[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 29863-29870]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            STOP 39-YEAR RAID ON SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I have come here to join several of my 
colleagues in talking and speaking out on stopping the 39-year raid on 
the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the President 
have come upon the historic opportunity to balance the budget without 
spending one penny of seniors' Social Security Trust Fund. For nearly 4 
decades, the raid on Social Security has gone on, taking over $850 
billion in Social Security funds and spending them on unrelated 
government programs.
  Mr. Speaker, 168 days ago, just over 5 months, this House passed my 
Social Security lockbox legislation by an overwhelming 416 to 12 vote. 
The passage of this Social Security lockbox legislation showed that 
House Republicans and Democrats agree that Social Security dollars 
should not be spent on programs unrelated to Social Security. Congress 
made the commitment to stop the raid on Social Security.
  Shortly later, however, President Clinton joined our bipartisan 
effort and

[[Page 29864]]

committed the administration to protecting Social Security. That was 
over 5 months ago.
  Unfortunately, I am afraid, today is a different story. While House 
Republicans are continuing to honor our steadfast commitment to protect 
seniors' Social Security, I have great concerns about the recent 
actions of the Clinton-Gore White House and congressional Democrats.
  The current budget situation requires that every increase in spending 
be offset. Currently, if spending is not offset, it is drawn directly 
from seniors' Social Security dollars. Over the past few weeks, 
President Clinton has vetoed five appropriations bills because he says 
they do not spend enough. Yet, the President has not offered a single 
solid proposal to pay for those spending increases. It appears the 
President may be willing to spend Social Security dollars to pay for 
his spending projects.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress and the President are faced with a very clear 
choice: ask Federal agencies to save one penny, just one penny of a 
dollar in waste, fraud, or abuse so we can protect Social Security or 
give in to the big Washington spenders and raid seniors' Social 
Security dollars.
  Amazingly enough, there are still people in Washington that do not 
believe the Federal Government can tighten its belt by just 1 percent. 
But the American people know the truth. A recent poll conducted by the 
National Taxpayers Union revealed, let me show my colleagues this poll, 
revealed that over 84 percent of Americans believe that there is not 
just 1 percent waste in government, but they felt there was at least 5 
percent of waste in unneeded spending in the Federal spending.
  Surely, if 84 percent of the American people believe that there is at 
least 5 percent of waste, the President and the Congress can work 
together to find just 1 percent or one penny of waste in order to 
protect Social Security dollars so many seniors, so many seniors rely 
upon.
  Let me present my colleagues with some examples of waste, fraud, and 
abuse that we have found in the Federal Government. The National Park 
Service spent $1 million to build an outhouse at Glacier National Park 
in Montana. The expense was explained by the outhouse's remote 
location. The outhouse is located nearly 7 miles from the nearest road, 
and it took hundreds of horse trips and more than 800 helicopter drops 
to get the construction materials to the site.
  Another one, erroneous Medicare payments that waste over $20 billion 
annually. Another, the Department of Education maintains a $725 million 
slush fund, which it cannot account for. The Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, HUD, estimated it spent $857 million in 1998 in 
erroneous rent subsidy payments in fiscal year 1998, about 5 percent of 
the entire program budget.
  Let me close with this for a moment, and that is delays in disposing 
of more than 41,000 HUD properties cost taxpayers more than $1 million 
per day.
  These are all examples of how Congress and the President can find one 
penny, 1 percent out of a dollar in waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all in this together. We want to work with the 
President and Vice President Gore to find this 1 percent so that we can 
protect Social Security dollars. We will not, however, under any 
circumstances, allow the Clinton-Gore administration to dip into the 
Social Security Trust Fund to pay for more government spending.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), who serves with me on the Committee on Ways and Means which 
has jurisdiction over Social Security.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me. He outlines the parameters of what should be a common 
sense, straightforward decision. Because in a government that has grown 
so large, so overreaching, so all encompassing, we have heard Mr. 
Speaker, from various media outlets of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  One television network regularly runs a feature entitled ``The 
Fleecing of America.'' Another television network runs a franchise and 
a report entitled ``It Is Your Money.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is precisely it. The money does not belong to the 
Federal Government. It belongs to the American people. What we say is 
rather straightforward and I believe fraught with common sense. Because 
I hold here a penny, made with good Arizona copper, no doubt, and what 
we are simply saying, Mr. Speaker, is that, when it comes to budgetary 
decisions, just as families have to make those decisions to find 
savings, and, indeed, I happen to notice in the Arizona Republic on 
Sunday over $50 worth of coupons that my wife Mary sat down and went 
through to realize savings, if it is good enough for America's 
families, why is it not good enough for Washington bureaucrats?

                              {time}  2130

  Why can we not find those savings of one penny out of every dollar of 
discretionary spending? That is the challenge that confronts us as we 
work to achieve what is constitutionally required of the Congress of 
the United States, to work with the executive to finally determine the 
amounts spent in the budgetary process and to live within our means.
  Now, we have made progress. That is the good news, Mr. Speaker. 
Because at the podium behind me here 11 months ago the President of the 
United States came to deliver his State of the Union message, and in 
that speech he proposed to save 62 percent of the Social Security Trust 
Fund for Social Security, which a quick check of mathematics would 
imply, and what was not articulated that night but subsequently 
outlined in more programs, the President wanted to spend 38 percent, 
almost 40 percent of the Social Security funds on new government 
spending, new Washington programs. And we are pleased that through our 
effort of cheerful persistence, Mr. Speaker, we were able to persuade 
the President of the United States to truly join us in a program to 
save Social Security first and agree that 100 percent of the Social 
Security funds should be spent on Social Security.
  Now, that is scarcely a news flash to those of us who serve in the 
Congress of the United States. Indeed, as my colleague from California 
and as my good friend from Texas who will join us here momentarily will 
attest, that is something we have heard from our constituents in town 
hall meetings since we have come to the Congress of the United States.
  And even as the President has agreed with us on that firm foundation, 
and we are glad he could come around to our way of thinking, we should 
also point out the good news that the media reported, although it was 
given scant attention, and we cannot articulate it enough, and that is 
the folks who do the estimates, the calculations, for fiscal year 1999, 
sharpened their pencils, got out their calculators, took a look at the 
receipts coming into the Federal Government via taxation and other 
means, took a look at the expenditures and, Mr. Speaker, the American 
people should understand this because it is a measure of how far we 
have come in a little under 5 years with a new majority in the Congress 
of the United States, the budgeteers found for the first time since 
1960, when I was 2 years old, when a great and good man named Dwight 
David Eisenhower lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and served as 
President of the United States, for the first time since 1960, this 
government operated within its means to the tune of a balanced budget 
without dipping into Social Security revenues to meet obligations of 
the government.
  Moreover, there was a true surplus. Now, what do I mean by that? 
Well, I mean there was a surplus over and above the money set aside for 
Social Security, a surplus to the tune of $1 billion. And in that 
process we have also retired billions of dollars of debt, and we will 
do so again this year.
  But, my colleagues, it is really a simple process. I mentioned 
President Eisenhower. Ike had a favorite term, Mr. Speaker, when things 
seemed needlessly complex. President Eisenhower would refer to 
``sophisticated nonsense.'' And a lot of the time here in

[[Page 29865]]

Washington, with all due respect to my friends at the State Department, 
and I think I know why they call the location Foggy Bottom, but apart 
from diplomacy it also works in terms of economics. Sometimes we get 
things way too complicated and we have a battle of acronyms; CBO, OMB, 
GNP, all these different terms. My colleague from California offers the 
solution in the spirit of President Eisenhower, in the spirit of common 
sense, folks on both sides of the aisle and across the political 
spectrum, because again he says let us take a look at the 1 percent 
solution. One penny of savings out of every dollar of discretionary 
spending.
  It ensures that we keep a promise to today's retirees and to future 
generations, because now that we have established the guidelines and 
achieved what had not been achieved since 1960, and that is walling 
off, not using Social Security funds in the general revenue, balancing 
the budget over and above that, we dare not retreat at this point. And 
so we say let us save one penny out of every dollar of discretionary 
spending.
  Now, again, I mentioned the work of several different television 
networks, several different newspapers, and magazine articles that talk 
about government waste. And Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence and the 
obvious modesty of the gentleman from California, I would simply call 
the attention of this House and the collective attention of the 
American people, who may join us in hearing these words, to the efforts 
of my colleague from California on the Committee on Ways and Means with 
reference to understanding who deserves Social Security payments and 
how to protect the program for retirees.
  My colleague from California (Mr. Herger), in his efforts on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, introduced legislation that would make 
sure that felons behind bars would not receive Social Security 
payments. They have a place to sleep, three meals a day. Now, granted 
they do not have their freedom, but why on earth would they receive 
Social Security payments? And initially the budgeteers said, well, 
there will be a few million dollars of savings. Through the efforts of 
my colleague from California, who brushed away the sophisticated 
nonsense and took a look at the basic issues confronting Social 
Security and payments to felons behind bars, the Social Security 
Administration found something both profound and, I daresay, profane.
  The Social Security Administration ran the numbers: $3.46 billion. To 
use the proper mathematical terms, $3,460,000,000 in SSI payments, 
Social Security payments, would illegally go to prisoners over a 5-year 
period, including a serial killer who was receiving $80,000 in Social 
Security disability while he was on death row. My good friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), from California made an 
important first step to wall that off and to save money, and he is 
working for more commonsense legislation to completely wall that off. 
Because that money should not go to convicted felons. That money should 
go to people who have paid into the program who are law-abiding 
citizens who have played by the rules.
  And that is a demonstration of where there are savings to be 
realized. And, Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people, 
Republicans, Democrats, and independents instinctively understand. 
Because we could talk, as the President of the United States did in a 
previous visit when he uttered the famous phrase ``The era of big 
government is over,'' and we could debate that; but, Mr. Speaker, let 
me redefine what we should be about. The era of good government should 
begin, in this place, at this time, with Members of both parties 
working to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse that sadly has grown 
rampant in a government of this size.
  One other note, and I see our colleague from Colorado joins us, and I 
am so happy to see my friend from Texas, and perhaps my friend from 
Colorado could expound upon this, because he and my colleague from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Hoekstra), went down to the Education Department, where Governor 
Dick Riley, an old friend of mine, former Governor of South Carolina, 
Cabinet Secretary for the Department of Education, said that there was 
no waste in the Department of Education.
  And yet, and yet, when we check what goes on in the Department of 
Education, and understand that it is our philosophy that dollars should 
end up in the classroom helping teachers teach and helping children 
learn, but right now, sadly, the Department of Education, as near as we 
can calculate, maintains a $725 million slush fund, and folks at the 
Department of Education cannot account for its use. Indeed, there is no 
way we understand, for the Inspector General, which is, Mr. Speaker, 
the fancy name for the accountant who would audit these things, the 
Department of Education's books are unauditable. The irony, of course, 
is that simple accountancy and mathematics is a basic skill. One would 
hope those engaged in education would understand that here in 
Washington. But that is yet another curious example, and examples 
abound.
  But again it comes back to a very simple notion. To really maintain 
the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund, to make sure we do not 
dip into it, it comes down to this simple notion: Let us save a penny 
for every dollar of discretionary spending. Because, Mr. Speaker, in 
the final analysis, a penny saved is retirement secured.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank my good friend from Arizona for his profound 
statements. Earlier the gentleman from Arizona was mentioning how far 
we have come in just the last 5 years with the new Republican Congress. 
I remember well, when I was first elected back in 1986, and up until 
1994, I wondered whether I would ever see a balanced budget. We were 
looking at $200 billion and $300 billion budget deficits. Serving as a 
Member of the Committee on the Budget, they were projected to go and 
actually increase in the years to come.
  We have reversed that, since the new Congress was elected, the new 
Republican Congress. Now we are not only balancing the budget, but we 
are now, for the first time in 39 years, on the verge of not spending 
Social Security.
  It is interesting. We are so close. And I do not know why this issue 
is so controversial with the White House, with the Clinton-Gore 
administration. We are talking about one penny. We are that close. But 
let me just read some comments from different officials in the White 
House on what their response was to just cutting one penny out of the 
dollar.
  By the way, we showed earlier the National Taxpayers' Poll that was 
done just last week that indicated not only does the American public 
believe we can consult one penny out of a dollar, 84, almost 85 percent 
believe that we should be able to cut at least 5 cents out of the 
dollar. But yet let me read what some of the comments are from some 
members of the Clinton administration.
  When the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt was asked on 
Tuesday, October 27 of this year, if there is no more waste in his 
department, his response was, ``You have got it exactly right.'' In 
other words, ``Is there any more waste in your department?'' ``You've 
got it exactly right.''
  Another comment from the Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder on 
October 26 as well, when he was asked if the administration's position 
is ``We should not reduce at all the size of the Federal budget.'' His 
response was, ``That would certainly be the view of the 
administration.'' In other words, should we not reduce at all? He is 
saying that would be the view of the Clinton-Gore administration.
  And then the last one here, the White House spokesman a day later, on 
October 27, Joe Lockhart, when asked why dipping into Social Security 
is even listed as a choice, his response was, ``Listen, if you look at 
the budget that Congress has produced over the last 15 or 20 years, 
they have every year dipped into that.'' In other words, that was his 
reason. Just because we did it before, we are going to do it again.
  We are talking about one penny out of a dollar of fraud, abuse and 
waste. And this is such an opportune time to be talking about this and 
for the American public to be aware. Because our

[[Page 29866]]

negotiators right now, our House negotiators and Senate negotiators, 
are working with the White House right as we speak this evening and 
trying to negotiate one penny out of the dollar, and they have been 
turning us down.

                              {time}  2145

  So I would like to urge all our listeners, all our taxpayers out in 
America, all of those who do tighten their belts in their own families, 
businesses who tighten their belts, please contact House Democrats, 
Senate Democrats, the President, Vice President Gore and let them know 
that you think that they can, at least, cut a penny.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
yielding.
  I heard the debate going on, and I came out of my office. Not only 
are the colleagues who are here, like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) are here, 
trying to talk about what is going on, because just a few feet from 
this House floor, our negotiators are busy trying to hammer out a deal 
that, once again, is good not just for the American worker and not just 
for the American family, but for the taxpayer.
  It is the taxpayer that we, as Republicans, must remember the most. 
That is what brought me to Washington, D.C., in 1994 when I ran for 
Congress. I signed that wonderful document called the Contract With 
America. And the Contract with America was a document for all Americans 
and mostly the taxpayers to see that one party was going to stand up 
and talk about the things that were important for generation after 
generation.
  The things that we talked about in the Contract with America 
essentially boil themselves down to these few points: number one, we 
were going to balance the budget. We were going to do something that 
had not been done in Washington since we first placed a man on the Moon 
in 1969.
  We were not only going to balance the budget, but we were going to 
make sure that we took power away from Washington, D.C., and placed it 
back at home, placed it back at home where people, like myself, as a 
non-Member of Congress, a person who got up and went to work every day 
had a wife, a family, kids lived in a neighborhood, went to church, and 
worked not only in my neighborhood but all across their communities to 
make things better; and we decided that we were going to let people at 
home make decisions. And lastly, we decided that we were going to take 
the power that resided in Congress and open it up to people.
  We did away with things like term limits for committee chairmen. We 
did things like not allowing proxy voting in committees. So we have 
done so much that has brought not only good government to Washington, 
D.C., but also did it for the taxpayer.
  Now, where have we come? Well, where we have come now since that 
Contract with America is that we have balanced the budget now three 
times. We did it first in 1997, then 1998, and then in 1999. But as we 
Republicans recognize, and I think Democrats know it, too, that we 
recognize that we, with a straight face, could not say we know we 
completely balanced the budget. And the reason why is because we were 
spending Social Security, we were taking the excess money that came in 
that people gave to Washington, D.C., for their future and for their 
future retirement, for the retirement of not only themselves but their 
families, and we for the first time in 1999, not by accident but 
certainly not because we did it on purpose, because it was not the law, 
we stated that we were not going to spend America's retirement future. 
And so we did not. And for the first time in 39 years, the Republican 
Congress did not spend one penny of Social Security.
  What we are attempting to do tonight is not only to duplicate that 
but to do it on purpose, because we told the American people we were 
going to do that. This is what responsibility is all about.
  Tonight we are dealing with a circumstance where the President of the 
United States says, oh, I now believe you. I want to be on your side.
  In January of this year he said 60 percent of Social Security was 
good enough, if there was a surplus. Sixty percent of Social Security 
would be set aside, but 40 percent would go to spending, new government 
programs, new spending.
  Now he has changed his tune. I say, thank you, Mr. President. Thank 
you for joining Republicans on doing things that are important to our 
money; this is our retirement. It does not belong to Washington, D.C.
  But what is happening in this endeavor? Now the President and 
Democrats want more and more and more and more spending. Just last week 
the White House, in the foreign aid bill, demanded $800 million more 
for foreign aid, $104 million more for Russia. It just goes on and on 
and on.
  So we know what we have got to do. We have got to make sure that we 
keep this line, as it implies on the chart, of going up to where we 
have a surplus. Because this surplus will not only go to pay down the 
debt, but it will also go to make sure that we have the opportunity to 
give money back to people who earned it.
  I want to show my colleagues one other thing, if I can. This is an 
example of how much money we owe back to Social Security before we can 
begin the process of building a surplus there. We have to be able to 
pay back $638 billion.
  Now, our President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will say, look, it really does not matter. You know, $800 million here, 
$800 million there; it is really not a big deal. The President wants 
$4.5 billion more.
  Well, I will say, and I believe that I would gain concurrence from my 
colleagues who are here tonight, every single dollar counts. The most 
important part of what we are attempting to get across now is it is not 
just the dollars, it is the cents, it is the pennies, and it is this 
cent or common sense that we are talking about.
  Waste, fraud, and abuse consumes over $200 billion a year, documented 
by the Government Accounting Office, $200 billion a year.
  So that is why I think, for the first time ever, the Congress of the 
United States challenged an administration and said, Mr. President, we 
are willing to cut our own pay by 1 percent. We are willing to cut our 
own spending 1 percent. But, Mr. President, we want and expect you, 
too, to do the responsible thing; and that is to find one penny from 
discretionary spending. We are not talking about Social Security, we 
are not talking about Medicare, we are not talking about Medicaid. What 
we are talking about is one penny out of every dollar that you would 
have control over to where you would say, we are going to look 
internally to ourselves, we are going to look internally to the 
Government that is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse, we are going 
to consider it a challenge, a challenge for employees of the Government 
and a challenge for those people who are administrators, who may be 
secretaries, who may be Cabinet officials, to look deep within 
themselves and to challenge each and every one of their employees.
  The same thing that happened when I was in the private sector just a 
few years ago. I spent 16 years for a corporation in this country, 
never missed a day of work, and I was challenged as an employee of that 
company virtually every single year not only to find what we knew was 
abuse and waste but what we knew would be a challenge to run our 
company the way we as employees thought it should be run.
  That is where this government is missing out. That is what this 
President is missing out, an opportunity and a challenge to every 
single government worker for maybe the first time in their career.
  Can you imagine an employee that may have been with the Government 
for 40 years, their entire career, never once challenged and then the 
first time a challenge from the Congress of the United States come 
forward where Members of Congress were willing to take their own pay 
cut and the chief

[[Page 29867]]

executive of that country said, no, we cannot live up to that challenge 
because there is not enough money?
  Well, I will submit tonight that the retirement security of every 
single American, of every single generation is far more important than 
the $800 million that we added in, and it is far more important than 
all the shenanigans that go on in Washington, D.C.
  That is why we are here tonight. We are here to make sure that no 
means no. Mr. President, you cannot have our retirement. One hundred 
percent is far greater than 60 percent, and it belongs to people back 
home. It does not belong to you, Mr. President. It belongs to the 
people who produced it.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) for the time and look forward to hearing their remarks.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), my good friend, for his remarks.
  Again, it is difficult to believe that this administration and those 
in the minority party here in the House and the Senate are fighting the 
fact that all we are talking about is one penny out of the dollar that 
we want to save. And again, as I mentioned earlier, our negotiators are 
talking right now, are negotiating right at this moment at the White 
House, trying to come up with one penny of the administration. The 
administration is fighting that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues and everyone to call the White 
House, call our Democrat Members to urge them that if 84 percent, 
almost 85 percent of the American public, believes we can trim 5 
percent out of our budget, out of the Federal budget, surely they can 
find one penny.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right. Right now, as we speak, 
the White House and the Congress are meeting and arguing over this one 
penny on the dollar that we are trying to look for in savings in order 
to avoid the President's goal to raid Social Security in order to pay 
for his spending preferences in the budget negotiations.
  It was an interesting thing just a few weeks ago when we talked about 
the necessity of saving 1 percent, one penny on the dollar, out of the 
appropriated funds in order to avoid that Social Security raid. It was 
the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of the Interior and others 
of those sorts who stood up and said it is impossible for us to find 
one penny on the dollar in savings on our agencies.
  Most Americans just understand that is foolish. Most Americans know 
that there is enough waste and fraud and abuse and excessive spending 
here in Washington, D.C., that we can go find it if we are willing to 
spend the time and roll up our sleeves and get in the trenches and look 
for that penny. The American people know it is there.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think we 
ought to really put this in context. Because we are not talking about 
taking the dollar that they had last year and making it 99 cents. We 
are talking about taking the dollar that we gave them last year plus 
the 4 cents, 3 to 4 percent increase that is in the budget this year.
  At the beginning we asked them to save a penny so they can only have 
$1.03. But I think now, as we are negotiating in the White House and 
some of the other offsets, we are asking them to find a half a penny. 
So that this year they have $1.03 and a half cent instead of $1.04.
  We are going to find them a half a cent of waste, fraud, and abuse 
out of the $1.04 that we gave them over what they had last year.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I want to jump right in there. Because it 
is so simple. The American people understand. They just intuitively 
know and are correct that there is excessive money here in Washington 
that the American taxpayers are sending more cash here in Washington 
than the Government legitimately needs to run the Government.
  All we are saying is, we understand there is a difference of opinion 
between Republicans and Democrats and Republicans like to be more 
efficient and frugal with the taxpayers' dollars and get those dollars 
to where they are needed most and do it as efficiently and effectively 
as we can so we can reduce the tax burden and eventually leave it back 
home.
  The White House, on the other hand, run by Democrats, they want to 
spend that money. They do not want to look for that penny because they 
prefer to spend it.
  So when Secretary Riley and the Department of Education said just 
reflexively, no, we cannot save the penny, it is just not there, our 
Department of Education is so well run and so efficiently managed that 
there is not a penny to be found, we disagreed.
  A handful of us said, no, way, Mr. Secretary. We stayed an extra day 
when the rest of the Congress went home and three of us marched down 
there to the Department of Education, showed up at 9:00 in the morning, 
and we said, listen, folks, we are here to help. We want to help you 
find that penny, and we went office to office.

                              {time}  2200

  We went office to office and spoke firsthand with many of the finance 
officers and we found some examples of where that penny can be found if 
you just take the time, spend half a day to go find it. We want the 
President to join us.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan to share with the Members what 
it is we discovered when we went there.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I know this is why my colleague from California invited 
me down here tonight. I really appreciate that. But as the gentleman 
from Colorado and I heard 2 weeks or 2\1/2\ weeks ago when we went to 
the Department of Education, which we heard last week when we met with 
the Inspector General and which will finally come out, I believe, on 
Thursday for 1998, in 1998, we entrusted the Department of Education 
with $35 billion in discretionary spending. They loan out another $85 
billion. So they are basically entrusted with $110 billion annually of 
American taxpayer money. That is a big agency. What are they going to 
tell us on Thursday? This is not for 1999. This is now November of 1999 
for the fiscal year which ended on September 30, 1998. What are they 
going to tell us?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. They are going to tell the Congress that their books 
are unauditable going back to 1998. That they cannot tell us precisely 
how they spent the $120 billion, $35 billion in discretionary spending 
that the Congress gives them on a year-to-year basis.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. So the Secretary of Education will stand up and say I 
cannot find a half a penny or a penny out of my budget in waste, fraud 
and abuse, and at the same time, on Thursday, I do not think he will be 
at that press conference.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I doubt there will be a press conference.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I bet there will not be a press conference. Because by 
law, they were supposed to tell us in March, in March of this year by 
law they were supposed to tell us and release their books to the 
Congress and to the American people saying, here is the $35 billion, 
here is the $85 billion in loans that we manage and here is what 
happened to the money. In March, they were supposed to tell us. They 
extended it, they extended it, they extended it, they extended it, 
until finally we hear that this week the auditors will finally come out 
and say, that $110 billion that we had way back in 1998, we cannot 
really tell you how we spent it, or the auditors cannot in good 
conscience tell us where the money went or how it was spent or 
whatever. But we cannot find a half a penny of waste.
  Any organization that is that big and whose books are not auditable 
has at least a half a penny and you can probably find nickels and dimes 
of waste and inefficiency because if you cannot track where the money 
goes, you cannot hold the people accountable for getting the kind of 
results that they want.

[[Page 29868]]


  Mr. SCHAFFER. I want to talk about some elementary school children 
that I met with yesterday. We talked about the importance of education. 
Before I do that, I want to just ask the gentleman from California, I 
know how my constituents react when they find out that the Department 
of Education, the agency charged with helping the children who made 
these cards for me, cannot balance its books, cannot provide books that 
are auditable so we can even find out where the money is. We want to 
help the children who made this artwork back in our schools, in our 
districts, but it is impossible to be assured that those dollars are 
really helping children when the Department of Education, itself, a 
$120 billion agency, one of the largest financial institutions on the 
entire planet, cannot tell us with any precision where the money went.
  What do they say back in California when people find out about these 
kind of things?
  Mr. HERGER. It is hard to believe, and I hate to put it this way, but 
were it not for the Federal Government, they would not believe it. If 
something like this were happening in any business in this Nation, if 
this were happening to anyone in this Nation, if those individuals 
responsible could not account for their books, the law would take care 
of them by incarcerating them. We are not proposing that happen to 
anyone at the Department of Education, but we are saying that those 
responsible and setting an example of educating our children should be 
able to keep books in a proper manner.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, I 
have come across the aisle symbolically to reach out to my friends in 
the Democratic Party, to reach out to the administration.
  In a previous life, before coming to the Congress of the United 
States, I was a broadcaster. Oft times I was entrusted with updating 
current events, what we call in common parlance the news. Mr. Speaker, 
the news tonight as my colleagues have outlined, is as follows: At this 
minute, at the White House, congressional representatives and 
representatives of the administration are involved in negotiations. The 
most effective way to realize the savings necessary so that we can 
reach an agreement between the priorities of the administration and the 
necessities of the American people as reflected through our programs in 
this common sense Congress is for the administration to agree with us 
to the 1 percent solution, one penny of every dollar of discretionary 
spending. As my colleague from Texas pointed out, we are not talking 
about Medicare dollars, Medicaid dollars, Social Security dollars. We 
are not talking about vital funds to programs known as entitlements. We 
are talking about discretionary spending, where choices can be made.
  One other note because as my friends talk about education, we should 
also talk, as I was honored to serve with my colleague from California 
earlier on the Committee on Resources when I first came to the Congress 
of the United States, one note on this, because also Arizona's former 
governor, Secretary Babbitt, at the Interior Department, has followed 
the predictable, what we call in this town, spin of the administration 
and said that the Interior Department cannot realize any savings.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. If the gentleman will yield, this is Secretary 
Babbitt's exact quote here. The reporter asked, ``Is there no more 
waste in government in your departments?'' Secretary Babbitt said, 
``Well, it would take a magician to say that there was no waste in 
government and we are constantly ferreting it out. But the answer 
otherwise is, yes, you've got it exactly right.'' In other words, yes, 
there is no waste in the Federal Government. This does not pass the 
straight face test, whether you are in Arizona, Texas, Michigan, 
California, or Colorado, the American people understand there is waste 
in government and people who make answers like your former governor has 
here simply ought to be replaced in Washington as far as I am 
concerned.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And I would like to refresh his memory, because it is 
burned, it is seared into my memory, the first subcommittee meeting for 
parks, the Inspector General, the accountant for the Interior 
Department, with the then director of the National Park Service at his 
side, the Inspector General testifying in front of that Resources 
subcommittee said that the National Park Service for that budgetary 
cycle, for that year, could not account for $73 million of taxpayer 
funds. My colleague from California pointed out, were this the private 
sector, it would not be a national park someone would be spending their 
time in, they would be incarcerated for malfeasance. And the challenge 
for my colleague from California and others who have that wonderful 
mission of serving on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee 
on the Budget is to restate our rules so that we have a way to impound 
those types of funds out of administrative accounts in the next few 
years. But that is the challenge we face and that is ample evidence. 
And then we have the other evidence, the infamous outhouse, $1 million 
for an outhouse at Glacier National Park in Montana. It took over 800 
helicopter trips. That is how inaccessible, we are talking about really 
out there, this outhouse, the million-dollar outhouse. Maybe that is $1 
million out of the $73 million of that budgetary cycle. Yet my former 
governor, the Secretary of the Interior says there is no waste.
  The American people know better, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues have 
amply demonstrated that.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate the 
gentleman from Arizona.
  What we are doing here tonight is we are, I believe, being 
responsible. We are doing, I think, what I came to Washington, D.C. to 
do. That is, to work very carefully, very methodically and in the open, 
to give people not only an understanding about what we are doing but to 
make sure that we stay here until the ball gets kicked in the net.
  Today, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) stated something 
that was very interesting to me. Today he said, ``We have got more time 
than money, and that is why we are going to stay here.'' We are in a 
tough league here. I tell people back home, in the league I play in up 
in Washington, D.C., you really do not ever get a no-hitter, but you 
can have a complete game. I believe us being here talking about the 
things we are, to have a complete game on behalf of the taxpayers of 
this country, the people who get up and go to work every day, the 
people who get things taken out of their paychecks even when they do 
not want it but they cannot fight the government. We are here for the 
taxpayer, not the tax collector. And the taxpayer says overwhelmingly, 
you can find a penny from the government. I am ready to stay. I am 
ready to stay here as long as we need to.
  Mr. President, we believe in what we are doing, and we are going to 
keep fighting on behalf of what is right. One hundred percent of Social 
Security is more important than us giving in and going home. I intend 
to stay. Like the gentleman from South Dakota, I have more time than 
money, and we are here for the taxpayer. I believe by us telling the 
truth to the American public, they will recognize that we will find our 
penny and we can win this battle.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank my friend from Texas. Let me point out that while 
the American taxpayer, 84 percent, almost 85 percent feel we could be 
saving a minimum of 5 percent, we have only asked the administration to 
save a penny, and now I understand it is down to about a half a penny 
and they are still fighting that.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have come a long 
way this year. We were in this Chamber earlier in 1999, towards the end 
of January when the President came down here and gave his annual State 
of the Union speech. The President at that time said, I want to save

[[Page 29869]]

62 percent of the Social Security surplus. By implication meaning I am 
going to spend the other 38 percent. I do not remember, maybe one of my 
colleagues can remember and refresh my memory on the fees and the tax 
increases that the President proposed back in January, that he proposed 
in his budget. Does my colleague from Arizona remember what that amount 
was?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. As I sat here that evening listening to the President's 
speech, in 77 minutes he outlined over 80 new spending programs, I 
believe it was well in excess of $70 billion, in fact almost twice that 
much.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Somebody just handed it to me and said the President 
earlier this year proposed 75 use taxes and fee increases, totaling 
$150 billion a year. When we take a look at how much progress we have 
made, we have moved to the point of no tax and no fee increases. In 
that way, we have eliminated $150 billion of new spending that this 
President wanted. We have also moved from saving 62 percent of Social 
Security, we are now within a half a penny in this budget of saving 100 
percent of the Social Security surplus. We have come a long way. 
Thankfully, we have taken the President all the way to 99\1/2\ cents.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think this point should be made, because again in the 
spirit of bipartisanship, we welcome the President with his change of 
mind. We appreciate the fact that good people can disagree and then 
reconsider and come along. Now he says, let us save all of the Social 
Security trust fund for Social Security. One other thing we did in this 
Congress, when he proposed the tax and fee increase, we brought it to 
the floor. Mr. Speaker, again just to refresh the collective memory of 
this body and clue in the American people, not a single Member of this 
institution, Republican or Democrat, or my friend from Vermont who is a 
self-described socialist, an independent, not a one voted for the tax 
increase. So in that sense, the House worked its will. The President 
has bowed to that. Again, the 1 percent solution makes dollars and 
sense. A penny saved is retirement secured.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I would like to talk about one other place where this 
really matters, and that is with our children around the country. This 
is National Education Week this week. The slogan for this year is 
Students Today, Leaders Tomorrow. This debate really does come down to 
responsibility here in Washington.
  I was out in my district just yesterday, I visited three schools up 
in Sterling and Green Acres Elementary School in Fort Morgan, Colorado, 
I stopped in and visited with the folks there.

                              {time}  2215

  I brought some of the artwork from some of those kids that I am dying 
to show some of my colleagues. I am scheduled to go to Ukraine next 
week as soon as we adjourn and will be meeting with some schoolchildren 
there. I am asking these kids to make up some cards and letters for 
kids out in Ukraine.
  The gentleman ought to see some of these. Here is one from Carrie, 
who drew a picture of herself at the library where she can check out 
books. Here is another, Nicole, who wrote, ``I can play at Riverside 
Park in the rain,'' and drew a nice picture of herself at the park. 
These are just great.
  Here is one from Luke. Luke says, ``I am walking my dog, Mattie. She 
is 13 years old. She is a yellow lab. She has a blue frisbee and she 
likes to play with it.'' There is a picture of Luke there that we are 
sending to the kids in Ukraine.
  Here is one more. This is from Teresa. She put a bunch of crucifixes 
and the American flag. She is sending that to the Ukraine. She drew a 
picture of her room, and talks about some of the things she likes to do 
at home.
  The point of this is that these are the children that matter most in 
America. When we start talking about ending dipping into social 
security and spending more money than Washington has to offer, these 
kids understand that that is wrong. The kids understand that the right 
thing to do is to save social security, to stop spending in deficit 
quantities.
  They understand responsibility at school. When the teacher told the 
kids on Monday, the Congressman is coming and I want you to have these 
cards ready to go, the kids had their reports ready to go. Would it not 
be great if the Department of Education could do the same thing here in 
Washington, D.C.? When the Congress says, on the 19th of November you 
need to certify to the Congress that your books balance, we do not need 
to be hearing the answer we are going to get on Thursday from the 
Department, that their books are unauditable going back to 1998.
  These kids understand responsibilities. They deserve a Department of 
Education that will work hard to help this Congress find that extra 
penny in savings so that these kids can get dollars to their 
classrooms, so that their teachers can have the resources they need to 
teach, so they can have a roof that does not leak, so they can have 
education opportunities that are the envy of the world and something to 
brag about in places like Ukraine, like these kids have done, and I am 
going to help them do later on this week.
  That is what these children deserve. That is what their parents sent 
us here to Washington to do. Those parents want to know that the kids 
who made these products and created this artwork have somebody looking 
out for them in Washington.
  If we walk around outside these hallways here, there are lobbyists 
all over the place. They are all here trying to get an extra dime here 
or there, or get extra money for their project or for their special 
interest. But these kids, we are all they have. They are counting on us 
to fight hard; to stay late into the evening, like we are doing 
tonight; to negotiate until the bitter end with the White House, so we 
can save that penny on the dollar and make sure that the education 
dollars get to the classroom, not hung up in Washington, so they have a 
social security retirement fund when they retire, and so that their 
country is run in a way in which they can be quite proud.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado. The tragedy is unless the Congress takes action, unless the 
Congress saves and does not spend on existing programs, for social 
security coming in, not one of those students will have social security 
by the time they are ready to retire. This Congress has to act.
  I am very grateful that back 168 days ago, and I might mention, in a 
bipartisan manner, 416 to 12, this House voted overwhelmingly to lock 
up social security and not spend it. But right now what we are asking 
of the White House right now is a penny, we are down now even to 
compromise and find some places where we do not spend in other areas 
and maybe reduce by half a penny, and we cannot even come up with that. 
It is really almost unbelievable.
  I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  What we have worked on so hard in the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, and my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, referenced 
it, the leverage point on giving kids a good education is moving the 
decisions closest to the kids in the classroom and the people that know 
our kids' names, the parents and teachers.
  The money we are spending, let us make sure we move the flexibility 
for making those education decisions as close to those kids as 
possible.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, each of us are parents here, and I know we 
are coming to the end of our time, but what it is really all about is 
our children. Each of us here speaking are parents. Undoubtedly, most 
people who are listening tonight are parents.
  Right now there will not be any social security unless we do 
something about it. We as Republicans are committed to do that. We 
believe there is a minimum of a penny that any Washington bureaucracy 
can find to trim out of each of their departments. We are asking that 
they do it, and maybe do a little more to make sure we save social 
security. We believe it is there to do. The American public believes we 
can do it. We are committed to do it.

[[Page 29870]]



                          ____________________