up the surplus dollars. It 
basically says, for every one dollar coming into Washington in 
government surplus, how does each plan spend that money, how does each 
plan treat that money?
  Well, if we look at Vice President Gore's plan, 46 cents of every 
surplus dollar is committed to new government spending. On the 
contrary, in the Bush plan, 6 cents of all surplus dollars are 
committed to new spending.
  What about preserving Social Security, Medicare, and paying off our 
national debt? A lot of them serve the same purpose. Paying off our 
debt helps us preserve Social Security and Medicare.
  The Bush plan commits 58 cents of every surplus dollar over the next 
10 years toward preserving Social Security and paying off the debt and 
shoring up Medicare. The Gore plan commits 36 cents of every surplus 
dollar.
  What about tax relief? This is the lowest priority in the Gore 
budget. Vice President Gore is saying that, for every surplus dollar 
coming into Washington, Americans, after they overpay their taxes, 
should only get 7 cents of that dollar back.
  Governor Bush is saying 29 cents of every surplus dollar should be 
returned back to the taxpayer after dedicating 58 cents back towards 
Social Security and Medicare and paying off the debt.
  And increased interest costs, something that we have to do to manage 
the interest, the balance payments, 11 cents for Gore, 7 cents for 
Bush. That basically means that the Vice President is paying off debt 
at a slower pace. The Vice President, if all of his new spending plans 
get enacted, will likely wind us up into the point where we will have 
to dip into the Social Security trust fund.
  If you want to take a look at what the difference is in plans over 
the surplus are, just take a look at who wants to spend money and who 
wants to save the money.
  Vice President Gore is proposing the greatest expansion of the 
Federal Government in 30 years. He is proposing to take $2.1 trillion 
of the surplus and spend it on new programs here in Washington. To the 
contrary, Governor Bush is saying let us spend $278 billion on needed 
things in Washington, such as committing ourselves to the fundamental 
problems we have in this country, funding the education unfunded 
mandates, funding our critical needs in health care, rebuilding our 
national defenses.
  When it comes down to it, it is basically this: the Vice President 
wants to spend the surplus in Washington, the greatest expansion of the 
Federal Government in 30 years, at the expense of Social Security and 
Medicare and paying off our debt.
  Governor Bush is saying this: here is the priority of how we deal 
with the surplus. Pay off our national debt, shore up Social Security 
and Medicare. And if people still continue to overpay their taxes to 
Washington, give them their money back rather than spend it on new 
programs in Washington.
  That is what Bush is proposing. And there is a huge world of 
difference between these two men running for President and their 
visions for America with respect to how they treat our surpluses.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to look at 
that graph. You notice in this graph on the Bush proposal that Governor 
Bush proposes 29 cents out of that dollar for tax relief. And I notice 
that you see Vice President Gore is proposing 7 cents.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is right.
  Mr. ARMEY. But is it not true that the Vice President is proposing 85 
new tax increases?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is correct.
  Mr. ARMEY. And 36 targeted tax cuts? So that 7 cents is really a net 
tax.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is right.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I ask, does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) know how many tax increases are being proposed by Governor 
Bush?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that he 
is not proposing any tax increases at all.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, the understanding of the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. And I appreciate that.
  I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) can stay around, and 
maybe we can talk some more.
  But, Madam Speaker, we have also been joined here by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. And when we start talking about our responsibilities here in 
Washington, certainly we can take a look at big-picture items, what are 
our broad-based plans for the creation of new programs, all the new 
programs the Vice President would like to create, whether or not we 
would like to cut taxes, or whether or not we will keep our commitment 
to America to stop the raid on Social Security and pay down the debt. 
But in doing that, we also have an administrative responsibility.
  Now, the Vice President has been a key member of the Clinton 
administration for 8 years; and during those 8 years, he accepted the 
responsibility for doing what he called reinventing government, the 
idea being that he was going to make the agencies of this government 
administratively work efficiently, effectively, and be cost effective 
on behalf the American people.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) from the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce has spent a good deal of time examining 
just what is the record of performance of the agencies of the Federal 
Government under the stewardship of the

[[Page H8295]]

Clinton/Gore administration and especially in light of the enormous 
amount of applause this Nation has given the Vice President for his 
efforts to bring, what should I say, common sense good business 
practices to government.
  I wonder if I yield to the gentleman, maybe he would share with us 
some of his discoveries along those lines.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this really 
builds off of the discussion that our colleague from Wisconsin was just 
leading in that when we take a look at the Vice President's plans to 
significantly increase spending, before we significantly increase 
spending anywhere, we ought to take a look at how we are spending the 
$1.7, $1.8 trillion that we currently collect and we hand over to the 
executive branch and say, ``How's it going?''
  The majority leader is absolutely right. This is the publication that 
came out on September 7, 1993, it came from the Vice President, signed 
by Mr. Gore. The book is, From Red Tape to Results, Creating a 
Government that Works Better and Costs Less.
  It is the report of the National Performance Review, Vice President 
Al Gore. He was clearly mandated by the President to lead this effort. 
Where we are in the year 2000 is with this question, there are nine 
departments whose books cannot be audited. They can be audited but the 
auditors come back and say, ``We can't give you a clean audit.'' The 
first one is the Department of Treasury. Think about this. The national 
bank or whatever we want to call it, the Department of Treasury cannot 
get a clean audit.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. The gentleman is saying that we have nine 
Cabinet departments that cannot pass an audit?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I am not sure they are all Cabinet, but we have nine 
significant agencies that cannot receive a clean audit.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. What would happen if a small or medium-sized 
business in Michigan or Texas or Wisconsin could not pass their audit 
with the IRS?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We actually had testimony from the accounting and the 
investment field. We asked them if they knew of any $1.8 trillion or 
even a $1 billion company publicly held in the last year, the last 2 
years that had failed their audit to the extent that the Department of 
Education had, where they have not had a clean audit for 2 years and do 
not expect a clean audit for 3 more years and they said, ``We can't 
think of one.'' Because what would happen if you were in the private 
sector and the auditors failed your audit, most likely the value of the 
stock would drop significantly immediately. The other thing that would 
happen is most likely the Securities and Exchange Commission would 
suspend the trading of your stock, because you could not with any 
reasonable certainty go to your shareholders and indicate that what you 
represent in your financial statements in any way reflects the real 
world.
  Let us take a look. The Treasury Department, Justice cannot get a 
clean audit, Education, Defense, Ag, the EPA, HUD, OPM, AID. None of 
these can receive a clean audit. I chair the Subcommittee on Oversight 
for the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We miss the majority 
leader on the committee. But he knows the work that we have done at 
that committee in taking a look at exactly what is going on in the 
Education Department.
  In 1993, here is what the Vice President said: ``The Department of 
Education has suffered from mistrust and management neglect almost from 
the beginning. To overcome this legacy and to lead the way in national 
educational reform, Ed must refashion and revitalize its programs, 
management and systems.'' That is directly out of this book.
  In 2000, here is what the General Accounting Office said: ``Serious 
internal control and financial management system weaknesses continue to 
plague the agency.''
  In 1993, the Vice President said: ``The Department is redesigning its 
core financial management systems to ensure that data from accounting, 
grants, contracts, payments and other systems are integrated into a 
single system.''
  In 2000, here is what GAO said: ``Pervasive weaknesses in the design 
and operation of Education's financial management systems, accounting 
procedures, documentation, record keeping and internal controls 
including computer security controls prevented Education from reliably 
reporting on the results of its operations for fiscal year 1998.'' That 
is also true for fiscal year 1999, and we are expecting that they will 
again fail their audit for the year 2000.
  Now, in the private sector when the auditors say you cannot keep your 
books, we know that there are real consequences. Here are just some of 
the examples of what is going on in our Department of Education. Most 
of these are examples not from us in Congress but they are from the 
General Accounting Office, they are from their own Inspector General, 
and so these are well documented.
  Congratulations, You're Not a Winner. In February, the Department of 
Education notified 39 young people in America that they won the 
prestigious Jacob Javits scholarship. My daughter just went to school 
this fall, went to college, my first one in college, and a Jacob Javits 
scholarship awards kids 4 years of graduate school at government 
expense. Paying undergraduate bills, I can imagine how excited the kids 
were and how excited the parents were. These kids were thrilled. Two 
days later, they got a call back saying, ``Sorry, you're not the 
winners.'' Poor management, real results, real impact.

  In September of 1999, they printed 3.5 million financial aid forms. 
This is what kids use to apply. They printed them incorrectly. A cost 
of $720,000.
  Mr. ARMEY. Does the gentleman mean the Department of Education 
incorrectly printed financial aid forms for the students wishing to 
apply for college to learn how they might correctly use the English 
language?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. 3.5 million forms containing errors, incorrect line 
references to the IRS tax form were printed, 100,000 of them were 
distributed, had to be recalled, the other ones all had to be 
destroyed. A cost of $720,000.
  Dead and Loving It. The Department of Education improperly discharged 
almost $77 million in student loans for borrowers who claimed to be 
either permanently disabled or deceased. This was a double good news 
for these people. The good news, number one, is that their loans were 
forgiven because they were disabled or dead. The second bit of good 
news is they were neither disabled nor dead. But the Education 
Department had identified them as such and had forgiven their loans.
  Most recently a theft ring, and this is what happens when you do not 
have proper controls. They had a purchasing agent within the Department 
of Education who could order materials, certify that they came in, 
certify that they should be paid for and certify that other 
individuals, independent contractors, should receive overtime. They 
ordered over $330,000 of electronic equipment, authorized the payment, 
the $330,000 of equipment was shipped around to various employees' and 
friends' homes around the Nation's capital. This was all done through 
the phone guy. What was in it for the phone guy? The phone guy got 
$660,000 of overtime that he had not worked.
  More recently, we had a hearing on this last week. Another theft 
ring. Impact Aid funds. This is dollars that we send to needy school 
districts or districts that have a lot of Federal facilities in them. 
In this case, two school districts in South Dakota, actually I believe 
on Indian reservations. The Department of Education wired them the 
money, found out a couple of days later because a local car dealer had 
somebody coming in and wanted to buy a Corvette, came in and were ready 
to pay cash or a cashier's check to pay for the Corvette. The 
dealership did a credit check on this individual and found out that it 
did not check out. They called the FBI. They found out that this group 
had bought a Lincoln Navigator, a Cadillac Escalade and they were 
looking at buying a Corvette. They also bought a home, $135,000. So 
somebody was checking this to see where did this money come from. 
Somebody had gone into the computer systems at the Department of Ed, 
and this is one of their other problems, they do not have computer 
security,

[[Page H8296]]

and had changed the routing, so instead of sending this money to an 
account into the school districts in South Dakota, the money went into 
these individuals' accounts in Washington to the tune of $1.9 million.
  Mr. ARMEY. If I may ask the gentleman, Madam Speaker, I want to 
continue this with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and I 
certainly want to get back to my good friend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) as well but I think it is very important that we 
make this note. The gentleman from Michigan is the oversight chairman 
of the subcommittee on education. It is his job to see to it that the 
Education Department under the jurisdiction of his committee does a 
good job. And the information we have here is about that committee. But 
as the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, we have how many agencies 
that are inauditable, they cannot be audited?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We have nine significant agencies.
  Mr. ARMEY. Nine significant agencies, including the Treasury 
Department which I will bet has in its employ a more than generous 
number of CPAs and they cannot be audited. So what happens, it seems, 
is that when people come to Washington, they cannot even do what they 
do do well. The CPAs malfunction at Treasury, the educators malfunction 
in the Department of Education.
  I want to make this point very quickly. Why are we being tough on the 
Department of Education? It is not that we dislike the Department of 
Education. It is certainly not that we dislike education. We would 
stand here and we would say there is no thing that any culture can do 
that can be more important than how we educate our children. And if we 
have an agency of the Federal Government that is committed to that 
purpose by an act of Congress, committed, then it is the responsibility 
of Congress to see that that agency functions for the children. And to 
find this kind of inefficiency, neglect, sloppy work, abuse, who pays 
for that? That all translates into the neglected children from an 
agency of this government that we created.
  I would commend the gentleman from Michigan for his good work. I want 
to hear more about his findings.
  Mr. Speaker, we have with us the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick), and she has agreed to participate but is on a very tight 
schedule. I yield to our good friend the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina.
  Mrs. MYRICK. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just wanted to 
make a couple of comments, not on education because the gentleman from 
Michigan is covering that quite thoroughly and I am sure the gentleman 
from Wisconsin is covering budget surplus information. But I wanted to 
just mention a couple of things relative to Vice President Gore's 
budget that he has presented, because I think there are some things 
that we could point out that maybe do show a difference in the way that 
we philosophically go about spending our government's money and the 
people's money at home.
  I know that the Vice President made the comment at the Democratic 
National Convention that in the next 4 years he wanted to pay off all 
the national debt we have accumulated over 200 years, and this would be 
the plan that would put us on track for completely paying off debt by 
2012. Then I remember back last year how President Clinton's 
administration only wanted to save 63 percent of the surplus and if it 
had not been for us really forcing the issue and saying that we are 
going to lock away 100 percent of the surplus, we might not be in the 
position today where those statements could even be made that we are 
going to be able to save and pay off the debt.
  I think we need to look at that. Plus the fact that the National 
Taxpayers Union estimates that the Vice President's spending proposals 
would actually increase government spending by $2.7 trillion. We do not 
hear about the increase in spending that is being talked about. That is 
more than the budget surplus for the next year. And that would send us 
right back into the days of deficit spending where we do not want to 
be. Then it also comes out to say that for every dollar that the Vice 
President's budget would cut taxes, he would raise government spending 
by $6.75. I am not a brilliant mathematician but that kind of tells me 
that this is not going to work. You cannot on one hand cut taxes by a 
dollar and then raise spending and expect that you are going to be in a 
good financial position.
  When we look at this proposal that has been put on the table, it does 
closely mirror what the administration is also proposing. I think back 
to 1995 because if my colleagues remember if we had adopted that 
proposed budget, we would still have $200 billion in deficits today. It 
was a lot of my colleagues here who forced this issue that we would 
sign a balanced budget agreement. Remember that, back in 1995? I think 
there were five budgets presented by the President before we finally 
got to one that was agreeable that we could sign when we stood our 
ground and said we are going to balance this budget.
  Look at the results. The American people are definitely reaping the 
results. We have worked hard to make this happen. We have turned the 
tide. We really have turned the tide by all the policies, the things 
that the gentleman from Michigan has been working on with all the 
oversight that he has been doing, that has been going into it and what 
we are talking about now with these generous surpluses that are really 
the people's money that we want to give back to them, that we do not 
want to keep here in Washington.
  I think it is important that the American people do understand and 
know that this would not have happened if we had not stuck to our guns 
and really kept these policies in place. That is something that we need 
to be doing for the future for our children and our grandchildren.
  I appreciate all of my colleagues being here today to really share 
this information with the American people, because otherwise they do 
not hear. We do not say, they do not hear.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentlewoman. I would like to make this 
observation: Listening to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, I am 
reminded it takes leadership, and it takes cooperation, to really get 
big jobs done in government. People must work together.
  I have to say I am very proud of this record we have of working on 
this very big issue of our budget. We said we were going to balance the 
budget. The naysayers in this town said it could not be done. When we 
got to that point, the President recognized it, and in fact when the 
surplus began to emerge, he recognized that.
  I remember the President said, ``I am going to commit 63 percent of 
the Social Security revenues to debt reduction.'' We appreciated that 
gesture on his part, but we said, ``How about 100 percent?'' Again, the 
naysayers, they said it could not be done.
  But we challenged the President to work with us. What we saw is when 
you have a disciplined leadership and two agencies of the government, 
the Congress and the White House, working together, we managed to 
accomplish a 100 percent total stop of the raid.
  Now, what we need is a new administration after these elections that 
understands the fruits of that discipline and retains that commitment. 
Here we have the Vice President saying, elect me to the Presidency and 
I will start a new spending spree in Washington. I will introduce these 
new high-risk spending schemes in Washington that promise to spend so 
much that we will not only backslide on the accomplishments of this 
Congress, but, more discouragingly, backslide on the accomplishments of 
this Congress working together with this Presidency.
  So he turns his back not only on the work of the Republicans in the 
House and the Senate, but on the work of President Clinton, and says 
never mind all that, I want to go back to large-scale, big risky 
spending schemes.
  I see the gentleman from Wisconsin would like to make a point, and I 
also would like to get back to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra), I imagine he has more information here. We also have the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) here.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the majority leader. I was really 
struck with what the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) had 
to say. It really is about priorities.
  When you put together a budget, you are putting together a vision for 
the

[[Page H8297]]

country. When you take a look at the good economic prosperity and times 
we have enjoyed here in America, it has given us a wonderful 
opportunity. It has given us a wonderful opportunity to take care of 
the challenges and needs that are facing the country.
  As I travel throughout southern Wisconsin, the constituents I listen 
to tell me, you know, finally we have a chance to get our hands around 
paying off the national debt. We have a looming crisis occurring when 
the baby boomers begin to retire in Medicare and Social Security. Let 
us take care of those problems so that Social Security and Medicare are 
programs that can be enjoyed not only for this current generation of 
retirees, but future generations of retirees.
  Finally, we are an overtaxed Nation. We are paying a higher amount of 
taxes than we do on food, shelter and clothing. We are paying the 
highest level of taxes in the peacetime history of this country. So 
when we are talking about budgets, it gets a little dry when you look 
at the numbers, but what it really means is what is your vision for the 
country, how are you going to address these challenges.
  This chart shows you the different visions for this country, the Gore 
vision and the Bush vision. The Bush vision is first pay off national 
debt, stop raiding the Social Security trust fund and modernize 
Medicare, and, as we accomplish those goals, if people are still 
overpaying their taxes, give them their money back, rather than spend 
it on new programs in Washington.
  What the Vice President is proposing is just the opposite. Spend the 
bulk of the money on new programs in Washington, pay off some debt, but 
he is putting us on a path to where we will be forced to dip back into 
Social Security to the tune of $906 billion to fund the new spending 
initiatives that the Vice President is proposing.
  The good fortune is this Congress has been able to keep the line on 
spending, so we can pay off the debt. We have already paid off $354 
billion. If we get our way, as we are trying to with these 
negotiations, we will have paid off half a trillion dollars of debt 
just in the last 3 years alone.
  So what we are looking at here is the future. Are we going to take 
advantage of this prosperity, of this surplus, to use it to pay off the 
debt, to shore up Social Security and Medicare and let families keep 
some more of their hard earned money, or are we going to spend the 
money on new programs in Washington, as Vice President Gore is 
proposing? These are the choices that will be determined in this next 
election.

  As you look at the details underneath these policies, the details 
underneath these numbers, I just take a look at the Vice President's 
idea for saving Social Security. I would just like to quote two 
economists that the Vice President often listens to on his plan to 
revive Social Security.
  ``The Vice President does nothing more than add more IOUs to the 
Social Security trust fund. It is a papering over of the Social 
Security trust fund. To quote the General Accounting Office, `the Vice 
President's plan amounts to a pledge to provide that much more money 
for Social Security in the future somehow. It does not specify the 
sources. Thus, by itself, it does not fulfill any of the funding gap 
with Social Security.' ''
  That is what Alan Blinder said, who is the Vice President's economic 
adviser.
  David Walker, comptroller to the GAO, says, ``The Gore and Clinton 
proposal does not come close to saving Social Security. Under this 
proposal, the changes in the Social Security program will be more 
perceived than real. Although the trust funds will appear to have more 
resources as a result of the proposal, nothing about the program has 
changed.''
  So we are seeing a rhetoric being cast about across the country that 
the Vice President is giving us a program, a proposal to save Social 
Security, but when we actually take a look at it, it is just adding 
more money, more IOUs to the Social Security program. It does nothing 
to advance the solvency of Social Security. In fact, the spending plan 
that the Vice President articulated in his acceptance speech in Los 
Angeles, that he has articulated in his prosperity plan for America, is 
one in which he is proposing to take $2.1 trillion, almost half of the 
surplus over the next 10 years, and spend it on new programs in 
Washington, to the point where he is proposing to dip into the Social 
Security trust fund by almost as much as $906 billion.
  Madam Speaker, that is not how you manage the surplus. What we are 
trying to accomplish with this surplus, what Governor Bush is trying to 
do with the surplus, is to stop the raid on Social Security. Do not dip 
into the trust fund anymore, pay off our national debt, modernize 
Medicare and Social Security, not on paper, but in reality, so that 
those of us who are near and dear to us, our grandparents, our fathers, 
our mothers, will have the program to rely upon in the future.
  As our constituents, as working families, continue to pay more and 
more and more to Washington, the highest level of taxation in the 
peacetime history of this Nation, we are saying, let us let them keep 
some of their money back as they continue to overpay their taxes, 
rather than spending it on new programs in Washington. That is the 
difference in this election. That is the choice that you have as a 
voter here in this election by choosing either the Bush vision or the 
Gore vision.
  I see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is here, and I would 
like to yield back to the majority leader who is controlling the time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I am sitting here listening to the logic of 
this whole campaign season. We all know it is often thought of as the 
silly season, but just look here.
  Governor Bush talks about 29 cents on the dollar he would like to 
return to the people who created the surplus. No matter how you define 
that tax reduction, whether it be marriage penalty tax relief, 
inheritance tax relief, no matter how you define it, it is always said 
to be, by Vice President Gore, a risky tax scheme. We label everything 
that. Everything gets labeled that way.
  Yet in the Gore plan you have a situation where he has the IRS 
writing checks to give to people who do not pay taxes. He counts that 
as a tax cut, instead of saying this is what it is, a risky spending 
scheme. So there is that kind of confusion.
  If the gentleman from Florida will just bear with us a little bit, I 
think the gentleman from Michigan was just about to complete pointing 
out that kind of confused thinking is what gives you the sort of sloppy 
work that he has uncovered in one of our Nation's most important 
agencies. I know the gentleman from Michigan has been very patient and 
had wanted to complete his summary of those findings. I think we ought 
to give the gentleman from Michigan that extra couple of minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I enjoy being down here and being part of this special order.
  Just a couple of other examples. The Education Department placed a 
half billion dollars in the wrong Treasury account, then disbursed the 
money without leaving an auditable paper trail. They also have 
something in the Department of Education, which I think in the private 
sector if you were a vendor with the Department of Education you would 
find fascinating. It is called duplicate payments.
  I cannot believe it happens. You provide a service to the Department 
of Education, you bill them, and they pay you, and they pay you again. 
You get paid twice. This year alone there have been $150 million of 
documented duplicate payments. There is no telling how much we do not 
know. These are the vendors that have contacted us and said, hey, you 
paid us twice. I wonder if there are any out there that we do not know 
about who maybe have been paid twice, closed shop and said, hey, this 
is a pretty good deal.
  I think the other thing that we really do have is we have got a 
phenomenal education strategy to improve schools at the local level, 
saying when you send a dollar to Washington, we want to get 95 cents 
back into a local classroom. Today that is about 60 cents.
  We know the local classroom is where we make a difference. We are 
saying get the money out of Washington, out of this failed bureaucracy, 
get it into a local classroom, get it to a teacher, get it to a teacher 
who knows our kids' names. We are saying get the money back to the 
local school district. Let them decide whether they need computers, 
teachers, teacher training, whether they need construction or whatever. 
But let local schools

[[Page H8298]]

make the decisions as to how they are going to spend those dollars.
  We have 760 programs. You have to apply for each one of these 
programs. It is a huge paperwork bureaucracy, and we know the 
Department cannot handle it. Get the money back into the local school 
district; say we are going to make the investment, but let you decide 
how to spend it. Get rid of the Federal paperwork.
  We know we have been in 20 States. Governors will come in and say we 
get 6 to 7 percent of our money from Washington; 60 percent of the 
paperwork comes from Washington.
  Let us get rid of the red tape and bureaucracy and create an 
environment where schools get back to reading, writing and arithmetic, 
the three R's. Secretary Riley recently gave a speech and he has three 
new R's: Relationships, readiness, and resiliency. It is kind of like, 
I think we need our kids focusing on the basics. The only reason our 
kids need to be resilient today is because they are not scoring well 
enough on international test scores and we need them to bounce back. 
But we need to focus not on relationships and readiness and 
resiliencies, we need our kids learning the basics. We have got a great 
education program that does not depend on the failed bureaucracy, but 
puts power back where it needs to be, with local teachers and 
administrators and parents.
  I thank the majority leader for allowing me to participate and for 
the extra time.
  Mr. ARMEY. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan. I think the 
gentleman from Wisconsin would agree with me you could go into any 
community in America and talk to the local school superintendent, talk 
to the members of the local board of education, and I will bet you not 
only is their judgment sounder and they have a better understanding of 
what we need in their community, but I bet you every one of these 
people can balance their books and survive an audit. So the folks back 
home know what is going on with those precious tax dollars that pay for 
that education back home.
  We have just got to do better in Washington. We cannot ask for so 
much of this money, create these new agencies and programs, and then 
just leave them to run without supervision.
  Finally, let me just say, we also saw that this kind of error is 
committed in other agencies of the government as well. We found that 
the Veterans Administration was able to have their computers hacked 
with the kind of technology and practice that apparently any 12-year-
old might be able to figure out, and in the process of learning how 
easy it was to hack the VA's computers, they too found two VA employees 
that had each separately gone into the computers illegally and paid 
themselves over $600,000 apiece. That kind of waste, inefficiency, 
fraud and abuse casts a pall on the good, decent honest people that 
work in agencies all over this country. It gives them a bad reputation, 
but it shows the weaknesses in administration.
  So we want to have good plans, good programs, good ideas, what we 
want to accomplish in America, and a good sense of discipline in the 
administration.
  The gentleman from Florida, who I will yield to, is taking a look at 
that now. Not only do we have this kind of failed ability to administer 
existing programs, but we also see a great deal of risk in a continued 
desire on the part of the Gore campaign, with Vice President Gore  
wanting to continue to create programs put together on an arbitrary, 
mandatory and potentially dangerous, risky basis, as they have been so 
often in the past.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has taken the time to look 
into one in particular of Vice President Gore's proposals that affects 
so many of your constituents. If wonder if I yield to the gentleman if 
he would like to help us.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader. I would like 
this afternoon to focus on prescription drugs. We have talked about the 
waste, fraud and abuse, the incompetency that the gentleman from 
Michigan brought up, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, when he talked 
about under a Gore administration they would spend $2.5 trillion over 
the next 10 years, and this would go into the Social Security surplus.
  I want to talk about one of the most potential political questions in 
this election year. The Democrats have proposed a prescription drug 
program that was defeated, and the Republicans proposed a prescription 
drug program here in Congress that passed. So I want to focus on the 
difference of these plans. And more particularly, about the difference 
between the plan that the Gore campaign is talking about and what we 
have passed here in Congress and what we think is better, which the 
Bush campaign has adopted.
  All of us in this House, all of us in the Senate are committed to 
helping our seniors with access to affordable prescription drugs 
through the Medicare program. But there is a key difference. Joshua 
Hammond wrote a book called The Seven Cultural Forces That Shape Who 
Americans Are, and the number one is choice, because we believe that 
Americans should have choice in what they do and what is offered to 
them by different programs. So I would like to discuss just briefly 
today the proposed plans by Republicans and Democrats that have been 
before this House and talk about the difference.
  Madam Speaker, I might point out to my colleagues, this House has 
been controlled by Republicans since 1995. But if prescription drugs 
was such a problem, why is it that the Democrats did not propose a 
solution to this before we took the majority in 1995? And why did we 
have to wait for Republicans to come forward with a solution? So it is 
easy for them to criticize, but they had 40 years when they controlled 
the body over here to come up with their own plan and present it to the 
American people. Why did they not do it?
  It is only because Republicans have tackled this issue, which is very 
controversial, and the Republican bill, H.R. 2680, would give 
beneficiaries a choice. The hallmark of the American approach is 
choice. We do it through two private sector drug plans. In addition to 
having choice, the question becomes: Who do we trust? The government 
running the program? Or do we believe that through choice and 
competition we will get a better program?
  Our program will allow beneficiaries to choose plans that best suit 
their needs. Our plan is market-based rather than relying on the 
Government to run the plan.
  Now, why is this so important? Because we know that overwhelmingly, 
the components of any plan that we must offer must have this choice. It 
must be the centerpiece of any plan that we offer to the American 
people dealing with prescription drugs.
  How affordable are these plans? Let us look at these two plans and 
see why they actually provide what they actually provide and how much 
it would cost our seniors. Our bill, which is H.R. 4680, passed on the 
House floor here on June 28. So the Democrats say the Republicans do 
not have a plan. We have a plan; it passed here on the House floor.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I cannot help 
but point out it was such a high drama day here in the House on the day 
we voted a prescription drug plan for our senior citizens, one with 
universal coverage, that had freedom and choice in it, that had a 
premium subsidy for low-income seniors. It had a stopgap so that nobody 
would be bankrupted by that.
  On the day that we brought that to the floor to discuss it and pass 
it, the Democrats, under the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt), I remember him rising from his seat over there, got up 
and walked out. Walked out on the debate. Walked out on the seniors. 
Walked out on the whole issue.
  To me, it was an enormously dramatic moment. And I thought to myself, 
why they would walk out on that debate? But now they are back and 
saying that we do not have a plan. I have to say to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
if they had stayed at work and listened to the debate, if you had 
participated, they would not have forgotten that we passed a plan that 
day.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I think what the gentleman from Texas

[[Page H8299]]

is saying in a larger measure is just because they do not control the 
House does not mean they cannot contribute. They could have been on the 
House floor offering proposals, trying to make this bill in their 
estimation better to their determination.
  But we passed it. And as I point out, they have had years and years 
to solve this problem and they did not. So now we have tackled it, and 
I think it takes political courage.
  We provide taxpayers a subsidy to encourage insurers to offer 
policies which are affordable to our seniors. One key aspect about our 
program it is voluntary and seniors taking part can choose from at 
least two plans. All plans start with a $250 deductible, and it would 
establish the Medicare Benefits Administration. This is an agency that 
would run the program, but it would be private sector-oriented and 
provide volume buying for these seniors. It would cover 100 percent of 
drug and premium costs for couples with income up to $15,200 and 
singles with incomes up to $11,300.
  For all participants, it covers at least half of all drug costs up to 
$2,100 annually and 100 percent of out-of-pocket costs up to $6000.
  So we have something that private companies are providing, the 
Government is giving incentives and subsidies to help them, it is 
helping Americans get choice through at least two private sector 
choices, and it is voluntary.
  But let us take a look at the Democrat plan that the House defeated 
here on the House floor. Currently, seniors pay a premium and receive 
reimbursement for a portion of their hospital and doctor costs through 
Medicare. Under the Democrat plan, they would use the new government 
benefit to reduce the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. As I point out, it 
is a government program. Translation: they put government in charge of 
seniors' prescription drugs through the Health Care Financing 
Administration, which is HCFA, which would choose, they would choose 
and they would control the drug purchasing contractor for every region 
of this country. HCFA would be doing it.
  In other words, it would be a new Big Government program, a one-size-
fits-all plan. And this is a key element of their program.
  In a recent survey done with seniors talking about drug coverage, 
they prefer by a margin of two to one a program that is private sector-
oriented, that is voluntary, and not having the Government through HCFA 
provide the pharmaceutical drugs. So the Clinton-Gore plan for seniors 
dealing with prescription drugs is like a government-chosen HMO for 
drugs; and, therefore, I do not think it is good.
  Another thing I would like to say is that seniors would lose their 
private sector coverage, whether they participate or not. This is a key 
element.
  I say in closing, the premiums for the drug coverage under the 
Clinton-Gore plan come directly out of the monthly Social Security 
check. Do not think this is going to be a choice. This is government 
coming into seniors' Social Security check and taking the payment out 
every month, whether they like it or not in this program that is not 
voluntary. So I think the real questions seniors have to come to grips 
with in this political season is do they want to have choice, do they 
want to have competition or a voluntary approach to this plan, or do 
they want to have the Government run it?
  So I say to the distinguished Majority Leader, I think it is clear. 
If the American people look at the two plans, the prescription drug 
will be a plan that is much more favorable to seniors with what we 
offered, what we provided on the House floor, and I regret that the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) walked out on us.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
comments. If the gentleman would hold for a second, there is an old 
story that a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words. One of the 
things I think we should remember, today in America right now 70 
percent of our seniors have already gone into the private markets and 
purchased prescription drug coverage. They have shopped around. They 
have checked out what is available. They decided and they chose 
coverage that they are happy with. They do not want to lose it. They 
are content. They understand it. They appreciate it. They want to keep 
it.
  A year ago, President Clinton offered a plan that would be mandatory. 
``Go into my plan, forsake yours''; and the seniors rejected it.
  Now, my friends on the left, the liberals, Vice President Gore and 
others who want the government-run plan, will say about the seniors: 
well, we cannot leave them to their own devices to go in the 
marketplace and buy for themselves, because they cannot understand 
those plans. Yet 70 percent of them are happy with what they decided 
for themselves and do not want to be forced out of their plans.
  But I should say this to Vice President Gore, if he is concerned that 
today's seniors cannot understand what is available to them now, how 
then would he expect them to understand this nightmare, this 
bureaucratic nightmare? Every one of these little dashes, this horrible 
snake here cut into slices, every slice is a new, better Federal 
Government bureaucratic regulation.
  Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple from the left: they do not 
have to understand it. We decided it. They do not have a choice. They 
will not make a choice. They do not need to know. The Health Care 
Finance Agency will tell them what they are going to get.

  I have to say, I know the gentlemen here on this floor will be 
surprised by this, but I am over 60 years old. I am soon to be 65. I 
refuse to accept any agency of the Federal Government declaring me on 
that moment of my 65th birthday, ``Today Mr. Armey, you suddenly became 
senile. You do not need to understand anymore. We will take over your 
health care destiny.''
  I have to tell my colleagues if they do not run my health care 
destiny any better than they have been running the Department of 
Education, I am not trusting them. I would rather choose for myself, 
and I think most of America would.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, just one final comment. I do not know how 
soon the gentleman will be 65, but under the Gore plan, at age 64\1/2\, 
if the gentleman does not want to join at that time, or changes his 
mind later, he is out of luck because he has got to make his decision 
at 64\1/2\ to do this, or there is no other chance.
  The other point I want to make is that the Government will decide 
which drugs are and are not covered. If the people, like the gentleman 
from Texas, want to have drugs, the Government can decide it is too 
expensive; and they will tell him to go to another drug. So all the 
concerns we had about Mrs. Clinton's health care plan is coming back 
with this pharmaceutical drugs plan. I think the American people should 
understand that.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The 
bottom line is very simple. The plan we passed where they walked out, 
would not participate, gives choice. What the Vice President's plan 
gives is an ultimatum: join us now or never.
  We have here the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who was 
listening to my earlier remarks and wanted to come down and make a 
point about the Vice President's tax plan. I think it is a very good 
point, so I yield to the gentleman from California for that purpose. I 
also understand the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) wants to 
make a few comments as well.
  Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), the majority leader, yielding me this time. His earlier 
comments focused on our attempt to override the President's veto of the 
marriage tax penalty relief. In that legislation there were two primary 
components. One was relief for marriage tax penalty consequences, the 
other was an adjustment to the threshold at which earned income tax 
credits could be realized.
  In my district where we have a significantly higher or above the norm 
unemployment rate, we have a number of young people, a number of elder 
Americans who actually work for wages, hourly wages who would be 
eligible for the earned income tax credit if it had been adjusted for 
inflation over these past 8 years. But in fact just as the Democrats 
walked out of here back when we passed that bill, this Clinton 
administration has walked out on lower-income people for an adjustment 
in the earned income tax credit.
  The President's veto of the marriage tax penalty relief right here in 
this bill

[[Page H8300]]

also was a veto of an inflation adjustment to the level, the threshold 
at which the earned income tax credit would be eligible for. That veto 
cost a low-income family with two children $421 per year in terms of 
the earned income tax credit. That is real money.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman from California. That benefit denied 
by the Clinton veto was a benefit that would have accrued to the most 
low-income earners in America, not only all of my rich friends as they 
were discussing earlier.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) is a man of great insight 
on the budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, let me say I am going to invite the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) to come back next week for 
another such session and let him lead off with his good insight.

                          ____________________