Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that all work is noble. As much as I believe that, it is a shame that our government does not, because even though we might think all work is noble, our government, unfortunately, views work performed by senior citizens as apparently something less than noble. How else can one explain the Social Security earning limit, which actually penalizes senior citizens who have jobs? Our seniors have worked hard their whole lives and have paid a lot of money into the Social Security system. They do so with the expectation that they will receive Social Security benefits when they turn 65. But the truth of the matter is that millions of seniors who choose to work after the age of 65 are stripped of their Social Security benefits. This is wrong. The time has come to stand up for working seniors, just as we stood up for married couples last week. Because just as it is wrong for the government to penalize people for getting married, it is wrong for the government to penalize senior citizens for working. Let us give seniors relief from the Social Security earnings limit.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, last year this Congress passed legislation to end the unfair marriage tax penalty. Regrettably, President Clinton chose to veto it. If he had signed our legislation into law, 28 million married couples could have had up to $1,400 in additional tax relief this year. Especially, this extra money would have meant a lot to couples just starting out together. Instead of having the choice to invest this money for their future or use it for everyday expenses they are forced to hand this hard-earned money over to the IRS. And this tax hits average wage earners the hardest. This is unfair. Mr. Speaker, this House is still committed to ending the tax on married people. This year we will fix the marriage tax penalty. I urge the President to work with us this time to make it happen.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. I believe this bill is an extremely important tool in maintaining the balance of power in the Pacific region. Mainland China, or the PRC, is currently engaged in a massive buildup of ballistic missiles capable of reaching the shores of Taiwan. When we passed the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States made a commitment to provide Taiwan with the capability of defending itself from aggression. H.R. 1838 reaffirms that commitment, and I believe most importantly requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a program to enhance operational training exchanges between the militaries of the United States and Taiwan concerning threat analysis, force planning, and operational methods. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1838 is a necessary step in fulfilling our promises to Taiwan. By passing this legislation, the United States will make a powerful statement that aggression toward Taiwan will not be tolerated. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I have a message for the American people. Let me be perfectly clear: Despite the extraordinary case of amnesia on the part of some about what got us here, amnesia on a scale that is rivaled only by that of Lorena Bobbitt and O.J. Simpson, I wish to state to all Americans that the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan is on a nationwide jihad for lower taxes. That is right, Mr. Speaker. The Republican Party is on a holy war on behalf of hard-pressed working people whose take-home pay has stagnated. We do not stand for tax cuts tomorrow. We do not stand for tax cuts at some theoretical future date that is conditional on the politicians' good behavior. We do not stand for targeted tax cuts, which we all know is a code for no one is going to get one. We do not stand for some groups and not others. We do not stand for tax relief only for those who are represented by special interest groups. No, Mr. Speaker, we are for lower taxes for all working Americans, and we want lower taxes now.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. The Government Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the Pentagon have all complied with requests from the Congress or complied with law to document the amount of money that we have spent on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. The total amount of money is at least $17.1 billion since 1992. Now, the U.N. has legitimized that accounting because they have credited us with $1.8 billion of that against past dues. But regrettably this legislation that is before us gives the United Nations nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money, in spite of the fact that the GAO, the CRS and the Pentagon itself have documented that the U.N. owes us at least $15 billion. This is a travesty that I hope future legislation can correct.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, call me a skinflint, but I think a million dollars is a little too much to spend on building an outhouse. But, apparently, the National Park Service disagrees, because that is just how much it spent to build an outhouse at Glacier National Park in Montana. That is $1 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. To get to this outhouse, should one need such relief, one need only hike 6\1/2\ miles from the nearest road and climb 7,000 feet. It took more than 800 helicopter drops and hundreds of horse trips to get the construction materials to the site. That is a lot of hassle; but, hey, it does have a complete septic system. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of waste that needs to be trimmed out of the Federal budget and is an example of how easy it will be for agencies to cut a penny from every dollar. That is all it will take to stop the 30-year raid on Social Security. Mr. Speaker, now that is the kind of relief America needs.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, public school teachers are America's unsung heroes. Day in and day out, they dedicate themselves to helping prepare our children for the future. It is important to make sure our children's teachers have access to the training and tools they need to meet their commitment to students and parents. But the Clinton-Gore administration disagrees. It wants the Federal Government to hire 100,000 teachers; but it puts hardly any emphasis on quality. That just does not cut it. America's children do not just need teachers. They need good teachers. Many of the teachers out there are good, but many could be better and they deserve the chance to make themselves better. Where new teachers are needed, new teachers should be hired. Where teacher quality is a greater concern, State and local initiatives like merit pay, teacher testing, tenure reform, and new opportunities for teacher development might be better uses of that money. So let us give teachers the opportunity to be the best teachers they can be, and let us give America's children the best hope for a bright future.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have been hearing from President Clinton and his Democrat cohorts in Congress over the last few days. It really should not surprise me to hear Democrats say we cannot cut any waste, fraud and abuse in government. After all, they are not exactly known for their fiscal discipline. But still, when they cry out that Federal agencies cannot find one cent out of every dollar to cut from their spending that just does not ring true, even for them. One penny from every dollar is all that it will take to save Social Security for America's senior citizens. How can anyone be against this? But the Clinton-Gore administration and their friends in Congress are against it. We passed a very good bill last week, Mr. Speaker. It will strengthen Social Security, it will cut waste, fraud and abuse out of the Federal bureaucracy but only if the President signs it. It is time for the administration to stop protecting bureaucratic mismanagement at the expense of working Americans. It is time to stop pretending that it is not possible. It is time to do the honest, responsible thing, stop the raid on Social Security once and for all.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, they just do not get it. President Clinton, Vice President Gore and the Democrat leaders in Congress are failing to grasp one simple concept: No means no. When we passed every appropriations bill this year, we did it in a way that will protect every last dollar in the Social Security trust fund, but the Democrat leaders have opposed us almost every step of the way. They are pulling out all the stops to try to get their hands on that Social Security money for their big government Washington programs. That is the way they have been doing things for 30 years, but the Republicans have changed that. We stopped the raid on the Social Security trust fund and we are asking the Washington bureaucracy to reduce its spending by just 1 percent to make sure that Social Security remains strong. We want to root out some of the waste, fraud and abuse that plagues the bureaucracy. So I hope President Clinton will sign our legislation that protects Social Security, because if he keeps telling us to dip into that Social Security money we will keep telling him no, and we will mean it.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, as we prepare to finish our work in Washington and return home to our districts, we know we will have to explain our record here in Congress. It looks as though we will return to our seniors with terrible news. We will tell them that while the House passed a Social Security Lockbox Protection bill on May 26, this bill to permanently stop the raid on Social Security funds has been held hostage in the other body now for a total of 159 days. We will have to explain to our seniors that some big spenders in Washington want to continue the raid on Social Security funds. We stopped the raid this year, but it was not easy. That is why the lockbox bill is so important. It will make it easier to stop the raid in future years. I hope President Clinton and all the outside interest groups that say they speak for the interest of American seniors will join me in supporting lockbox protection for the Social Security Trust Fund.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, deep under the Ural Mountains, under a mountain called Yamantau, the Russians continue to build and expand the world's largest, deepest, most nuclear-secure facility. Started under Brezhnev, they have now spent $4.5 billion on this super-secret facility. They are doing this, and by the way, they are now increasing, they are ramping up their efforts. They are doing this at a time when they cannot pay their military, when they cannot provide housing for their military. I asked my colleagues and I asked administration officials, why would they do this? What I am told is they do this because they are paranoid. I have had a super top secret code word briefing on what is called silver bullets. These are efforts on the part of the Russians to leapfrog our war-making capabilities. They know they cannot compete with us in conventional weaponry, so they are seeking to leapfrog our technologies so our war-making capabilities will be neutralized. I asked again, why would they do this? What I am told is they do this because they are paranoid. They have so many, so many needs in their country, why would they spend money doing this? If they are doing these things because they are paranoid, then I ask the question, why would we want to feed their paranoia by expanding NATO? They see NATO as a threat. Why would we want to feed their paranoia? NATO may have a role to play. That role should not be in antagonizing the Russians, in feeding their paranoia. If we are to pass a resolution like this, it needs to be reworded so it will not be threatening to the Russians.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, for 30 years Washington big spenders have raided the Social Security trust fund. They have put big government programs ahead of retirement security for hardworking Americans. The Republican Congress has changed that. We put the Social Security surplus in a lockbox and we are not spending a dime of it. But the Democrat leadership just does not think this is a good idea. They think we should wait and see if we can find any money in the budget before we meet our commitment to our Nation's workers and retirees. That approach just does not cut it. The money is already there. So we Republicans are asking each Federal agency to trim waste, fraud and abuse. We will take one penny from each dollar in their budgets and let them decide how to get by without it. In other words, we will not cut a single program. Instead, we look to the bureaucracy to cut down on waste, fraud and abuse so we can strengthen retirement security for American workers.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the original sponsor of H.R. 348, the National Civil Defense/Emergency Management Act of 1999. This is a straightforward, nonpartisan piece of legislation which will authorize the placement of a monument to honor those individuals, paid and volunteers alike, who have served our Nation in our most trying times, when disaster strikes. Mr. Speaker, as we speak, FEMA employees and volunteers are working around the clock to help the victims of Hurricane Floyd recover from widespread wind damage, beach erosion, and, most notably, flooding. FEMA teams are working tirelessly to deliver food, shelter, clothing and medical assistance to thousands of families up and down the East Coast. While this is the most recent disaster to strike the U.S., it surely will not be the last. It is our hope that this monument will be a permanent reminder to those who come to our rescue that we appreciate their service and dedication to duty. The monument itself is a gift from the private, nonprofit National Civil Defense Monument Commission. I would like to commend the members of this commission, especially their Chairman, Alex Atzert, for their efforts to raise the necessary funds for this monument, which comes at no cost to taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, as set forth in this legislation, the design and site selection of the monument must be approved by the FEMA Director, currently James Witt, who has given this monument his blessing. I am proud to say that the monument will be placed on the grounds of the FEMA training facility in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in the Sixth Congressional District which I have the honor to represent. Mr. Speaker, by passing H.R. 348, we can demonstrate our appreciation for those who have served our country at FEMA and Civil Defense. This small token of appreciation will help ensure that future generations recognize the hard work and dedication of former employees and volunteers who look favorably on this worthy endeavor. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 348, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be pleased that President Clinton has finally come around to the Republican view that we should not spend a penny of Social Security on other programs. Since the President had initially wanted to spend billions of Social Security surplus on some of his big government programs, I think this is real progress. However, I am concerned that instead of helping us cut spending to reach that goal, the President wants to increase excise taxes on working Americans. Mr. Speaker, the American people are taxed enough. It is through their hard work that the budget is now balanced. We have a budget surplus. There is no reason for us to raise taxes one penny on lower and middle income Americans to pay for bigger government. That would be wrong. So I urge my Democrat colleagues to drop their plan to raise taxes on working Americans and join us in a bipartisan effort to save Social Security.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is true what they say about old dogs. No matter how hard we try sometimes, we just cannot teach them new tricks. So when we try to stop the people who have been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund from doing it any more, well, that is a lot easier said than done. See, they have been using this money to fund big government programs, and if we tell them they have got to find one penny out of every Federal dollar to preserve Social Security for America's retirees, that is a pretty tough trick for them. The comments of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) tell us just how hard a time the Democrats are having learning it when he says that we should spend as little of the Social Security surplus as possible. What he is really saying is let us spend as much of the Social Security surplus as we want on the Federal bureaucracy, and if there happens to be any money left, heck, we may as well give it back to the people it belongs to. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a better idea: stop the raid first. Strengthening retirement security must be a top priority, not an afterthought.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to set the record straight. Despite the accusations being lodged by the Democrat tax-and-spend caucus, the Republican plan to save Social Security for millions of Americans does not mandate cutting any government programs. It does not touch Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' pensions, food stamps, or any other important benefits program. Instead, it makes the heads of Federal agencies more accountable for how they spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money. We are telling them we think they can do better and we are telling them they must work to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in their agencies, because if they don't, they will jeopardize the retirement security for three generations of Americans. No longer will Congress stand idly by as the Washington big spenders live like parasites off the retirement dollars of working Americans. The Republican Congress will set aside 1 penny of every Federal dollar to meet our commitment to the American people. A penny saved is retirement secured.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, newspapers reported several days ago that the President has taken a new hard line with Republicans in Congress, saying that he will refuse to sign other spending measures until they address his priorities and ``assure the Social Security surplus is being protected.'' Being protected? Recently the President vetoed the foreign aid bill and has threatened to veto others because they do not spend more. But more of what? Since the President has refused to accept our reasonable spending measures, he has only who choices left, either raise taxes or raid the Social Security Trust Fund, neither of which Congress will support, nor will I. If President Clinton was sincere about protecting Social Security, he would sign into law the reasonable spending measures we have passed in Congress and sent to him. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the people's retirement fund, not the President's personal slush fund. Stop the raid on Social Security.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, broadband Internet access promises to revolutionize the way Americans live, play, and learn. However, only 2 percent of Americans have access to broadband communications. Today, consumers must settle for slow Internet access. Most of us have experienced the worldwide wait of too many consumers trying to get on and surf the Net at the same time through slow dial-up connections overloading the system. Is there anything Congress can do to clear the traffic jam? Yes. Congress can pass H.R. 2420, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 1999. That will encourage companies to build out the Internet backbone and allow the benefits of broadband to flow freely to all consumers rather than the current trickle down to a lucky few. H.R. 2420 will remove the regulatory barriers erected by the FCC that are hindering the deployment of broadband services by the Bell companies. These companies should be encouraged, instead of discouraged, to invest in broadband services. This legislation already enjoys broad bipartisan support. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 2420 today.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I am going to depart from my prepared remarks to try and set the record straight. We had a number of representatives from the other side of the aisle who have gotten up to say that our Republican spending plan would spend Social Security money. They have even shown newspaper articles to bolster their contention. The newspaper articles are wrong. They are wrong. Let me read again from a letter from the Congressional Budget Office dated September 30, that is today, to the Speaker. ``Dear Mr. Speaker: You requested that we estimate the impact on the fiscal year 2000 Social Security surplus using CBO's economic and technical assumptions based on a plan whereby net discretionary outlays for fiscal year 2000 will equal $592.1 billion.'' That is the Republican spending plan. ``CBO estimates that this spending plan will not use any of the projected Social Security surplus in the year 2000.'' Being a teacher, I know that repetition is the soul of learning, so let me say it again to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: ``CBO estimates that this spending plan will not use any of the projected Social Security surplus in the fiscal year 2000.'' Do my colleagues get it?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, why is it the Democrats want to bust the budget caps that they themselves agreed to while at the same time they are opposed to giving tax relief to the taxpayers? On the one hand, they argue that we must relax our fiscal discipline and expand government. On the other hand, they argue that we must maintain fiscal discipline and therefore cannot have tax relief. Leaving aside the many good arguments for tax fairness that the Republican tax relief proposal contains, let us consider what the Democrats are saying. New Washington spending, fine. Tax relief for the taxpayers, no way. Fiscal discipline is forgotten whenever Democrats have an opportunity to increase spending, but they are fiscal discipline's best friend whenever tax relief is on the table. What is wrong with this picture? It is very simple. It is known as liberalism; never known, it must be said, for the rigor of its logic. Is there a liberal in the House that will step forward and defend their position?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the President and House Democrats want to continue their 30-year raid on the Social Security trust fund but Republicans have drawn a line in the sand. First, we forced the President to agree to our lockbox provision, which walls off the Social Security trust fund from Washington politicians who want to use it for new Federal spending. Now we want to protect the Social Security money from the big government liberals who want to increase spending and increase the size and power of the Federal Government. The President's budget would spend $57 billion of the Social Security surplus in the fiscal year 2000 budget alone. We must put a stop to the raid on Social Security. Stop the raid. Let us put an end to 30 years of fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, when our forefathers came here a number of years ago and in 1776 wrote the Declaration of Independence, they broke with a tradition in essentially all of the countries they came from, mainly then from Europe and the British Isles. That tradition was a divine right of kings, that somehow people accepted the notion that the rights came from God to the king and the king would then give what rights he wished to his people. In the Declaration of Independence, they made a radical departure from that because they said that we, we the people, are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Consistent with this notion that the rights belong to the people, and with their concern about the tyranny of the crown, the tyranny of the State, they wrote and it was ratified in 1791, 4 years after the ratification of the Constitution, the Second Amendment, part of the first 10 amendments which we know as the Bill of Rights, and there they continue this theme that has been mentioned a couple of times now by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), that they really were concerned that the people should have this right, the people. Let me read the Second Amendment. My liberal friends rarely read the whole amendment. They read the second part of it: ``a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.'' What does one think that means? What that means is that they were concerned that without a well-regulated militia, without the people having the right to keep and bear arms, that we could not be assured of all of the freedoms guaranteed to us, given to us by God, and guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Let me read again: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people,'' the right of the people, not the National Guard, not the Army, not the Navy, the right of the people, ``to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' We meddle with this at the risk of losing all of those great guarantees of freedom, of rights that we have in the Constitution. I support wholeheartedly this privileged motion.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this week of September 19 to 25 marks Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week. I commend members of the Western Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, WMCALA, for joining thousands of Americans in informing the general public of the high price we all pay for frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards. Today this House has the opportunity to reduce lawsuit abuse by passing the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act. This bill will discourage frivolous class action claims. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes and pass this sensible and important legislation. Frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards exact a heavy price from all Americans in the form of higher prices for goods and services, fewer jobs, loss of safety improvements and product innovations, and delays in compensation for citizens with legitimate claims. Please pass the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act today.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a very special professional organization of which I was a member for a number of years, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary on Friday, September 17: The Frederick County Builders Association. For 40 years, the Frederick County Builders Association has been a professional organization dedicated to providing the Frederick community quality building, especially home building. Very simply, they have been building our American dream. Granted that is their bread and butter, but the Frederick builders also contribute greatly to almost 20 major community charitable endeavors, from the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, to the Catoctin Zoo, to the YMCA. They put their professional know-how to good use with their various housing charities like Habitat for Humanity, our local Advocates for the Homeless, and the Interfaith Housing of Western Maryland. The Frederick County Builders are made up of professionals who care about both their industry and our community, indeed a very special organization. Happy 40th anniversary.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the pollsters and political consultants tell us not to use statistics in our speeches. They tell us that peoples' eyes just glaze over at hearing the numbers. No matter. Honest statistics, facts, do matter. For instance, when Bill Clinton became president in 1993, the Federal Government took 17.8 percent of our productivity. Today that share is 20.7 percent, nearly 3 percent higher. Let us hear those numbers again, because they are important in discussing whether or not tax cuts are a good idea. They are also numbers that we will never, ever hear the other side refer to, ever. In 1993 when Bill Clinton became president, Federal taxes were 17.8 percent of our economy. Today Federal taxes are 20.7 percent of the economy. In other words, the Federal tax burden is at a record peacetime level. Taxes are higher than they need to be so that Washington can spend more and more money, creating new programs, expanding old ones, and giving us less power and control over our own lives. One-fifth of the economy in Federal taxes is just too much.