[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 26695-26701]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 SAVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the left for 
their interesting perspective. Perhaps the reason we hear such ferocity 
and denial is because, as former President Reagan used to say, facts 
are stubborn things.
  I am joined this evening on the floor by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, who 
represents Savannah and its environs.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), I think maybe it would be a very beneficial 
thing, maybe, tomorrow night or the next time that we do actually have 
interaction in a debate, particularly about the spending situation that 
we are in.
  I find it, for example, atrocious that the party of the gentleman 
from North Dakota last year mischaracterized the statement 
intentionally of Newt Gingrich about Medicare. I find that absolutely 
appalling. The distinguished gentleman from North Dakota, to my 
knowledge, did not do that. I would have talked to him about it if he 
did.
  The other day on the House floor, a 1984 statement of ``Candidate 
Dick Armey'' was paraded out here saying ``Majority Leader Dick 
Armey,'' which he was not the majority leader in 1984. So on a lot of 
this rhetorical terrorism, I am with the gentleman from North Dakota 
and would certainly like to have a one-on-one discussion, a party-to-
party discussion.
  What I am very concerned about is we have the President who vetoed 
the Commerce-State-Justice bill tonight because he wants to put more 
money into the U.N. He vetoed foreign aid because he want to increase 
foreign aid. As I listened to the statements of the gentleman from 
North Dakota tonight, his group statement, as I understand, we seem to 
have agreement that there is no more money out there except to reduce 
spending or spend it smarter.
  So if we are all in agreement, although I do have a quote here from 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) that I am very concerned 
about that he said yesterday, not 1984, and not about the health care 
financing administration or anything like that; but the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) yesterday was making a statement on one of the 
Sunday talk shows about we should spend a little bit of Social 
Security. I am concerned about that.
  But the point really is that we are in this budget debate. If we all 
agree, and we did agree last week on the House floor, a vote of 419 to 
0, that we would not increase taxes. We did agree we were not even 
going to take it out of Social Security. There is no more surplus out 
there. Then we all need to say is, okay, where do we take the money out 
of if we do go along with the President and wanting to spend more money 
on foreign aid?
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a brief 
response to the thoughts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I think an ongoing dialogue, I would be 
happy to have one on the floor of the House in the context of special 
orders, would be beneficial. I would like the topics to include the 
short-term and longer-term framework for the program.
  Right now I think it can actually get tripped up in what amounts to 
kind of blurring accounting-like arguments to the American public. I 
think we have to discuss the long-term solvency of the program, even as 
we deal with the appropriations challenge that faces Congress.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Arizona will yield, 
I agree with that. Some Members who join the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) tonight, for example, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), was saying he is against investment of the funds. Well, that 
was the President of the United States, not necessarily the position of 
the Democrat House Members, but that was the President of the United 
States who was saying that, and only this weekend backed off on that 
under the rhetorical category we need to clarify where that was coming 
from.
  Another Member, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), said there has 
not been a bill introduced. I do not know what he would call the 
Archer-Shaw bill, which one of the other Members who was here tonight 
actually brought up himself, that that does address, I think, 75 years 
of Social Security solvency.
  Frankly, it is a very intellectual accountant-type approach to this. 
It is a very complex problem. It is a complex solution. But that might 
be something that my colleagues choose to talk about, too, that we 
could throw on the table because I am not necessarily on that bill 
myself. I do not know that the gentleman from North Carolina signed off 
on it. But it has a vision, and it has some seriousness to it. It is 
well worth deciding.

[[Page 26696]]


  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if I might 
make a final point, like I say, I think if the parties are in genuine 
competition in terms of which party best defends and strengthens Social 
Security, the American people win and win big.
  What we need to check each other on, I think, is whether there is 
legitimacy, factual legitimacy in the claims that we are making as we 
purport to strengthen Social Security. I would just say the bottom line 
for me is, do we preserve and lengthen the trust fund or do we not? 
Really, that has to be a key kept in our discussions even as we go 
forward in the last week of session.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, one 
thing that is so important to Social Security is that the actions of 
this Congress in the next 4 to 5 days as we try to wrap up the 
appropriations process, if we agree that there is no more money out 
there in terms of an operating surplus, except from Social Security, 
and we all agree we do not want to take that money, then we have to go 
back to the very hard work.
  I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I can promise 
my colleagues there has been a lot of cooperation on both sides of the 
aisle to try to spend the money wisely. It is extremely difficult to 
try to fund all the things we mutually agree on, education, health 
care, senior programs, environmental programs. Then, discouragingly 
enough, we have this bipartisan agreement signed by both parties, a lot 
of fanfare in 1997; and yet it cannot be supported on a one-partisan 
basis. It has got to be bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
yielding to me, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen on the other side of 
the aisle, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for spending some time here.
  I would, Mr. Speaker, call attention to the statement that appeared 
on the wires of the Associated Press on October 20, less than 1 week 
ago, of this year, and I would encourage, Mr. Speaker, those who may be 
viewing these proceedings through other matters perhaps might want to 
take a look at the easel in the well of the House.
  I will quote from the document right now: ``Privately, some Democrats 
say a final budget deal that uses some of the pension program surpluses 
would be a political victory for them.''
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I think, if we, in fact, end up, 
at the insistence of the President of the United States, raiding the 
Social Security Trust Fund to spend more and more money, while some in 
this chamber might consider that a political victory, Mr. Speaker, I 
must tell my colleagues that would be a defeat for all the American 
people.
  My friends on the left seem to be fixated on a historical argument; 
and it is simple, Mr. Speaker, to fall into the category of who shot 
John or who created the program. But I would submit to this chamber, 
Mr. Speaker, the question before us at this time in this place is not a 
question of who created Social Security. The question becomes who 
stands four-square for strengthening and preserving Social Security.
  I would recall, just a few months ago, 9 months to be exact, the 
President of the United States came to this chamber, stood at that 
podium and offered a budget plan that was very curious, because the 
President in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, said that he wanted to save 62 
percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I may not be the greatest mathematician, but what is 
left unsaid or what was not explicitly stated in the President's 
remarks during that State of the Union message was that he felt 
perfectly fine spending an additional 38 percent of the Social Security 
surplus on more government programs. Indeed, in that 70-plus-minute 
address, he outlined some 80 new initiatives in government spending.
  That, Mr. Speaker, brings to the floor and brings to the 
consciousness of the American body politic the fundamental debate. If 
one believes that one's money is better spent by Washington 
bureaucrats, if one believes that Washington ought to control more and 
more of the money one earns, if one believes that Washington and this 
vast bureaucracy that has grown over the last century is the be-all, 
end-all to solving one's problems at home, well, then, one perhaps 
would concur in that analysis.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues what I have heard time 
and again is exactly the opposite. Indeed, as Members of the new 
majority, we came here to change the way Washington works. Once again, 
facts are stubborn things.
  The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) championed the actions 
of 1993 and 1994. Need I remind this House, Mr. Speaker, that in the 
previous majority, there was a one-vote margin to enact the largest tax 
increase in American history? Again, facts are stubborn things. 
Included in that tax increase was an increase in taxation on Social 
Security recipients.
  So even as our friends tonight come to this floor and say they do not 
believe in raising taxes, recent history and their own rhetoric tonight 
suggests otherwise.
  Indeed, the minority leader and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) appeared yesterday on ABC's This Week. Mr. Speaker, I am 
aware that a lot of Americans were at church yesterday or enjoying time 
with their families and may not have seen this public affairs telecast, 
but let me quote what the House Minority Leader said: ``We really ought 
to spend as little of it,'' meaning the Social Security surplus. ``We 
really ought to try to spend as little of it as possible.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) who presumes and boasts that he believes he will become 
Speaker of the House in the 107th Congress, that is not good enough for 
the American people.
  From day one of my service in this institution, in enumerable town 
hall meetings across the width and breadth of the 6th Congressional 
District of Arizona, an area in square mileage almost the size of the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, now because of massive growth approaching 
almost 1 million residents, as next year's census will accurately 
reflect through a legitimate count of each and every citizen, what I 
have heard time and again from my constituents is that we need to stop 
the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The good news is, Mr. Speaker, we have taken steps in that direction. 
I do not blame the American people for being skeptical. I can 
understand, indeed, how sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that skepticism gives 
way to cynicism.
  But, again, facts are stubborn things. In the midst of the hue and 
cry and the sturm und drang and the agenda setting function of our 
friends in the fourth estate, commonly known as the media, perhaps more 
accurately reflected as the partisan press, came a story in the last 10 
days that was, quite frankly, ignored.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in this chamber 
to commend the collective attention of this House, my colleagues, and 
the American people to the findings of the Congressional Budget Office. 
Because again, facts are stubborn things.
  What the Congressional Budget Office discovered in counting receipts 
and outlays for fiscal year 1999 is that, for the first time since 
1960, when President Eisenhower, that great and good man, was ensconced 
in the executive mansion at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, for 
the first time since 1960, this Congress balanced the budget, generated 
a surplus of $1 billion, and did not touch one red cent of the Social 
Security funds to go for those expenditures.
  Having made that progress, amidst the skepticism and the doubt and 
the cynicism, dare we retreat? The easiest thing for Washington to do 
is reflected sadly in the remarks of the minority leader yesterday, the 
man who would be Speaker, to hear, sadly, his political boasts, is 
again a predilection toward spending.

                              {time}  2115

  Rather than joining with us, to say, Mr. Speaker, no means no, hands 
off

[[Page 26697]]

the Social Security trust funds, our friend from Missouri, the minority 
leader, says, ``Well, we really ought to try to spend as little of it 
as possible.''
  I thought it ironic to hear my good friend from Arkansas, in 
extolling the virtue of my other friend from North Dakota, speak of 
emergency spending on one hand, about the floods that devastated the 
upper Midwest 2 years ago, and somehow imply that emergency spending 
for the same type of environmental horrors and acts of nature that have 
befallen other Americans somehow does not count in the current 
budgetary scheme of things.
  There will always be emergencies. And to those who try to muddy the 
waters with talk of the Census, I would simply remind this House, Mr. 
Speaker, that it was this Director of the Census and this 
administration that wanted to willfully ignore a Supreme Court ruling 
that stipulated that we ought to actually uphold the Constitution, a 
unique concept, where the Constitution calls for the actual enumeration 
of American citizens. And, indeed, the designation of so-called 
emergency spending came from the fact that we had bureaucratic inertia 
in action and downright hostility to our supreme tribunal's assessment 
that the Constitution means what it says. But then again, sadly, that 
is nothing new.
  I am so pleased to be joined on the floor by two very capable 
colleagues, my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht), who joined me here in the 104th Congress in the change in 
majority status and governing status to our party; and in the well of 
the House by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who, in her 
short time here, elected in a special election in the tragedy of the 
death of our friend and colleague Steve Schiff, has come to this House 
and proven an effective and capable public servant with an incredible 
breadth of experience both in the military and in the pursuit of higher 
education.
  And I would gladly yield to my good friend from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I 
listened with interest to the discussion this evening, and to the 
comments of my colleague from North Dakota, many of which I agree with, 
we do need to look at Social Security over the long term. We also need 
to begin to draw the line in the sand this year, because we have the 
opportunity to do that for the first time this year.
  I wanted to call my colleagues' attention to a chart that was 
actually prepared by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), because 
I thought it was a good chart to explain where we are to folks who are 
interested in watching this nationally. We have had deficit spending in 
this country for 30 years, until last year. And the reason that we do 
not have deficit spending now is really a combination of things. One is 
a very strong economy. But there also must be a will in Washington, and 
it starts in this House, because all of the spending bills start here, 
to control Federal Government spending. A commitment to balance the 
budget in the same way that all of us at home have to balance our own 
checkbooks. It is that responsible approach to government spending that 
we are now close to completing here in Washington for the next fiscal 
year.
  I want to commend the President of the United States tonight for 
signing the defense bill. That defense bill turns the corner in 
restoring our national security. It includes a 4.8 percent pay raise 
for those on active duty. It will start the process of recruiting and 
retaining high quality military personnel. It will mean that we will 
begin replacing all of those spare parts that have been lost in 
expeditions overseas. We need to restore our national defense, and the 
defense appropriations bill begins to do that, and I want to commend 
the President for having signed it today.
  There are other bills that we still have not completed action on, and 
we will do so and sit down with the President and his advisers and work 
through each of these bills to make sure that we have a series of 
spending bills that adds up to no more than $592 billion, which is the 
total amount we have in the checking account for the next year. We have 
set aside another $115 billion or so that is Social Security money. 
That is the money we are putting in the IRA this year for our 
retirement.
  Every family knows that if they took the money they were supposed to 
put in their individual retirement account or that was supposed to be 
in their pension fund and they spent it this year, it would not be 
there when they retired. So we are making the commitment this year, 
because we finally are within shooting distance of being able to meet 
that commitment; to not touch retirement, we are not going to raise 
taxes, we are going to balance the budget, and we are going to 
emphasize education and national security. And within that context, I 
think we can come up with a very good budget blueprint.
  And I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
who, once again, points out that while there are all sorts of arcane 
notions and green eyeshades that one can apply to this, there is a very 
real human equation that comes to balancing the budget. And there is no 
mystery, because what goes on around the kitchen table for every 
American family is the basic essence of what we are trying to come to 
grips with here in Washington, D.C. And if it is good enough for the 
American family, it should be good enough for the Washington 
bureaucrats.
  With that, let me yield to my friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
the gentlewoman for joining us tonight to talk about our budget 
priorities.
  The gentleman from Arizona knows as well as I do what it was like 
coming here in the class of 1994. We were looking at, as my colleague 
will recall, the Congressional Budget Office told us in the spring of 
that year, when the President submitted his first budget in 1995 for us 
as Members of Congress, they told us that we could expect to see $250 
billion deficits well into the next century. And that was under the 
President's proposal.
  And basically what we said, as new Members of Congress, was that that 
was not acceptable; the idea that the Federal Government had to 
continue to spend more money than it took in, especially in good years. 
Now, we might understand, maybe we could make an excuse once in a while 
if there was a serious recession or a depression or a war, but in times 
of peace and prosperity, we just could not accept the idea that the 
Federal Government should continue to borrow more than it takes in year 
after year after year.
  And the scary result of this, and this is where it gets down to what 
the gentleman was talking about in terms of what is going to happen to 
the kids, it really meant that if we continued to borrow $250 billion, 
what the Congressional Budget Office and others said was that if 
Congress did not get serious about finally balancing the budget, what 
was going to happen was we were going to virtually guaranty our kids 
were going to have a lower standard of living. In fact, they told us 
that by the time our kids that are in junior high and high school 
today, by the time they reached my age, and I was born in 1951, they 
were going to be paying a tax rate of between 75 and 80 percent just to 
pay the interest on the national debt.
  Now, think about that. We were literally guaranteeing that our kids 
were going to have a much lower standard of living, because they would 
not have been able to buy a car, they would not be able to buy a house, 
because the tax system was going to take virtually everything they 
earned just to pay the interest on the national debt. We had reached a 
point where we had not begun to slow down this spending machine.
  And I want to talk a little about what we did as a member of the 
Committee on the Budget. And, frankly, we as Republicans are not very 
good sometimes for taking credit for what we have accomplished, but a 
lot of things have changed in this city. One of the most important was 
that there was sort of an assumption around this city that every year 
Federal spending would go up by 2, or 3, or maybe even 4 times

[[Page 26698]]

whatever the inflation rate was. I can remember when the Federal budget 
was growing at 8, 9, 10 percent. Well, we changed that. And what we did 
is we dramatically slowed the rate of growth in Federal spending.
  In fact, I think one of the most amazing statistics is this, and I 
will repeat it so our colleagues who may be watching in their offices 
do not miss this point. This year, for the first-time I think in my 
adult lifetime, not only have we now balanced the budget in fiscal year 
1999, without taking money from Social Security, which I think is an 
amazing accomplishment, because that has not happened since Dwight 
Eisenhower was President and Elvis was getting out of the Army, 40 
years ago, that is the first time that has happened, but an even more 
amazing statistic is that this year the Federal budget is going to grow 
at slightly more than 3 percent.
  That is an amazing thing. But what is even more amazing is when we 
realize that the average family budget this year will grow by about 
3\1/2\ percent. So, again, for the first time I think in my adult 
lifetime we have created a situation where the average family budget is 
growing at a faster rate than the Federal budget. And that is part of 
the reason that the budget is balanced today.
  Because I think people on Main Street and Wall Street began to 
realize that this Congress is serious about reforming welfare, of 
downsizing some of the Federal programs, of limiting the growth in 
total Federal spending, of limiting entitlements, and all of a sudden 
they said, if these guys are serious, real interest rates are coming 
down, and they did. And they said, if they are really serious and real 
interest rates come down, it means that more families will be able to 
afford a house, and a car, and maybe a dishwasher and other things, and 
the economy will be stronger. And it last has been.
  As a result, we have had revenues coming in. In fact, the gentleman 
may remember, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, when we 
talked about let us lower the capital gains tax rate by 30 percent. Let 
us take it from the maximum rate of 28 to 20 percent. Oh, some off 
friends on the left said that if we did that, that that was a tax cut 
for the rich and we would deprive the Federal government of all of this 
revenue. It is a tax cut for the rich, they said, which will blow a 
hole in the budget. That was their term. Does the gentleman remember 
that and what happened?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, of course, when we reduced the capital gains top 
rate, we actually saw that far from being in the catchy-chism of the 
left, a tax cut for the rich, what we did was empowered American 
citizens to take that money and invest it in new opportunities, in 
greater job growth, in new homes, and to use more of their hard-earned 
money the way they see fit instead of having Washington spend it. And 
the bottom line is this. In that whole method of scoring that the 
Federal Government utilizes, in stark contrast to the theoreticians who 
said it would be a drain on government revenue, we saw reaffirmed the 
basic principle that when the American people hang on to more of their 
hard-earned money, tax receipts to the Federal Government actually 
increase.
  More revenue comes to the government because more economic 
opportunity is empowered to take place. And that is what we have seen 
in reducing the top rate on capital gains taxes, because it freed up 
capital that otherwise would have remained dormant or would have gone 
into the coffers of the Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, it comes down to a very simple point, Americans 
know how to spend their money a lot smarter than we know how to spend 
it on their behalf. They get a full dollar's worth of value for every 
dollar they spend. We do not. We know that, and there has been study 
after study to show that.
  But we have made all this progress and a lot of people still do not 
believe it. I go out to my town hall meetings, and when I start talking 
about the fact that we finally have balanced the budget without using 
Social Security, I can almost feel the skepticism in their eyes. At one 
of my town hall meetings I said, ``You know what, I understand why you 
would not believe this.'' For 40 years, the American people have, in 
effect, been misled about what government can do and that borrowing is 
good and all of that. And they almost now believe that deficit spending 
at the Federal level is preordained; that it has to happen. So it will 
take some time before the American people start to really realize we 
are serious about balancing the budget; that we have balanced the 
budget without using Social Security, and, like crossing the Rubicon, 
we are not going to go back. We have made it very clear to our friends 
on the left here in Congress and to the people down at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue that we are not going to go back and raid Social 
Security. We are not going to balance the budget by raising taxes.
  And I might just add, we should make it very clear to the President 
that we are not going to let him shut down the government either. None 
of that has to happen. There is more than enough money in this budget. 
I think at the end of the day we will end up spending about $754 
billion. The Congressional Budget Office has said, if we limit the 
total Federal spending to $1754 billion, we will balance the budget 
without taking a penny of Social Security and we will not have to raise 
taxes, and we will not have to shut down the government.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And that is a lot of money. $1.754 trillion, almost $2 
trillion. The amount is astronomical. And the irony is, as my friend 
from Minnesota knows and, Mr. Speaker, we need to amplify again in this 
chamber this evening, as we are going through the appropriations 
process, trying to live within some fairly expansive means, $1.750 
trillion, the President of the United States chose to veto a foreign 
aid bill because he wants to spend an additional $4 billion on non-
Americans.

                              {time}  2130

  Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I find it ironic that the current 
President and the Vice President campaigned in 1992 on the slogan 
``putting people first.'' I thought the slogan implied putting the 
American people first. But, apparently, given trips to a variety of 
different continents and promises that really spawned cynicism, such as 
wiring schools on other continents for the Internet, using American tax 
dollars, let me just say while I am in the neighborhood on this, Mr. 
Speaker, I would certainly invite the President to the 6th 
Congressional District of Arizona.
  I can take him to any number of rural schools and schools on the 
reservations for which this administration added not one red penny in 
terms of impact to aid funds where the Constitution and treaty law 
stipulates that there is a clear, unequivocal role in the Federal level 
in educating the Indian children, in educating the children of military 
dependents, and yet to have those funds cut and still the promise of 
largess to non-Americans.
  The bottom line is and the shock is that the President vetoed the 
foreign aid bill, saying that he wanted to increase that spending by 30 
percent, by $4 billion. And the question becomes, Mr. Speaker, where 
can the President get that money? And under the current parameters, 
there is only one place he can go. You guessed it, the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I reject that sad and cynical notion that 
cannot help but breed the skepticism and cynicism. That money belongs 
to the American people. They paid it into that trust fund. It should 
not be spent on tin horn dictators or on utopian designs.
  And then tonight, even as we welcome the news, and let us give credit 
where credit is due, I am so glad the President of the United States 
signed the defense appropriations, which contains a long overdue pay 
raise for America's men and women in uniform, 12,000 of whom had to 
apply for food stamps for their children in a sorry spectacle to make 
ends meet. I welcome the fact the President signed that bill.
  But even as that has happened, there has been a veto or, we 
understand, the

[[Page 26699]]

pending veto of the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. 
Because, again, the President apparently thinks American money should 
not go to the American people or to programs for them. He would rather 
spend them on utopian designs that threaten our sovereignty in the 
United Nations.
  Let me suggest to this body, Mr. Speaker, and to the President of the 
United States that America's dues have been paid in full many times 
over, including in the latest adventure in the Balkans, not paid for 
when our Commander in Chief put American men and women and pilots in 
harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, someone has to be the adult here. ``No'' means ``no'' to 
adventurism and overspending. This common sense conservative Congress 
has held the line in that regard. And we invite the President, who, as 
we read the pundits and the prognosticators say that he is in search of 
a legacy, he joined us. It took three times for him to join with us on 
welfare reform, but we are certainly happy to share credit. Because, 
after all, in our constitutional Republic, when we pass legislation, we 
need the President's signature. He joined us on that.
  How truly ground breaking it would be, Mr. Speaker, if the President 
were to accept the invitation of the Speaker of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who stood at that podium leaving 
the Speaker's rostrum the day he was sworn in as the Speaker in the 
106th Congress and said to the American people, Mr. Speaker, we have 
reserved H.R. 1 for the President's plan to save Social Security.
  I heard my friends on the left in the preceding hour somehow forget 
about that, apparently. The invitation is still there. And we heard the 
President make some statements this weekend. As a member of the 
Committee on Ways and means, I know my colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), with his background on the Committee on the 
Budget, we would welcome the President at long last putting into 
legislative language what it is he, in fact, proposes to do. I am sure 
that the Committee on Ways and Means and the other appropriate 
committees of jurisdiction will hold hearings and will examine that. 
But there is just one other thing that happens that adds to the 
cynicism that we need to point out.
  Aside from some budget messages that are required by law, the last 
legislative initiative sent to this chamber from the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue came before my friend and I were in the Congress. 
It was a plan to socialize our health care. That is the last policy 
initiative that has come from this administration in legislative 
language.
  So I would say, Mr. Speaker, we invite the President to put his 
designs on paper in legislative language in H.R. 1. As our Speaker has 
said, certainly a man of honor, certainly a man of his word, that 
proposal will receive all due consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to something my 
colleague talked about in terms of one of the things that frustrated me 
about some of the comments of our friends on the left. They are saying, 
well, yes, sure, the Republicans are balancing the budget; but they are 
going to use some gimmicks.
  Well, in truth, I wish we did not have to do that. But let me explain 
some of the things we are thinking about doing. One is a 1.29 percent 
cut across the board in only discretionary spending. In other words, it 
will not affect Social Security, will not affect Medicare, will not 
affect the entitlement side of the budget, only in discretionary 
spending, 1.29 percent.
  Now, I know some of our friends say that, no, these agencies cannot 
absorb a 1.29 percent across-the-board cut in their agencies. But let 
me just tell them this. I represent a lot of farmers. Now, when we tell 
them that a Federal agency cannot tighten its belt slightly over 1 
percent, they do not even laugh because they are tightening their belts 
to the tune of 20, 30, and even 40 percent. So, I mean, do not tell me 
that the Federal agencies do not have 1 percent worth of fat in their 
budgets. That is outrageous. So that is one of the gimmicks they do not 
like.
  Another thing that we are thinking about doing is moving back one pay 
day, I think from the 30th of the month to the first of the month, to 
move us into the next fiscal year.
  Now, do I wish we were not going to do that? Absolutely. But if the 
choice is between those two things and stealing from Social Security, 
that is not even a close call. But let me explain and what makes me so 
angry about this and what we have been up against in the last several 
years.
  The gentleman mentioned military adventures. This administration has 
sent troops to more places in this world in the last 7 years than the 
last five Presidents put together. In fact, the little adventure in the 
Balkans, in Bosnia and Kosovo have already cost us over $16 billion.
  Now, historians also have to judge whether or not it has been worth 
it. But let us at least be honest with ourselves and compare that 
little adventure with what happened in the Gulf. Former President Bush 
went to all of our allies and said, listen, we have got a problem with 
Saddam Hussein. It is a big problem. It is a world problem; and if he 
is allowed to take over Kuwait and the oil fields, he is going to be 
even a bigger problem for everybody in the world.
  So we went to our Japanese allies and said, if you cannot send 
troops, will you send cash? And they did. And he went to some of our 
other allies around the world and they all ponied up. And at the end of 
the day, the war in the Gulf cost us almost nothing. It cost the 
taxpayers of the United States almost nothing.
  Compare that to what has happened in Kosovo. I will never forget we 
had a meeting when I first came here with the German foreign minister 
and the whole thing in Bosnia was starting to boil up, and I remember 
what the foreign minister told us. He said, at the end of the day, this 
is a European problem, and it should be solved by the Europeans. And I 
said, amen.
  But it was not long before it was obvious that the Europeans could 
not solve it. But do you know what at least they could do, because the 
economy of the European Union is now bigger than the economy of the 
United States, and yet we are supposed to carry 90 percent of the 
burden of the war in the Balkans? There is something wrong with that 
policy. I am not sure if there was even an attempt by this 
administration to go in and say, listen, we will help to solve the 
military problem there, we will provide the technology, we will provide 
the aircraft, we will provide the smart bombs, we will provide what it 
takes. But it would be nice if you guys would help provide some of the 
cash. But they did not.
  So what happened was the American taxpayers and Congress had to go 
out and help find the money, $16 billion.
  Well, we have done some juggling and we have taken from here and we 
have taken from that and we reshuffled the numbers. Because we always 
kept our eye on the ball. The idea is to reduce the rate of growth in 
Federal spending to allow the American people to keep more of what they 
earned and let the economy grow and everything will take care of 
itself. That is what we have done.
  But the President, as my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) says, 
has not really been there to help us solve some of these problems. Now, 
we need his help right now. We have made it very clear that we want to 
work with the White House, but we said certain things are off the 
table.
  Last week we had a vote on taxes because the President said, at least 
behind closed doors, well, part of the problem could be solved if we 
just raised some taxes and some fees and raised cigarette taxes; and 
there was a proposal from the White House. It said, you know, in the 
budget message here are some taxes and fees you could raise. So last 
week the Congressional leaders brought it to a vote. And how many votes 
did it get?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report the outcome of that 
vote, again something that, sadly, many of our friends in the media 
chose not to emphasize in their reportage of

[[Page 26700]]

the events here on Capitol Hill. And I am grateful for the time 
tonight.
  In answering the question of my friend, the President's plan to 
increase taxes, as detailed in his budget message, received no votes. 
The vote was 419 to 0 to reject the President's plan for revenue, which 
his economic advisor, Gene Sperling, on many national television shows 
in many messages to this Congress said was part and parcel of the tough 
choices needed to solve our budgetary dilemma. And yet not one Member 
of the minority, even those who spoke so glowingly of the largest tax 
increase in American history, not one of them voted for that package of 
new taxes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, so what we have said unanimously 
everybody in the House said we are not going to raise taxes to balance 
the budget. That is unanimous. Everybody said that, Republicans, 
Democrats. And we have one independent. He voted no, as well. All of us 
said we are not going to raise taxes.
  Now, I think there is almost unanimous feeling here in the House, we 
are not going to raid Social Security. All right, once we have decided 
that and we have taken those two things off the table, we come back to 
the last conclusion. At some point we are going to have to make some 
adjustments, we are going to have to do an across-the-board cut, or we 
are going to have to do whatever it takes to make certain that we live 
with $1754 billion. Okay?
  Now, that is where we are. We are not going to raid Social Security. 
We already decided unanimously we are not going to raise taxes. So, Mr. 
President, please work with us. If one message should be coming from 
the Congress down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, please sit 
down and work with us. We want to work this out and we are not going to 
let you shut down the Government.
  There is absolutely no need this year for a Government shutdown. 
Almost half the bills have now have been signed by the President. There 
are only a couple of them left outstanding that I think where there are 
serious differences of opinion. And that is part of the process. We 
should have differences of opinion. The President has some priorities. 
The Senate has some priorities. I have some priorities. You have some 
priorities. At the end the day, you work those out. Those can all be 
worked out. But you have to first agree how big the pie is going to be 
and how big the parameters of the debate are.
  We are not going to raid Social Security. We are not going to raise 
taxes. We not going to let the President shut down the Government if we 
can at all stop it. Everything else is negotiable.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
his comments. I think he has succinctly and forthrightly expressed the 
sentiment of the majority in the House.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would implore our chief executive to understand 
that there are different priorities, but one legacy he dare not be 
tempted by would be the notion of a political stunt to shut down this 
Government with all the challenges we face. Because in stark contrast 
to times gone by, certainly one as adroit and skilled in politics knows 
that going to the well once too often can result in the wrong type of 
legacy.
  I wanted to pick up on a comment my friend made earlier. The 
gentleman from Minnesota is quite right, what we are proposing and what 
we will bring to the floor in short order is an effort to trim the 
waste, fraud, and abuse that has run rampant throughout our system. We 
have been stunned by the examples.
  My colleagues are familiar with the $8.5 million in food stamps sent 
to 26,000 people who had died; 26,000 decedents receiving $8.5 million 
in food stamps; the $75,000 in Social Security insurance payments that 
went to death-row inmates.
  I can recall when I first got here and perhaps my friend in his days 
and service on the Committee on the Budget, when I first came to 
Congress in the 104th Congress I was honored to serve on the Committee 
on Resources. Government always gives a fancy name to different jobs. 
What we call an accountant in the private sector is called an Inspector 
General, Washington D.C.

                              {time}  2145

  So, the Inspector General from the Interior Department had come down 
and was seated alongside the director at that time of the National Park 
Service, and, Mr. Speaker, you will be amazed even today to hear this 
story because time cannot erase or dilute its irony and its shame. The 
accountant for the Interior Department, the National Park Service, said 
the Park Service could not account for over $70 million in tax money 
appropriated and spent by the Park Service.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if that had happened in the private sector, some 
folks would have found themselves with new accommodations based on the 
fact that they would be in violation of criminal law. As it stood at 
that point in time and sadly still stands, the director of the Park 
Service at that time was subject to a tongue lashing that appeared on 
tape-delay fashion on C-Span, and that was it.
  Now I tried to work with my colleagues, mindful of the fact that the 
Committee on Ways and Means has unique interaction with the Committee 
on the Budget as we look at budget reform to find a way to weed out 
those culprits administratively wasting and abusing the money of the 
American people, American tax dollars; and believe me, there is no way 
that eliminating and reducing by a little over 1 percent can jeopardize 
programs especially when we make sure, and this is something else that 
the American people need to hear because of the smear and fear tactics 
so often we see in this chamber, and sadly elsewhere around this town 
and in the partisan press, not one penny of those reductions will come 
from mandatory spending, spending that goes to the truly needy, those 
who expect it. It will not come out of food stamps, it will not come 
out of Social Security, it will not come out of veterans' pensions, it 
will not come out of Medicaid. We will protect those programs for the 
truly needy. But for the truly greedy, those in this town who fail to 
account for the people's money, those in this town who would use that 
money for their own personal comfort and be less than good stewards of 
the taxpayers' dollars, Mr. Speaker, they need to be put on notice that 
there will be a change.
  Now, we can expect the hue and cry given the culture of this town and 
the atmospherics at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, but, Mr. 
Speaker, I must tell you this. Whether it is a farmer in Minnesota or a 
rancher in Arizona or an American family around the kitchen table 
trying to make decisions on its own spending priorities, Americans 
instinctively know that this bloated bureaucracy can get by on 1 
percent less if it means we restore the sanctity and preserve the 
sanctity proven this fiscal year in keeping our hands off the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. You mentioned something about the waste and 
mismanagement, and you earlier talked about foreign aid.
  One of the most outrageous examples that we heard about in the last 
month or so was that there are reports, and I think fairly well 
documented reports now, that of the foreign aid and the IMF money that 
went to Russia we believe as much as 10 billion, that is with a ``B,'' 
billion dollars, has been looted by the former KGB agents who now run 
the Mafia in Russia. In fact, much of that money has been laundered 
through New York banks.
  In fact to make it more interesting, just a couple of weeks ago there 
was several people finally to at least some credit of this Justice 
Department, or at least some enterprising people working out in New 
York, that were actually indicted. So during the same week in which we 
now have growing confirmation that billions of dollars in foreign aid 
has been expropriated and looted in places like Russia, the President 
says, Well folks, we need another $4 billion in foreign aid.
  Now I want to come back to the point now. Our leadership has looked

[[Page 26701]]

at several options of how we close the gap so that we make certain that 
we do not take a penny from Social Security, which I think everyone in 
this body wants to live by, and some of them say, Well, we don't like 
that plan.
  The answer simply is, well then let us hear your plan? What is your 
plan? Here is the question that the members of the working press in 
this city ought to be asking the people down at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue every single day: What is your plan? You do not 
like the plan of the folks up on Capitol Hill? Fine, exercise a little 
bit of leadership. You help them and help America. You show us how we 
can balance the budget because it can be done.
  In fact, every American family knows this; and, Mr. Speaker, let me 
tell you a story.
  Every Sunday Americans sit around their kitchen tables and their 
coffee tables, and you know what they do? They clip coupons from the 
Sunday newspaper. Every Sunday Americans clip something like 80 million 
coupons from the Sunday paper, worth an average of 53 cents, and that 
is how American families balance their budget every week. Is it so much 
to ask for those families to say to us: listen, if it means cutting the 
Federal bureaucracy 1.3 percent, you should do it. Or if you want to 
take money from one department, and shift it and do a few other things, 
we do not care. But I think what the American people are saying, the 
ones who have finally realized that, yes, we have balanced the budget 
without using Social Security, once you finally accomplish that goal, 
do not go back. You finally have a chance to chart a new course 
because, and I want to close on this, Mr. Speaker, and then I will 
yield back to the gentleman from Arizona.
  But he also mentioned something very important, because we talk in 
terms of $1754 billion, and we talk about balancing the budget, and we 
talk in terms of numbers and percentages, and we begin to sound like 
accountants. But at the end of the day this is not just an accounting 
exercise. It really is a very, very important exercise in democracy; 
and what it is about, and I mentioned earlier that I was born in 1951. 
You know the interesting thing is there were more kids born in 1951 
than any other year. We are the peak of the baby boomers, and I am 
fortunate. Both of my parents are still living. They are both on Social 
Security; they are both on Medicare. And I have three kids, and the 
oldest two of them now are basically on their own, sort of on their 
own.
  But this is all about generational fairness because on one hand in 
terms of making certain that every penny of Social Security only goes 
for Social Security, on one hand what we are doing is we are saying to 
our parents we are going to make certain that you have a more secure 
retirement, and I think we need to do that.
  But by balancing the budget without using Social Security we are also 
saying to all the baby boomers and working Americans that we are going 
to have a stronger economy because we are going to have lower interest 
rates. In a stronger economy a rising tide lifts all boats, but on the 
other end of that generational fairness what we are really saying to 
our kids is we are going to guarantee that you will have a chance at 
the American dream and a better standard of living.
  So it is about securing a brighter future for our kids on one hand, 
it is about a more prosperous, stronger economic future for the people 
who are working currently, and it is also about securing a brighter 
retirement for our parents. So this is not just an accounting exercise, 
this is about generational fairness; and now that we finally reached 
the promised land, we must not turn back, and the message is clear to 
the American people, to our colleagues and to the people at the other 
end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  We will not raise taxes. We will not raid Social Security. We will 
not let the President shut down the government unilaterally. We are 
going to do everything we can to stop him. But everything else is 
negotiable.
  We want to be reasonable. We want to be flexible. We are willing to 
work within those perameters. If the President will join us, we can 
have a budget agreement by the end of this week, we can all go home 
next week, and frankly the American people will be better off.
  Thanks so much for taking this time, and thanks for letting me join 
you.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Minnesota who offers the 
common sense perspective of the upper Midwest and just puts in everyday 
terms what is absolutely so practical and so apparent, and he is quite 
right. What I call the human equation is at stake here, to make sure 
the truly needy have a safety net, but also to make sure that money 
masquerading as a safety net does not become a hammock for the greedy 
and for those who have been wastrels and less than good stewards of tax 
dollars from the American people.
  I would note this, Mr. Speaker. In other quarters in this town there 
are those who are especially sensitive to polling numbers, and indeed 
there are stories of some folks being out in the field nightly polling 
to determine how they will lead. I happen to think leadership is 
leading first and then seeing if the message and the course of action 
is responded to by the American people, and that is why I bring poll 
numbers to this floor tonight, that I think many in this town, 
especially in the administration, knowing how sensitive many of its 
members are to polling questions and polling numbers might be.
  This is a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll of 904 registered voters 
conducted on October 20 and 21. The question is: Who do you trust to 
make the best decisions on budget issues? Mr. Speaker, 56 percent of 
the American people say they trust the Congress on budgetary issues. 
Twenty-one percent say they trust the President.
  I would simply suggest, Mr. Speaker, knowing that there are those 
especially sensitive to those types of numbers, the reason I quote them 
here is to reaffirm what my colleague from Minnesota has said. We 
understand that reasonable people can disagree, but it is highly 
unreasonable for those in this town to be tempted by the allure of a 
political stunt to try and shut down the Government hoping that there 
will be an amen chorus from the partisan press that would somehow sway 
the American people. That is a gambit that leads to a legacy even more 
infamous than what already exists.
  In a positive vein we congratulate the President for signing the 
defense appropriations bill that means that a much needed pay raise for 
our men and women in uniform will at long last be realized. We would 
ask the President to reconsider his notion of taking $4 billion of the 
Social Security Trust Fund to spend on non-Americans in terms of 
increased foreign aid, and we would ask the President to re-evaluate 
his plan to veto the Commerce State Justice bill because he wants more 
money going to international organizations that at the very least 
attempt to muddy our sovereignty and our unique rights as a nation 
state in the free world.
  So I would simply say again we have stopped the raid on Social 
Security. We have crossed, made that incredible stride for the first 
time since 1960. Though the message has gotten short shrift in the 
reportage of this town, we dare not retreat. Having stopped the raid, 
let us not renew it. We would invite the President, Mr. Speaker, and 
the minority leader who only yesterday on national television said that 
it was his goal, and let me quote him again; I want to be fair about 
this. He said, quote: ``We really ought to try to spend as little of it 
as possible.''
  To change that point of view, join with us; stop the raid on Social 
Security, accurately protect America's priorities, and let us work as 
men and women of goodwill to make sure the raid has been stopped once 
and for all. That is the promise of the new day. That is the pledge we 
make in a spirit of bipartisanship.

                          ____________________