[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 30043-30051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    SAVING 1 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET TO SECURE SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity in this 1 
hour special order to invite my colleagues in the majority conference 
to come join in our discussion of our accomplishments, and to also 
define somewhat the negotiating that is going on right now between the 
Congress and the President with respect to getting our budget 
resolution passed and getting the final agreement nailed down.
  Before I do that, I want to talk about one of the announcements that 
is coming out tomorrow from the Department of Education. Over at the 
Department, a number of us paid a visit to them just a couple of weeks 
ago when the Secretary of Education had assured the country, certainly 
the Congress and the White House, as well, that it was impossible to 
find this one penny on the dollar savings that we hoped to secure in 
order to save social security and prevent the President's raid on the 
social security program.
  The Secretary of Education said there is no savings to be found in 
the administration at the Department of Education, that the agency is 
run efficiently and is run in the most lean manner possible.
  So the three of us Members of Congress who walked down there had a 
difference of opinion. We physically showed up on the premises and 
started going office to office to find out if we could not help the 
Secretary find that penny on the dollar, and lo and behold, we found a 
number of places where it would be wise to look.
  We found an account called a grant back fund, for example, that has 
about $725 million in there that is not spent in the way that the 
statutes have defined. We also found some duplicate payments to the 
tune of about $40 million. We have found several other things since 
then.
  The most remarkable thing we found is that going back to 1998, the 
Department of Education's books are not auditable. In fact, tomorrow 
the Department of Education will be receiving notification from the 
auditors, who are charged with auditing the Department of Education, to 
finding out where this money goes, they will be receiving this notice 
claiming, showing, certifying that the Department of Education's books 
are not auditable.
  This is a remarkable revelation coming out of the Department, 
especially at a time when the Secretary ran over here immediately after 
we started talking about saving money and telling us with certainty 
that there is no savings to be found in the Department of Education. He 
has no basis to make such a claim. His books over at the Department of 
Education are not auditable.
  Mr. Speaker, I just had an opportunity to visit some schoolkids in my 
district on Monday. I visited three schools. Children in America's 
schools throughout the country are much like those children in my 
district in Colorado. They understand accountability. They understand 
completing assignments on time. They understand completing the work 
according to their requirements and being held accountable.
  When a teacher says a report is due on a certain day, the kids 
understand that if they do not turn it in on that day, they will get an 
F. The Department, when they are supposed to audit their books and 
certify to the Congress that their books are clean, that they have 
balanced, that they are auditable, we should expect them to follow 
through. The Department of Education has failed to accomplish that 
objective. They will tell us tomorrow, we cannot

[[Page 30044]]

find where the $120 billion in taxpayer money has been spent and how it 
has been spent.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague for yielding, Mr. Speaker. I just 
would ask my colleague, when were the reports or when was the audit or 
financial statement from the Department of Education due? Was it not 
March, or sometime earlier this year?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. That is right.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. So now it is November. They received an incomplete 
grade, basically, for lo these 9 months, and tomorrow, I guess sotto 
voce, in low, spoken terms, the Department of Education is going to 
admit that it has made an F in terms of fiscal responsibility, and even 
more than fiscal responsibility, fiscal accountability. Mr. Speaker, 
there is no greater evidence that we take the right approach to get 
dollars to the classroom, rather than deal with the care and feeding of 
a Washington bureaucracy.
  I would just ask my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, and first of 
all, let me commend him, sir, and let me also commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and my colleague, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for making that trip 2\1/2\ weeks ago to the 
Department of Education.
  I understand, and now help me on this, there is, in essence, a fund 
of cash, some have described it as a slush fund, to the tune of how 
many millions, $725 million?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. One of the reports on that fund suggested that there 
has been in the past, recently, about $725 million. The Secretary says 
it is a little bit less than that, but still there are hundreds of 
millions of dollars, even about by the Secretary's account. The bottom 
line is they are not real sure.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Again, so we can try to get a handle on the sums we are 
talking about, money that could be well spent in America's classrooms 
helping teachers teach and helping children learn, annually we are 
looking at an appropriation for that cabinet level agency of $35 
billion?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. A $35 billion annual appropriation, which is this 
year's appropriation, but on top of that there is another $85 billion 
in loans that that department manages, so a grand total of $120 billion 
is managed by the Department of Education. It effectively makes it one 
of the largest financial institutions in the world.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. So forget, if my friend would yield further, forget the 
colloquialism about an 800-pound gorilla. We have a $120 billion sum of 
money that in essence is unaccounted for from the department in 
Washington, D.C. charged with teaching responsibility and the three Rs.
  Maybe that is the fact, Mr. Speaker. We talk about reading, writing, 
arithmetic. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to our friends in the 
Department of Education, we need to teach a fourth R, responsibility, 
and accountability, and counting, with a C, to be able to actually 
handle their books.
  I think it is important to inform the body, Mr. Speaker, based on 
current events, that we do welcome back to the Chamber the House 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). I had a 
chance to welcome him. I am sorry he was not here yesterday to be 
involved in the budget negotiations. I understand he was fundraising on 
the West Coast.
  We certainly find it interesting, those denizens of campaign finance 
reform, busily raising campaign cash. But we welcome him back.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could inform my colleagues, I understand that 
substantial progress has been made toward a budget agreement. Indeed, 
the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House have 
agreed to across-the-board savings. Sadly, the problem comes in this 
Chamber, because of an inability of the minority to join with us to 
find those across-the-board savings.
  We have advocated simply finding savings in one penny of every 
discretionary dollar spent. We think that is a way to come together, 
and we understand there are priorities on the left, there are 
priorities on our side, the other body has priorities, and the 
administration has priorities.
  Once we come to a basic agreement, which apparently has been done, 
the best way to fit in the amount of overspending or what would be 
overspending and a raid of the social security trust fund, the best way 
to accommodate that spending without raiding the social security trust 
fund is to simply call for across-the-board savings of one penny on 
every dollar.
  Mr. Speaker, we understand the President of the United States has 
given his word to the House Speaker, and I would hope that our friends 
on the other side of the aisle could reach an accommodation with the 
administration for a simple, across-the-board savings.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to bring this back to the perspective of American 
families. The gentleman has a family, and he and his wife have to do 
what Libby and I do, sit down at the kitchen table quite frequently and 
decide what they are going to cut out. Do we really need the new 
curtains this month? Maybe we can postpone buying the new mattress for 
the bed, and things like this; that if we can postpone a spending 
decision, we will.
  All we have asked the Washington bureaucrats to do is think like the 
American family. Here is $5, hard-earned money. The gentleman's money 
is as good as mine. He works hard to pay it, the American people work 
hard to pay it. All we are asking the bureaucrats is, take this $5 that 
you have gotten from hard-working Americans and find this, one nickel. 
Just get one nickel out of it. That is not hard to do.
  When we sit around at our kitchen table, it is not a nickel we are 
looking for. We have to cut out $2 or $3 from this $5, and it is not 
that hard to do.
  The administration this year proposed buying an island off of Hawaii 
for $30 million. What was the purpose? For duck breeding. The only 
problem was, only 10 ducks took them up on this honeymoon package 
offer, so there are 10 ducks who would use this facility for $30 
million. Fortunately, Congress persuaded the administration to back off 
this, but this is an example of something that is absurd.
  What about the Pentagon? The Pentagon lost one $1 million rocket 
launcher. Now, talk about gun control, does it not bother this 
administration that we have lost a rocket launcher? I am not sure what 
can be done with a rocket launcher, but I do not know why you would 
lose one, and who would want to take it?
  What about an $850,000 tugboat that disappears? Where do you hide a 
tugboat? How do you lose a tugboat? Where can you put one? It is just 
ridiculous, the examples go on and on and on. All we are asking this 
administration to do is go back and cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse 
in the budget.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I would say to the gentleman, it is my understanding 
that the President has agreed as of today that there is enough savings 
for this across-the-board savings. He has realized that there is a 
substantial amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in government that we can 
reduce, that we can effectively save; find less than a penny on the 
dollar, is what we are down to now, but that we can save this money. We 
can save the penny on the dollar without affecting the important 
services of government.
  The President agrees now, but for some reason the deal is not going 
forward. If anyone has any insight on this, I understand that it is the 
minority leader on the Democrat side who just arrived back from his 
fundraising mission in California who has come and disagrees now with 
the President and the Republicans that this money can be saved in 
government. That is why we are at an impasse.
  Mr. KINGSTON. One of the reasons why we said to the bureaucracies, 
look, you spend, say in the case of the Pentagon, $240 to $260 billion 
a Year.

[[Page 30045]]



                              {time}  1345

  I think USDA, the agriculture folks, get about $64 billion a year. 
What we are saying to them is they have capable administrators, they 
can figure out where the waste is. We are not going to dictate it top 
down from our body saying these are the ones to cut. We expect they 
know where their waste is and they can ferret it out, and we get 
criticized for not being more specific where the money should come 
from. We are being flexible, because we believe that those who are 
closest to it know where the waste is.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman from Georgia raises an important point. 
When we are talking about finding savings of one penny on every dollar 
of discretionary spending, we are not, I repeat, we are not talking 
about cutting Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, any of those vital 
programs that help the truly needy and those who have earned that type 
of success and that type of largesse. What we are talking about is 
saving the Social Security funds for Social Security and Medicare 
exclusively.
  The best way we can do that is for every discretionary dollar spent, 
and goodness knows there are billions of them, invoking the memory of 
the late Carl Sagan, ``billions and billions'' of dollars. Let us find 
a penny on every dollar.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) asked the question, why is 
it apparently that the Minority Leader is reluctant to accept an 
agreement reached by the President and by the Speaker of the House? 
Well, let us give the Minority Leader the benefit of the doubt. I 
understand what it is like. I caught what is called in common parlance 
the red-eye flight back Monday from the West Coast to be here for 
votes. I understand jet lag and the taxing time on one's body. And 
perhaps it is a situation where the administration is briefing the 
Minority Leader.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to wait. I know that 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), Speaker of the House, was 
here all weekend. Is the gentleman saying that the Republicans were the 
only people who stayed in town to protect Social Security?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not suggest that for everyone on the other side 
of the aisle, and certainly administration representatives, and I know 
representatives from the Committee on Appropriations, were here. But, 
apparently, the House Minority Leader, the man in whom Members of the 
opposition party place their trust and the responsibility of 
leadership, saw fit to leave town instead of being involved in the 
budget negotiations. It brings all of this talk about a do-nothing 
Congress, it rings kind of hollow for those who, I suppose in good 
faith, want to see a solid record, to leave town on a fund-raising trip 
for campaign cash.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
have been in every single one of those negotiation meetings. And last 
night, the night in question, I talked to the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt) twice on questions involving negotiations. I want to 
tell what is dividing us at this moment. What is dividing us at this 
moment is one remaining question.
  The Republican side, after having spent $17 billion of Social 
Security money, the Republican side is now asking for a ``let's 
pretend'' fig leaf so that they can point to a tiny, minuscule across-
the-board cut as their ``let's pretend'' indicator that they did not 
touch Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, we, in return, are asking if they want that, we are 
asking them to do something real. We are asking to take whatever money 
the government might earn in any suit against the tobacco companies, 
which could be up to $20 billion a year, and we are asking the 
Republican side to deposit that money into the Social Security Trust 
Fund and the Medicare trust fund. That would extend the life of those 
funds on average by 3 years. And what we have gotten from the 
Republican side is a flat ``no,'' which means apparently that the 
Republican leadership would rather protect their friends in the tobacco 
industry than protect Social Security and Medicare. That is the truth.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the time from the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, let me first of all thank the distinguished gentleman 
for being here----


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) will suspend. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) 
controls the hour, so the gentleman from Colorado is recognized to 
control the hour.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, 
for being here this weekend. I think that is very important. I wish he 
was the decisionmaker on their side. Unfortunately, the decisionmaker, 
the Minority Leader, was not here over the weekend.
  The proposal for the tobacco, I do not know where that has been all 
year long. We have been in session since January. This is the first I 
have heard of it. I am not saying I am the most informed Member of 
Congress. Maybe my colleagues have heard of it. In fact, I would like 
to see the hand of anybody in here who has heard of it, and pretty much 
no hands go up.
  It is a new proposal. I am glad to know it is out there. But the 
reality is we are going to leave town maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the 
next day, and maybe not the next week, but when we leave town, there 
will be $160 billion untouched in the Social Security Trust Fund, and 
that never happened under the Democrat majority.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield time to me? I 
thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Georgia. I am 
sorry that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations is no longer here 
with us, because I think we have an honest disagreement in terms of the 
way he portrayed what we have done to save the Social Security fund, 
which we pledged to save, in stark contrast to the President who came 
in January and said let us save 62 percent of the Social Security 
surplus and then spend close to 40 percent on new government programs.
  I did not hear from the gentleman from Wisconsin, was he proposing 
new taxes on the working poor to go to this? I did not hear that side 
of what he was talking about in terms of the tobacco settlement, so I 
am uncertain. If he was proposing new taxation on the working poor and 
on working Americans, I think there is justifiably a problem.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for an answer to 
that question?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Sure, we will yield for an answer.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman well knows this has nothing 
whatsoever to do with taxes. What we are suggesting is if there is a 
suit by the Justice Department successfully concluded, which requires 
the tobacco companies to pay back into the Federal Treasury money which 
we would not have paid for illnesses caused by tobacco if they had not 
lied to the country for 20 years, that if there is a recovery of that 
kind of suit, that that money would go into Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman should not pretend this has anything to do 
with taxes. He knows well it does not.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I think he is 
setting up the parameters of something that is very interesting. If 
every bit of that money would go to the Social Security and Medicare 
trust fund instead of to the trial lawyers, if the money would truly go 
for public health, then I think there may be an area of agreement. I 
welcome that type of light and I welcome the passion that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin brings.
  But the fact remains, the situation that exists today is one in which 
we are trying to find a way to deal with

[[Page 30046]]

priorities and to find savings. Again, we are talking about simple 
savings of 1 cent on every dollar of discretionary spending, and to 
defend both the priorities of the left and our own priorities, as well 
as the priorities of the administration, that would be the simplest way 
to solve the problem.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me say this about the proposal of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. As it was explained and presented right now, 
I think it makes sense. I think that as I understand it, we are talking 
about if there is a settlement, put excess money into Social Security. 
I think that is a step in the right direction. I have no problems with 
that.
  I hope also on that side we can get them to join us in finding that 
measly little penny for each dollar. If we can do that, I think we can 
leave town, again, with the $160 billion in Social Security, the 
surplus left intact, unraided. I certainly welcome the opportunity to 
work together.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this interesting 
dialogue. And let me just add, not to get off the path, but clearly I 
think Americans recognize inherent waste in government. We should 
challenge the bureaucracies, we should continually challenge the 
Federal agencies to reduce and eliminate waste, just as any private 
business does, just as any family does.
  But we are getting off the page to the degree that the clear 
philosophical difference between the groups here in Washington, between 
the parties, between this Republican Congress and the White House, 
comes down to faith and power and freedom. And by that I mean we 
believe and have faith in the American people who work hard every day, 
sometimes two and three jobs, to keep more of their hard-earned money 
to invest back in themselves, in their families, in their small 
businesses, in the economy so that we can have a growing and prosperous 
economy. Something that was laid back in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan 
promised a tax cut. Practically every person who believed in big 
government said no. Guess what? Tax cuts worked.
  Secondly, control. Here there are a number of individuals who believe 
that control by Washington is better than family control or business 
control. By that I mean freedom. If we truly believe in the notions of 
what this country is built on, freedom, individual freedoms, political 
and economic freedoms, then we shall continue to fight for those 
Americans who believe in that principle, when the alternative is that 
the White House wants more taxes or more spending.
  Before that, well, the problem really has been, the reason why these 
appropriations bills have been vetoed is because they wanted more 
money. Well, where is that money going to come from? That is going to 
come from hard-working Americans. I encourage the gentlemen to continue 
in this dialogue and continue to work for the hard-working taxpayers of 
America.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And I think it is important to make this point, because 
I think we would be remiss if we did not for purposes of total candor, 
intellectual integrity and a good sense of history, again, I welcome 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and obviously he has passionate feelings 
and they are deeply and honestly held. But for the record we should 
indicate and point out that when my friend from Wisconsin chaired the 
Committee on Appropriations, when my friends on the other side of the 
aisle were in charge of this House, they spent huge sums of Social 
Security money for bigger and bigger and bigger government programs.
  That framed their priorities. And so I welcome any type of 
alternatives they might offer to truly help us preserve the Social 
Security fund 100 percent for Social Security. I would make this point 
because the gentleman from Wisconsin raised this topic. He said $17 
billion were being raided out of the program. That begs the question, 
Mr. Speaker, to help us find the money, why do the minority 
appropriators not join with the gentleman from Georgia and the others 
on the Majority side to find the savings? All we are asking is one 
penny on every dollar of discretionary spending. Because, Mr. Speaker, 
it is obviously that a penny saved is retirement secured.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I too appreciate the 
gentleman who joined us earlier. But as the Associated Press mentioned, 
and I want to refer to this Associated Press quote: ``Democrats admit 
that there is an effort to raid the Social Security Administration over 
at the White House,'' and here in Congress as well. ``Privately, some 
Democrats say a final budget deal that uses some of the pension 
program's surpluses would be a political victory for them because it 
would fracture the GOP by infuriating conservatives.''
  Well, it would infuriate conservatives. The Associated Press quote 
from one month ago is one that I think accurately states and reflects 
the differences of opinion that we have going on here in Washington, 
D.C. There is a side that truly believes it is in the best interests of 
the country to raid that Social Security program, and we said no. We 
said enough is enough. After 30 years of raiding Social Security and 
sinking this country deeper and deeper in debt year after year, there 
is no excuse. We are spending more money than the country has. And, by 
golly, if every agency had, if every Secretary would be willing to join 
us in just going through their administrative budgets and finding that 
one penny on the dollar to help avoid the White House raid on Social 
Security, think of how far that would go to deliver education services 
to children at the school level rather than soak those dollars up here 
in Washington at the bureaucratic level. Think of how far that would go 
to shoring up the Medicare program rather than watching those dollars 
siphoned off and sidetracked on administrative expenses and bloated 
bureaucracy. Think of how far that would go for programs like 
transportation, national defense, right on down the line. There are so 
many priorities that this country has and we can fund them without 
succumbing to the Democrat motivation to dip into Social Security. We 
can work hard together as a Congress, both parties.
  I think the President finally understood this. When the President 
today agreed to an across-the-board reduction in administrative costs, 
waste, fraud and abuse in order to avoid the Social Security raid, I 
think he finally realized that the majority in Congress, that we are 
serious. We are not backing down on this particular point. The only 
reason we do not have a budget agreement as of today is because of 
certain Members in the minority side cannot see eye to eye with the 
President right now.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that is not the only 
reason we do not have a budget agreement today. One of the reasons is 
because the majority party in the House for 8 months proposed a 
trillion dollar tax cut that did not work, that went to the richest 
families in America, that assumed we would spend $198 billion less on 
national defense than President Clinton's budget proposals over the 
next 10 years. The American people rejected it. The numbers did not 
work.
  I am amazed to sit here and hear my colleagues talk about not raiding 
Social Security by reducing four-tenths of 1 percent of the 
discretionary programs when they offered a trillion dollar tax cut that 
was going to devastate our ability financially to protect Social 
Security. I welcome the debate.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I realize that there 
is a difference of opinion. The side of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) does not support tax relief. Our side does.
  For an opinion from a gentleman who has led the Committee on Ways and 
Means in trying to provide this middle-class American family tax cut, 
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

[[Page 30047]]


  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) for pointing out this key distinction and difference. Yes, 
unapologetically, I believe hard-working Americans should hold on to 
more of the money they earn instead of sending it to Washington. Yes, 
$1 trillion out after $3 trillion projected surplus over the next 
decade is reasonable. Because $2 trillion are going to save Social 
Security and Medicare, and the other trillion dollars, as we can see 
from the institutional pressure of the other side, they want to spend 
that money. They would rather have Washington spend that money. Mr. 
Speaker, I think that is the wrong thing to do. All the American people 
should hold onto their money.
  As to the canard of tax cuts for the wealthy, I would simply point 
out that all working Americans who pay taxes should have a right to 
have their money back. Certainly my friends on the left do not impugn 
initiative and success. They are not coming to the floor to do that. 
But, again, it begs the question.
  Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left should join with us if they 
bemoan or belittle four-tenths of a cent in terms of reductions. They 
should join with us. If they do not think it is a big deal, then join 
with us and let us reach an agreement.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson) who is here and would like a chance to defend his 
party's position.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman turning to the 
right to talk to his gentleman on the left. But if we want to get this 
clear, let us remember why we are here. One, the gentleman's party has 
never really supported Social Security and Medicare. At the beginning 
of the year, the gentleman recommended that a trillion dollars be cut 
in taxes, noble a cause as it is. Everyone, including those who are 
going to get the tax break, recognize that would undermine our ability 
to deal with Social Security and Medicare.
  We have not as a Congress dealt with drug benefits. We have not dealt 
with fixing Medicare. We have not dealt with Social Security. But what 
we have here is a last minute attempt by the majority party to blame 
everybody under the sun for their failure to get a budget together and 
for their failure to come up with solutions for these problems.
  So my colleagues can have a trillion dollars for tax cuts, and that 
did not endanger Social Security. But now they are trying to cover 
themselves with those very Social Security recipients, because their 
own polls say they dropped 12 points with senior citizens when they 
tried that game.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we certainly would invite our friends on 
the left to apply for their own hour of special order if they would 
like to continue the dialogue.
  But of course one of the oldest political tricks in the book is to 
try to change the subject. We appreciate that, and we understand their 
inherent distrust of allowing the American people to hold on to more of 
their money, not to mention, unfortunately, their mistaken notion that 
you cannot actually increase government revenues by allowing people to 
save, spend, and invest more their own money that leads to economic 
success, that leads to more jobs, that leads to prosperity, and in turn 
brings in more receipts in taxation to the Federal Government. But that 
is fine. It is nice to have a catchy slogan.
  The fact remains that there is a very simple way to deal with the 
question we face right now. That is to save one penny on every dollar 
of discretionary spending. My friends who pledge fealty to Social 
Security should note this, and let us note this for the Record, Mr. 
Speaker, just for historical accuracy, over three-quarters of the 
Republicans serving in Congress at the time of the Social Security Act 
supported Social Security. So all the canards and misinformation and 
perhaps confusion on the left can be cleared up.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I want to allude back to a comment that 
was made earlier; and that is, when the Republican House passed a tax 
cut for the American people, one that the American people deserve in 
times of surplus, in times of plenty, money that they rightfully earn, 
and when the Republican Senate passed the tax cut for the same reasons, 
it was not the American people that rejected the tax cut, it was the 
White House that rejected the tax cut.
  We will continue between now and next year or as long as it takes to 
fight for tax relief for the American people, as the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) pointed to, because it means more jobs, because 
it means economic growth, because it means getting money out of 
Washington, because when money is left on the table here, it is spent 
and it is wasted unnecessarily.
  So, yes, it is a healthy debate, and the American people deserve the 
healthy debate to see the differences between those who do not believe 
in tax relief, between those who believe that taking hard-earned money 
and keeping it and spending it as they see fit is the right way as 
opposed to a clear and, I think, strong distinction on the other side, 
and that is this Republican Congress who believe that the American 
people work too hard to send too much money to Washington and not 
sending enough back this return.
  So I commend the gentleman for continuing to fight for the American 
people and engaging in this debate. Perhaps what we need is a change of 
personnel in the White House so that when a Republican House passes a 
tax cut, and a Republican Senate passes a tax cut, it will be signed 
into law, and then, and only then, will the American people get the tax 
cut that they truly deserve.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we all go over 
and talk about this tax reduction and the budget. But one has to do it 
going to the lectern behind the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), 
right in front of our distinguished Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). Because at that position in this chamber in 
January, the President, in his historic State of the Union Address, 
said let us spend 38 percent of the Social Security surplus. He said 
let us preserve 62 percent and then outlined spending of 38 percent.
  Now, we stopped that debate to say, do you know what, Congress? 
Republican and Democrats have always raided that cash cow called the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Let us stop doing that. Let us protect and 
preserve grandma's pension. Let us do not do that. That was one of the 
most significant things about this Congress.
  But then the second part of our budget, along with preserving 100 
percent of Social Security, was to pay down the debt. Our budget had 
$2.2 trillion in debt reduction.
  Then, thirdly, and most importantly, because this is a triangle, this 
is a sequence, Social Security, debt reduction, and then a trigger. 
Maybe this is what the Democrats did not like, but the trigger said, 
after you have taken care of Social Security, after you have taken care 
of debt reduction, then you have tax relief, because the American 
people are entitled to their change.
  If one goes to Wal-Mart and one buys a $7 hammer, the cashier does 
not load one's grocery cart up with more goods. She gives one one's $3 
back.
  That is all we are saying is that, after we have paid Social Security 
obligations, debt reduction obligations, let the American workers have 
their overpayment back. It is so simple. It is an equity question for 
American workers. I am not sure why the liberals on the other side do 
not understand that.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, it is a simple question that I think most 
Americans would certainly agree with, because most Americans are 
oriented towards savings. They do not want to waste their hard-earned 
dollars when it

[[Page 30048]]

comes to their own family budgets, and they do not want to send more 
money to Washington than we need here in Washington in order to 
effectively run the Government. That is why tax relief is such an 
important topic and so important to pursue it.
  I want to take Members through a brief economic history lesson on the 
history of this Congress raiding the Social Security fund. This graph 
goes all the way back to 1983.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said the history of this 
Congress, the history of the United States Congress.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The United States Congress, correct, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Because this Congress stopped the raid, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman correcting me.
  Going back to 1983, one can see the growth in borrowing from the 
Social Security fund in order to pay for the rest of government.
  What this big pink blob represents is Social Security debt. This is 
$638 billion. This is just principle, by the way. When it comes to 
actually paying this back, there is a certain amount of interest that 
we will be responsible for paying as well.
  One can see this spike right up here is about as bad as it got, about 
$80 billion-a-year raid on Social Security. That was the year that 
Republicans were reelected into the majority here in Congress. One can 
see that we decided to turn things around. This dramatic drop that one 
sees going into 1999 is the result of a more fiscally responsible 
approach to budgeting here in Washington.
  We did not cut spending, really, in real dollars in Washington, but 
we did dramatically slow the rate of growth in Federal spending so that 
the American economy can catch up. The result is, here in 1999, we are 
no longer borrowing from the Social Security fund in order to pay for 
the rest of government.
  But this is a point that the President up until today did not want to 
be. This is a point where many of our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, they do not want to be here either. See, they want to 
continue borrowing from Social Security so they can pay for a lot of 
the things that they think are important but that the American people 
believe we probably do not need.
  This is a remarkable graph, because it shows here in the final year, 
it almost looks like the end of the graph here, but this is a 1-year 
decline in Social Security borrowing that we see here. This is a 
picture of what we have accomplished in Congress as Republicans taking 
the majority in the House and the Senate and standing up to the White 
House.
  Even the President understands that borrowing from Social Security 
needs to end. It ended this year. We are proud of that. We want to see 
this line even further drop below the baseline here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points. First 
of all, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we can reiterate this enough. 
Because last month, the folks who do all the calculations, the 
budgeters in this town took a look, and the reason that chart exists as 
it does today is because all the folks who deal with all the economic 
forecasts and who take a look at the tax receipts coming in and the 
money being spent going out evaluated what transpired in the last 
fiscal year. What they said was nothing short of historic and cannot be 
repeated enough.
  They found that, for the first time since 1960 when I was 2 years of 
age, when that great and good man Dwight David Eisenhower resided at 
the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in our executive mansion as 
President of the United States, for the first time since 1960, Congress 
balanced the budget, did not use the Social Security Trust Fund, did 
not raid those funds for more spending, and, moreover, generated a 
surplus.
  My friends who joined us, our friends who were on the political left 
tend to bemoan any type of spending reduction. The other reason, and I 
know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) agree with me, you see the other reason to make 
sure Americans have more of their hard earned money back in their 
pockets. It is a simple fact, Mr. Speaker, that if the money is not 
given back to the people who earned it, there are special interests 
here in Washington who are more than happy to spend it.
  So we should really thank the President for at long last coming to 
our point of view for saying, in the wake of his State of the Union 
message, let me reconsider. Instead of 62 percent, I will go along with 
the majority party, save 100 percent of the Social Security. That is a 
victory for the American people.
  I thank my friends on the left, despite their vociferous opposition 
here earlier in this special order to tax relief for going on the 
Record with us. Do my colleagues realize, Mr. Speaker, again last 
month, when we brought the President's plan to raise revenue through an 
increase in taxation and fees, not a single Member of this institution 
voted in favor of the tax increase.
  So I appreciate the fact that the President was willing to let the 
will of the people through the House of Representatives speak. I think 
that is a positive point.
  Now, today, we hear that the President of the United States, Mr. 
Speaker, agrees with the Speaker of the House that there can be an 
across-the-board spending reduction.
  The one part of the puzzle that we hope we can work out, and we are 
glad the minority leader returned from the west coast and his political 
fund-raising trip, because now he can join the Speaker of the House at 
the table and agree to across-the-board savings so we can make sure 
that hands stay off the Social Security surplus.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Democrat party was 
invited to the meetings with the President and the Speaker and the 
majority leader in arriving at these decisions. Can the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) tell us one more time why was the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader not here yesterday?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that 
the minority leader was on the West Coast raising campaign cash. It is 
interesting to hear the rhetoric about campaign finance reform. But I 
guess he has to do what he felt was important. That is where his 
priorities were. I am sure he can address the House and our colleagues, 
Mr. Speaker, about that.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, as for me, I am glad the minority leader 
is back here to join us and help get to work, and maybe we can get this 
budget passed and move on, and the country can be safer knowing that 
the Congress has gone back home.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) talked about the Department of Education. I guess the issue 
there again is what might have been. See, when it comes to education, I 
do not think there is a Member of this body who truly does not believe 
that we need to invest in education. But there are clear, again, 
distinct differences between how the different sides approach the 
issue.
  See, it is a national issue. Education is clearly a national issue. 
As someone who wants to see the young people succeed and to grow and to 
prosper, as the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Colorado 
I am sure agree, the same time one also agrees that what works in 
Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York, is different than what works in 
Arizona. It is different from what works in Colorado.

                              {time}  1415

  So I think what we have been trying to get across to those who defend 
the status quo, and those individuals are folks here in Washington who 
just want all the money and who would place a lot of strings and 
mandates on the States and localities, what we have been trying to say 
is let us commit ourselves to adequate funding for education but allow 
the local school

[[Page 30049]]

boards, the parents, the teachers at PS4 in Staten Island, the teachers 
at PS16 on Staten Island, let them, together with the principals, with 
the teachers, with the parents who know those kids and who know their 
needs, let them make those decisions, not someone here in Washington 
who does not know anybody in those classrooms.
  So, again, we must continue to force the issue and to say that we are 
committed to education, but allow those local parents, the local 
teachers and principals the flexibility. Because what may work on 
Staten Island, what the needs are on Staten Island, are clearly, I 
believe, different from Arizona, Colorado, and the other States.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman over here wants 
more time, however, we still have some more points we need to make. If 
we are able to, I will yield later.
  At the moment, I want to first make one point in reference to the 
gentleman from New York and his observation, and I want to make that 
point with this apple. Most Americans desperately want to see their 
schools well funded, and they are willing to invest the money that it 
takes in order to see that schools have the resources to run 
effectively. But if we look at this apple in terms of the education 
dollar that an American taxpayer sends to Washington, they would like 
to believe that this apple, this dollar, actually makes it back to a 
child's classroom. In reality, here is what happens.
  First, we have to realize that the cost of paying taxes alone, just 
complying with the IRS and the Federal Tax Code, takes a certain bite 
out of that apple just to begin with. So if we take that section out, 
just accounting for the Internal Revenue Service for the cost of 
compliance with the tax codes, we already have a bite taken out of that 
education dollar.
  Then, when those dollars come here to Washington, the chances are 
very good, and given the debate that we are having today it is easy to 
see, that some of those dollars can be misdirected and spent on 
programs that really have nothing to do with education. They may be 
housed in the Department of Education, they may be housed in another 
education-related agency, but those dollars are not really appropriated 
in Washington in a way that even gets close to children.
  Then there is the issue of the expense associated with the United 
States Department of Education. Again, a $120 billion Federal agency 
that is reporting as of next Thursday, to go back to this graph here, 
reporting tomorrow that its books for 1998 are not auditable. They do 
not know, they cannot tell the Congress exactly how they spent their 
money in 1998 and in subsequent years. So we have that agency, which 
consumes three office buildings downtown here, and they are full of 
good conscientious sorts of folks, but people who consume the education 
dollar and prevent those dollars from getting to the classroom.
  So, now, when we talk about the bite that the Department of Education 
takes out, my goodness, it is a huge chunk of the education dollar. So 
here is what we are talking about that is left on the education dollar 
to get back to children and classrooms.
  On top of that, we have States that have to comply with Federal rules 
and regulations that are attached with a small percentage of these 
Federal funds remaining, and the States have to hire people just to 
fill out the Federal paperwork in order to answer the Federal 
Government's rules and expectations on the money. And by the time the 
education dollar actually gets back to a child, this is about all that 
is left. It is a shame.
  What we are trying to do here in the Republican Congress, by 
demanding the accountability, by demanding that the waste, fraud, and 
abuse be eliminated, by trying to guarantee that that one penny on a 
dollar is saved and not squandered, we are trying to make this 
education dollar whole again so that we get dollars back to the 
classroom, and not just part of an apple, not just part of an education 
dollar. Our children deserve better than this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Well, Mr. Speaker, as the expression goes, an apple a 
day keeps the bureaucrat away.
  But the gentleman is right. When I go back to Staten Island or 
Brooklyn, and I was there a couple of days ago in some schools, we hear 
from these parents and these teachers, who are in a better position to 
make these decisions for the children, whether the class size is 20 or 
30 kids. Wherever they come from, they are there for one reason, to 
learn and to succeed. We just happen to believe that that money is 
better spent back in Staten Island and Brooklyn and those decisions are 
better made in Arizona or in Colorado or in Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, generations of children will go through schools and not 
know the people in Washington who are determining how their education 
money is spent, with those mandates and with the strings attached. We 
are trying to create flexibility. There is nobody in this House, and I 
would be amazed if somebody were to come to this floor and in good 
faith argue that there is somebody in this House who is not for 
education and not for the children of America, for them to prevail and 
succeed, but there is a definite distinction between those who want 
control, those who believe that the money is better spent in 
Washington, those who believe that decisions are better made in 
Washington as opposed to the folks back home to Staten Island who say 
give us the tools, give us the resources, give us the money, give us 
the flexibility to determine what is going to be best for the kids in 
our classroom. And that is the same in PS18 or PS104 or PS36 back in 
Staten Island and Brooklyn, and I am sure that is the same in Arizona 
where the gentleman is from.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I just want to 
say, as the son of an educator and the brother of a teacher, I really 
appreciate what the gentleman is saying about teachers because they 
really do need more control over the classroom.
  I am going to yield the floor after this, in terms of my portion, but 
I just wanted to say this. In the 106th Congress, the Congress we are 
going to be adjourning, we always talk about winners and losers. Well, 
let us talk about who won.
  For the American consumer, we revamped a 65-year-old banking law to 
give American families more choices in borrowing, saving money, and 
buying insurance.
  For the rural TV watcher, we have increased the access to local news 
programs. And if my colleagues think that that is not important, they 
should think what happens when the people are trying to get hurricane 
updates.
  For the American taxpayers, we said no to the President's trying to 
increase taxes. On a bipartisan vote we said no to the President's $42 
billion increase in new tax dollars.
  For future generations, we have committed to paying $130 billion in 
debt reduction; and already we have paid down $88 billion.
  For all Americans, we have increased military morale by increasing 
their pay 4.8 percent. We have increased funding for equipment 
modernization and for readiness. And for all of American security, we 
passed the missile defense system.
  For our children, educational flexibility; to put local school 
boards, teachers, and parents back in charge of their classrooms, not 
Washington bureaucrats.
  For seniors, we have increased access to health care by protecting 
Medicare and reforming the Balanced Budget Act. And, finally, for the 
first time since 1969, we stopped the raid on Social Security. And we 
will be adjourning with $147 billion in the Social Security surplus 
untouched.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know we are not allowed to wear buttons on the 
floor, but if we were allowed, I would wear this one. Because it says, 
proudly, we the Members of this Congress have stopped the raid on the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I want to graphically point out again what 
the gentleman just said. If we go back over the last 30 years of 
overspending in

[[Page 30050]]

Washington, D.C., we can see we have to go way back to 1970 to see a 
time when we generated even a little teeny bit of a surplus. Going 
forward, over the next 30 years, we can see that this government has 
consistently, year after year, dipped into Social Security and borrowed 
from other places in order to create a huge national debt. This is the 
accumulation of Washington spending more money than the taxpayers have 
sent to Washington in order to run the government.
  Well, we know that that is unnecessary. We do not need to do that. We 
can see what happened here at its absolute worst. The American people 
revolted, to some degree. This is the year Republicans were elected to 
take over the majority of the Congress, the year our party was placed 
in charge of trying to manage this huge problem.
  And we can see the result. By slowing the rate of growth in Federal 
spending, by being more frugally sensitive as to how to manage the 
Federal budget, and being more responsible, we managed to shrink this 
debt. Not only did we see it go away, but it was to the point where, in 
1998, we were beginning to mount a surplus that has allowed us to pay 
down the debt quicker, allowed us to save Social Security, allowed us 
to rescue the Medicare program, allowed us to provide a strong national 
defense, and allowed us to spend the time to make government more 
efficient and effective so that we can get dollars to classrooms, get 
dollars to the front lines, get dollars to the places that really need 
it rather than being locked up here in this gigantic bureaucracy here 
in Washington, D.C.
  This is something to be proud of. And this portion of the chart here 
can grow and grow, if we continue to apply the conservative Republican 
principles that have gotten us from down here when Democrats were in 
charge to this line here when Republicans were in charge. A dramatic 
difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, and 
again we need to reaffirm and amplify not only what the chart indicates 
but also what our colleague from Georgia mentioned.
  We have been able to pay down debt this fiscal year. We are in the 
process of paying down close to $150 billion in debt. Over the past 2 
years, almost $140 billion in debt paid down. We are in the process of 
doing this. And, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues hear at town hall 
meetings two concerns. From day one, when I was elected to the Congress 
of the United States, my constituents said loudly and clearly, Mr. 
Congressman, get Uncle Sam's hand out of Social Security money. Wall 
that off for Social Security. And we have done so. And the President 
has at long last agreed with us. But they have also said, pay down the 
debt; and we have been doing that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we can point out again the atmospherics of this 
chamber, the histrionics from the other side. The problem is this: The 
institutional pressure of those who want to grow government, Mr. 
Speaker, those who sadly could be described as serial spenders, and I 
am not talking about a breakfast offering of fruits and grains topped 
off with milk, but the serial spenders, the compulsive spenders, who 
always heed in their priorities the notion that they know better what 
to do with the people's money. We are saying we are going to save that 
money for the Social Security Trust Fund.
  And it is akin to our rich spiritual tradition where, as part of the 
service, we pass the plate. All we are asking the left to do is put a 
penny on the plate. For every dollar of discretionary spending, Mr. 
Speaker, can they not spare a penny for grandma? A penny saved is 
retirement secured. One hundred percent of Social Security money to 
Social Security. And, accordingly, we have made the difference, and we 
invite our friends on the left to join us.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from New York once again.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Inasmuch as this debate is coming to a close, Mr. 
Speaker, allow me just to think, observe what has happened in the last 
year, and that is that in the beginning of the year we had proposals 
from the White House for more taxes, more spending, and setting aside 
only a portion of the Social Security surplus to be walled off. The 
Republican Congress, fortunately, and rightfully, stepped in and 
stopped increasing taxes, controlled spending as much as it could, and 
set aside 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to protect it from 
unnecessary wasteful government programs.
  So as we set our sights on the future, I hope that the American 
people understand that this Congress is committed to growth, to 
creating more jobs, to providing more freedom for individuals and small 
business owners so that they can grow and so that they can prosper, so 
that we can be better off tomorrow than we are today. Along the way, we 
know there are going to be people who do not want change, who do not 
believe in things like free trade, who do not believe in things like 
lower taxes, who do not believe in things like limited government, but 
who do believe in the alternative; that decisions are better made here 
in Washington, and they just want to keep that money coming here so 
that they can control the taxpaying public's lives a little more.
  So as we engage in the debate, and as we go home for the holidays, I 
hope the American people reflect, as I will do as I head back home to 
Staten Island, and I hope they understand that there is a party here 
that sees a brighter and more prosperous future when we place our faith 
in the American people.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I look 
forward to creating a structure whereby the gentleman from Staten 
Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), can go back to Staten Island. We are 
hoping that we will be able to do that.
  I would like to praise the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and join the gentleman from 
Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), for their very eloquent and 
thoughtful remarks and their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank again my friend, the gentleman 
from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), for underscoring this 
party's commitment to free trade.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, we are here in the final few minutes of 
what may be for me and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and 
others our last special order opportunity for the millennium. And so, 
it is a time that I look on as a pretty solemn occasion because we have 
worked pretty hard this year and tried to get to this point of getting 
the White House to realize that raiding Social Security is no longer a 
good idea and it never was a good idea. It is something we ought to 
avoid to the greatest extent possible. It is nice to see that the 
President finally came around to the Republican way of thinking on this 
point.
  The last hurdle remaining is for us to persuade our friends on the 
other side of the aisle to join the Congress, join the Republican 
majority, and join the White House now in just securing this final 
deal, getting this final package agreed upon to save that one penny on 
the dollar in order to avoid the previous plans to raid Social 
Security.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank my friends from the left, in the minority, for offering some 
points of view. And others will come later.
  I think it is important to remember this. As the President said when 
he came to give his State of the Union message, first things first.
  Now, we had to get him to agree with us, and he finally did so after 
initially wanting to spend almost 40 percent of the Social Security 
fund on new government programs. We finally got him to agree, no, no. 
Let us save 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security. We 
welcome that.
  The President was also content to let the House work its will when we 
brought to the floor his package of new taxation, higher taxation, and 
fees in the billions of dollars. And not a single Member of this body 
voted for those new taxes, neither Republicans nor Democrats. So we 
appreciate him acceding to the will of the House in that regard.

[[Page 30051]]

  Now, we cannot make too much of this, Mr. Speaker, or emphasize it 
enough. The President and the Speaker of the House had agreed to the 
notion of across-the-board savings, maybe not even a penny on every 
dollar, but savings enough to make sure we stay out of the Social 
Security Trust Funds.
  We welcome back the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the 
minority leader. We are pleased he is back in town, back from his 
campaign cash swing on the West Coast. We hope now he will sit down and 
solve the problems. We can get it done.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) for joining us.
  I just want to point out one more time that the Department of 
Education tomorrow will tell the Congress that it is unable to account 
for its spending in 1998. Its books are not auditable.
  This is a threat to American school children around the country. It 
is a threat to our efforts to try to get dollars to the classroom. It 
is a huge problem that the White House needs to come to grips with and 
deal with. We on the Republican side want to fix this mismanagement 
problem we have over in the Department of Education.
  At this point, I would, before I yield back, just ask subsequent 
speakers to be sure to address this topic of unauditable books over in 
the Department of Education, tell us whether they are willing to help 
work with the Republicans to correct this mismanagement, and direct the 
White House to get us to a point where the Department of Education, a 
$120 billion agency, will be able to audit its books.

                          ____________________