[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25699-25700]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS VETO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there was not time allowed in the debate 
on foreign aid, and I wanted to make some comments, and so I will do so 
now.
  First of all, the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), made a statement that more 
money was available to Ronald Reagan for foreign aid. Well, that is 
because the Democrats controlled spending. There was always more money 
available, without any regard to a balanced budget. Ronald Reagan 
decreased taxes, he did not increase taxes like the President plans to 
do, $74 billion worth. And he only had control of the Senate for one 
term. The Democrats controlled Congress, where spending is originated 
and voted for.
  After Ronald Reagan, the Democrats continued spending with no regard 
for a balanced budget. All additional revenue that the tax decrease 
brought in, they spent. And that was not enough, they raided the Social 
Security Trust Fund and used it as a slush fund to pay for such things 
as welfare, that was wasted in many cases. There are many families that 
need welfare, but not the 40 percent that was eliminated, and now the 
President lauds, after he vetoed our bill twice.
  They are trying to do the same thing now that they did when they had 
control of the House, spend more than the balanced budget. To do so, 
they have to take it out of Social Security or the President has to 
identify where he would take the money from. He will not do that, 
because in each of his budgets he has said, I will make cuts in the 
fifth year, when he would not even be here. And then he refuses to tell 
where those cuts would come, except for defense, because he knows it 
would make people mad at him.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said that the Democrats did 
more for Social Security. I think that is a joke. In 1993, they 
increased the taxes on Social Security. For 30 years they stole the 
money out of the Social Security Trust Fund. There is zero money in 
that fund, but they will say, oh, there are notes in there and they are 
guaranteed. But they are not backed up with gold; they are only backed 
up by the U.S. Government. And the only way to make those Social 
Security notes valuable is to put the money in there. When there is a 
surplus, the money can be put back in there. The Republicans have said 
we are going to put a lockbox on it and make it a trust fund not a 
slush fund, but yet the President wants to take the money out.
  Remember, in 1993, he not only increased the taxes on Social 
Security, he increased the taxes on the middle income. I think using 
the term middle class is a terrible term to use. There are no middle-
class citizens in this country. They may be low income, they may be 
middle income or high income, but yet the Democrat leadership continues 
to use class warfare, and I think it is wrong.
  We are not going to take the dollars from Americans, but yet the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said that the billions of 
dollars is just a little bit, a good investment. Well, that little bit 
we already funded Africa

[[Page 25700]]

at the same level, but they want more. They want more money not for 
American citizens but for foreigners, out of the Social Security Trust 
Fund, and I think that is wrong. The President vetoed it. They also 
want back the majority, but I think it is going to backfire.
  The President wants more spending for Africa, but yet the President, 
in his trip this spring to Africa, took 1,700 staffers and press, 
1,700, at a cost of $47 million. Africa would have loved the $47 
million extra and let the President stay home.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) quoted the Constitution 
of the United States. Well, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is our 
libertarian. I do not agree with everything he says, but he, if 
anybody, is a constitutionalist on spending. He votes against almost 
everything. But the Democrats vote against the Constitution every 
single day, in my opinion.
  Remember when the President said he wanted 100 percent for Social 
Security in his address before Congress and the American people? Well, 
3 weeks later he came back and said, no, 62 percent, and then 15 
percent for Medicare. And what he does not tell us, and why we do not 
trust this President, is because he takes $100 billion out of Social 
Security and Medicare. He increases taxes $74 billion, and he spends it 
for brand new social spending. Not even the old social spending, new 
social spending. And we said no, Mr. President, we are going to put 
that money in a lockbox, not spend it, we are going to accrue those 
savings to protect Social Security and Medicare forever.
  But yet now the President wants to take the money out. And we are 
saying absolutely not. We are going to send this bill back to the 
President. We are not going to spend money unless the President 
identifies where he wants those cuts to come from or unless he spends 
Social Security money.
  I want my colleagues to look up WWW.DSAUSA.ORG, Democrat Socialists 
of America. They list the progressive caucus. There are 58 Democrats 
listed under the Democrat Socialists of America.

                          ____________________