Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the rule but, reluctantly, in strong opposition to the bill itself. What this bill does is to unfence $100 million that was fenced in appropriations last year and sends it on its way to the United Nations. It also authorizes another roughly $900 million, and this was about a billion dollars total. All that stands between that and moving our taxpayers' money to the U.N. is the appropriation of that money. The GAO report indicated that from 1992 to 1995 we spent $6.6 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. We were credited with 1.8 billion of that against dues. That recognizes the legitimacy of these figures. More recently, CRS, the Congressional Research Service, says that between 1992 and May of last year we spent $11.1 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. The Department of Defense, the Pentagon itself, says that, last year, where he spent $3 billion dollars on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. We are shortly going to vote on an emergency appropriations bill to cover the expenditures that are at $1.3 billion. We have spent, since 1992, about $14 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. We have been credited with only $1.8 billion of that against our dues. What we want is a recognition in this bill that we may owe them some back dues, but they owe us five or more times as much money in legitimate expenditures against U.N. peacekeeping activities. We want an accounting of that before any of our hard-earned taxpayers' money goes to support the U.N. What we get in return for this, if we vote this bill, is, by the admission of my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, a really watered-down Mexico City language. The President is going to veto this bill. The Senate voted 90 to 10 yesterday on a Helms amendment that there was no dues until there was a tally. That is an accounting. The Senate has voted 90 to 10. All we would do in this vote is to send the message that we owe a billion dollars dues to the U.N., and we are not going to require an accounting. That is the wrong message to send. It is not the message that the American people want sent. I have been on dozens of talk shows across the country. I have not had one caller that called in to say cough up a billion dollars for U.N. dues. I have had unanimous support for our position that we need an accounting, we need an accounting before this becomes law. Please vote no on this bill. Do what they should have done, take it back to conference, and bring out a bill that the American people can support.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, my friend from New Jersey says that the antiabortion compromise with this bill leaves us with half a loaf. In reality, it leaves us with a thin slice. The President can waive the antiabortion provision and use hundreds of millions of dollars to promote and perform abortions. And even the thin slice we are left with will be vetoed by the President. The fact that this report is scored both ways by family values groups indicates how weak this language is. But let me tell you what this report will do. It will send $100 million on its way that was appropriated last year. It is unfenced by this authorization. It goes to supposed U.N. dues. It also authorizes the rest of nearly a billion dollars and starts it on its way. But in this report, there is no recognition of a GAO report that says from 1992 to 1995, we spent $6.6 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities, $1.8 billion that was credited to us for dues that recognizes the legitimacy of these expenditures. CRS, more recently, reported that between 1992 and May of last year, we spent $11.1 billion. The Pentagon said that last year alone, we spent $3 billion. Shortly, we are going to vote $1.3 billion, a supplemental emergency supplemental for Iraq. We spent, since 1992, about $14 billion. We have been credited with $1.8 only. This is a fatal flaw in this bill. We need to send the message that we cannot pass this bill until there is a recognition of all the money that we have spent. The Senate voted 90 to 10 yesterday, no dues without a tally of the peacekeeping. Please vote no on this, send it back to the conference so they can bring a bill to us that we can pass, recognizing the legitimacy of our U.N. peacekeeping activities, and trade those off against any dues we might owe them.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about an issue which is very important to America and its future. I have here a chart which shows the Federal budget. Ordinarily, things above the line are good. But, in this case, things below the line are good. Because when we are above the line, we have a deficit; and when we are below the line, we have a surplus. What we see is that, for fiscal year 1998, we have a surplus; for 1999, a surplus; a small surplus for 2000; and then big surpluses after that. That is really good news. Supposedly, we have balanced the budget; and America will now be on a course to reducing our debt. If we pay this money back on the debt or if we spend it or give it back as a tax cut, at least the debt should stay the same as it is now. But when we look at the next chart, what we see here, and these are estimates from CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, the official office that estimates where the economy is going, how large the deficit is going to be, how large the debt is going to be, and what we see here is that there is an ever-rising debt, that the debt goes up and up. How can the debt go up when we have balanced the budget and we have a surplus? Now, if we spent the surplus, at the worst, the debt ought to stay the same. But the debt is going up and up. As a matter of fact, the debt goes up almost a trillion dollars, from about $5.4 to about $6.4 trillion by about 2002. How in the world can that happen? How can we have a balanced budget with a surplus and still have a very large increase in the debt? It is because of the way we define the budget. The balanced budget that our people talk about is when we balance the amount of money which comes into the government against the amount of money which goes out of the government. But something over 10 percent of the money that comes into the government is not the government's money to spend. Let me show Members the next chart. The next chart shows the elements of our debt. About two-thirds of our debt are held by the public. About a third of our debt is in government accounts. What are these so-called government accounts? What that debt is, is money which does not belong to the government, should not be spent for the government except for the purpose for which it is collected. Social Security is about a third of that, the Social Security Trust Fund. Last year we took about $59 billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, spent it for routine government operating activities, and make the perfectly silly statement that the Social Security surplus offsets the deficit. That is because they refer to a unified budget, all that comes in and all that goes out, but over 10 percent of what comes in is not the government's to spend. The reason the debt goes up is because the government owes that money. About $180 billion a year is about the amount of money that is taken out of the trust funds and spent for general government operating activities. That is not the government's money to spend. As a matter of fact, most of that money belongs to seniors. Look at the categories. Social Security, Medicare, railroad retirement, military retirement, civil service retirement. That is over 90 percent of all of the trust fund money that is spent belongs to seniors. It needs to be there in those trust funds so it will be available for seniors. All that is in those trust funds is a bunch of IOUs. The bills come due when we need to have them. We do not have a balanced budget. The budget is in fact out of balance by about $180 billion a year. We need to be honest with the American people. We have balanced a unified budget, but that does not keep the debt from going up. Let me put it back up here. The debt goes up about $1 trillion over the next 5 or 6 years. That represents the $180 billion a year that we are taking from the trust funds and spending on routine government operating activities. The budget, as anybody outside of the Beltway would define it, is clearly not balanced. We are still running a deficit of $180 billion a year. That is money taken from accounts largely owned by our senior citizens. We need to demand that the government have honest accounting. We really need to balance the budget. No senior I know wants to pass on a bigger and bigger debt to their children and their grandchildren. That is what this accounting does. We need to demand honest accounting, we need to have truly a balanced budget. To get there we have got to spend $180 billion a year less. That is our challenge in the Congress. Hold us to that responsibility.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, just an aside. I understand that when the President was in Connecticut, that he was at a fundraiser at a tobacco lawyer's house. Mr. Speaker, this is a riddle: If you are in debt but you balance your budget and have surpluses for 5 years in a row, at the end of that time will you owe more or less money? If you are an individual, you will owe less money. But if you are the Federal Government, you will owe more money, almost $1 trillion more between now and 2002. How can this be? Here is the ugly truth. There is no budget surplus. The so-called budget surplus is a figment of clever Federal Government accounting. In 1988, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projects there will be a surplus of $8 billion and the national debt will be $5.5 trillion this year. In 2002, after 5 years of balanced budgets and surpluses, the national debt will be $6.4 trillion, almost $1 trillion more. The national debt will grow because the Federal Government does not count the billions spent each year from government trust funds like Social Security. Clearly, there is no surplus and the budget, obviously, is not balanced.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1969, 29 years ago, the Federal Government is supposed to balance its budget and have a surplus. But will we really? Here is a lesson in government accounting. In 1998, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projects there will be a surplus of $8 billion, and the national debt will be $5.5 trillion. Remember, the national debt is the total from accumulated deficits and interest payments. In 2002, after 5 years of balanced budgets, CBO projects the surplus will be $67 billion, and the national debt will be $6.4 trillion. Let me repeat, the national debt in 1998 will be $5.5 trillion; after years of surpluses, the national debt in 2002 will be $6.4 trillion. What is wrong with this picture? How can the government say the Federal budget will be in surplus at the same time that the national debt will increase by nearly $1 trillion? It is easy, if we do not count billions spent every year from government trust funds like Social Security. Clearly there is no surplus. If the debt continues to go up, the budget is really not balanced, now is it?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, after nearly three decades of Washington living beyond its means, the Federal budget is projected to have a surplus next year of several billions of dollars. So Congress has a choice. Actually, we have three choices. We can spend the surplus, we can use the surplus to start paying down the debt, or we can continue with the tax relief started last year. Guess what the liberals want to do with the surplus? You got it, they want to spend it. They want to increase the size and power of the Federal Government. I think that is about the last thing that Washington should do with the surplus. The way I look at it, if Congress uses the surplus for tax relief, that would be great. If the surplus goes towards reducing the debt, that would be great, too. Both would represent a radical change from the way Congress has been operating in recent decades, when the other side was in the majority. Maybe we should take tax cuts and debt relief and go 50/50. The Americans want a debate on this. They do not want us to spend the money.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I could not join the discussion before this, but I have just come from a Members-only briefing on Iraq, where we are now in the Iraq situation. I would like to start my discussion by referring to something that Congressman Paul has just referred to, and that is there really is not just one, but two constitutional issues involved here. The first of those constitutional issues is Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, and it is a little document, a very important one; I carry it in my pocket. Article 1, section 8 says that one of the responsibilities of the Congress is to declare war. There is no hint of that in the responsibilities of the President, who is Commander in Chief, who commands the troops after they are committed by the Congress. Yeltsin said that if we bomb, that could start World War III. By our President's own admission we were going to take casualties. I think it is very difficult to argue that this bombing would not have been the equivalent of what our Forefathers were talking about when they mentioned declaration of war. And that is not the only part of the Constitution that would have been violated by this. Article 1, section 9 says that no moneys shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. There has been no appropriation for this activity over in Iraq, so I think that clearly two parts of the Constitution are involved here, the part that says that the President, as you know, we do not elect in our democratic republic, we do not elect an emperor. We elect a President, and the President is bound by the Constitution. And the Constitution says that the Congress declares war; that he is the Commander in Chief after war has been declared. The Constitution also says that moneys cannot be taken from the Treasury except by appropriations. We have made no appropriation for this. So he clearly needs to come to the Congress. I have a resolution that Congressman Paul was on and a great many others, and by the way, this has wide support across the aisle. We have Members from the most conservative to the most liberal on this. It is a very simple resolution. All it says is that, Mr. President, if you want to bomb Iraq, you have got to come to the Congress first. We do not mention this resolution, the constitutional issues because one may debate those, but one cannot debate the common sense position that the President, if he is going to do this, has got to have the support of the American people. The way to get the support of the American people is to have the Congress debate it. I would hope that debate would be long enough that the American people would have a chance to weigh in on that debate because we cannot do this kind of thing without involving the American people. Let me just mention the two objectives of these strikes. The first was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction. This has to be the most telegraphed military strike in the history of mankind. If those weapons of mass destruction were where we thought they were when we said we were going to bomb him, you can bet that they are not there now, and we would have no way of knowing when you see some barrels moved on an ox cart or in the back of a truck whether they were barrels of molasses or chicken feed or anthrax. Our satellites are very good, but they cannot see inside the barrel. The other objective was to diminish significantly his capability to produce weapons. If you have a brewery, you can produce biological weapons. That is why we call them the poor man's atomic bomb because they are so easy to make. So we were not going to accomplish either one of those objectives. Let me tell you what we would have accomplished. We would have galvanized the Islamic world against us. We sit on 2 percent of the known reserves of oil. We use 25 percent of the world's energy. The Islamic world, the Middle East, controls 70 percent of the world's oil, and I cannot understand how it is in our vital national interest to alienate that part of the world, which controls 70 percent of the world's oil. Let me tell you something else it would have done. I can see it now. Peter Arnett is holding up on CNN the shredded body of a baby. It would have been an absolute P.R. disaster, killing innocent civilians over there, and they are innocent. This is a tyrannical regime that does not represent, I think, the Iraqi people. But, you know, what are we going to accomplish by killing these innocent citizens? And we call that collateral damage, and there was an admission trying to steel us so that we could endure those TV pictures that were going to come. We were told we are going to have significant collateral damage. As a matter of fact, they were all pleased that there had been a level of constraint; and they were all raising their voices to President Clinton and to Madeleine Albright, saying let's keep talking. Let's keep negotiating. Let's continue to look and see if there is not a way to avert this crisis. That as long as there is a sliver of hope, let us find that hope and let us have the alternative and let us not put the American people in the predicament where we would have to know that because some innocent child lived down the road from Saddam Hussein, or some elderly citizen, who had no interest in moving towards war, had to be maimed, hurt or killed because of our inability to find a peaceful solution. I think people like yourself, who talk about peace and who talk about alternatives, we know it is difficult. Peace has never been easy. I grew up sort of in the traditional Christian experience, and we were led to believe that at one time there were only four people on the earth: Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. And it seems as though they had some difficulty. One thought that the other one had something that was his or that he ought to have. And only four people, yet some friction. I think if we try and live in movement towards peace, it can be obtained. I am reminded of something I believe John Kennedy was supposed to have said, that peace is not really found in treaties, covenants and charters but in the hearts and souls of men and women; and if we actually look for a way, if people all over the world can believe that there is the opportunity to peacefully coexist and if we can use our resources to find solutions to the major problems that plague our earth, rather than using those to create and develop weapons of war, then, perhaps, we can find a cure for cancer. Perhaps we can indeed find a way to eradicate hunger or we can find a way to make people healthy, to create the kind of quality of life that we are looking for. So, again, I commend the gentleman for taking out the time, for giving the rest of us an opportunity to share and participate; and I believe that if people continue to pursue, as the gentleman is doing, as difficult as it might be, we can ultimately find a peaceful solution to the world's problem.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it will be a fitting tribute when this Congress recognizes the achievements of former President Ronald Reagan by renaming Washington, D.C.'s National Airport in his honor. Let us recall the challenges our Nation faced when President Reagan took office: an economic crisis, a demoralized and weak military at home. Our allies abroad mistrusted us. The Cold War raged as country after country was falling under the yoke of the Communist Soviet Union. Americans were losing our unique confidence and optimism about the future. President Reagan conquered all of these challenges. In the process he restored the majesty, the dignity, the moral authority, and our respect for the office of the presidency. President Ronald Reagan's principled leadership looms even larger today. Let our country honor him and the values he upheld.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, we have really got to hand it to this administration. This is the first administration in history that has combined distinguishing characteristics and no controlling legal authority into a legal defense that the media are actually taking seriously, and then spends half the day talking about their legacy. Somehow, I think the legacy that they are likely to leave is not going to be the same legacy they have in mind. Let us face it, when key witnesses keep turning up either dead, unwilling to testify, or hiding out in foreign countries, I do not think this is simply a question of partisan politics, despite the view repeated endlessly on ABC, NBC, and CBS that investigations into the 1996 Presidential campaign are much ado about nothing. If there is nothing to hide, then I ask my fair-minded friends at ABC, NBC, and CBS, why are over 50 witnesses with critical information, why have they either fled the country or taken the fifth? The only scandal bigger than the Clinton-Gore campaign is the way the media have covered it since all these outrageous campaign finance violations have come to light. This, too, will be part of the legacy.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Habitat for Humanity for kicking off a 6-week effort to construct five town homes in Fredericksburg, MD. Since 1976 Habitat for Humanity has used the model that the Lord helps those who help themselves to build simple decent homes in all 50 of the United States and more than 50 other countries. Habitat for Humanity is an ecumenical religious housing ministry that welcomes all people's participation and donations in their work. By providing decent housing, using donated materials and volunteer labor, habitat builds the self-esteem and self-reliance of God's people in need and builds a stronger sense of community among all people by providing opportunities for individuals to bear active witness to their individual faiths and responsibilities as members of a community. I commend Habitat for Humanity for building homes and strengthening our communities.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, On rollcall vote No. 455 I inadvertently voted ``aye.'' I would like the appropriate portion Record to reflect that I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the Gulf War and the flights over Iraq are not included in this. You know, if you do not pass my amendments, a year from now we are going to be back here asking where the $100 million went. We are trying to bribe the UN into making reforms. If we reward them for reforms that might happen, bribing them is not going to happen. You have to do some really creative accounting to conclude anything other than we concluded from the GAO report.

Mr. BARTLETT

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the GAO used only monies, referenced only monies, that we spent in response to a UN resolution. One cannot make arguments that sending troops to Rwanda and Somalia advanced our vital national interests to the point that we should bear the full cost of that. That is what we are now doing.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. If the gentleman would yield further our share, I think is too high.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I am saying that is what the GAO said, we have spent $6.8 billion.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, our amendments do not argue whether or not we owe arrearages to the UN. All our amendments argue is that if we owe arrearages to the UN, then, please, as the GAO report indicates, subtract those arrearages from the monies which the UN owes us. We are making a different argument than the one we made. We are not arguing whether or not we owe dues to the UN. We are simply saying if we owe dues to the UN, then please take them from the money the UN owes us. If it is not the $4.8 billion that one can easily deduce from the GAO report, then what is it? I am just not willing to let the State Department arbitrate that dispute. There is clearly a dispute between a reasonable reading of the GAO report and the State Department position, and I am not willing to let the State Department arbitrate that. That is our role to arbitrate that. All I want to do is I want to stop this train from leaving the station, the $1 billion train, until we have reached a resolution of that.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have here a report from the GAO. This report was requested by Senator Dole, and he asked them to make an assessment of the peacekeeping costs incurred by the United States, and let me read the criteria for preparing this report. It says: ``Dear Senator Dole: As requested, we are providing you information on U.S. agencies' estimated costs for their support of U.N. peace operations in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia.'' This does not include flights over Iraq, note, and it does not include Bosnia. This includes only fiscal years '92 through '95. ``For this report we define peace operations as actions taken in support of U.N. resolutions.'' These only include our participation when there was a U.N. resolution ``designed to further peace and security, including observers; monitors; traditional peacekeeping; preventive deployment; peace enforcement; security assistance; the imposition of sanctions; and the provision, protection and delivery of humanitarian relief.'' What we have done in the chart here is to summarize the findings of this GAO report. The GAO report indicated that through years 1992 to 1995 we had spent on peacekeeping $6.6 billion. The amount credited as U.N. dues was $1.8 billion of that, and they reimbursed to us $79.4 million of it, leaving a balance of $4,720,600,000. Our argument relative to these 2 amendments is a very simple argument. The argument is simply this: that if we owe any dues to the U.N., we are not arguing whether we owe, should owe dues or not, we are not arguing what the size of those dues are, we are simply saying that if we owe dues to the U.N., then there should be an accounting, and from the GAO report it would appear that we have spent $6.6 billion in peacekeeping activities, $1.8 billion of that has been credited, $79.4 million of that has been reimbursed. That leaves $4,720,600,000. If we owed them $1.3 billion in dues, that would still leave a balance of $3,420,600,000. Now the State Department says that we are not owed anything by the United Nations. From the GAO report it would appear that we are owed by the United Nations $3,420,600,000, because let me read again. We define peace operations as actions taken in support of U.N. resolutions. These were not instances in which we sent troops or supplies to support our own national interests. These were responses we made to U.N. resolutions. I am not willing to let the State Department be the arbiter of whether or not we are owed by the U.N. the $4.7 billion or, as they say, that we do not owe them anything. All our amendment does is to say please let us not start down this billion dollar road by giving this $100 million to the U.N., because as soon as that train leaves the station we are committed to about $1 billion dollars, more or less. We want an accounting before that happens. That is all we are asking for, and we are not the first to ask for that accounting. I wrote to the President about this, and he wrote me a letter back saying, ``I fully agree with you that when the United States participates in U.N.-assessed peacekeeping operations it should be reimbursed on the same terms that apply to all other participants.'' All we are asking is that we get that accounting. I have here a quote from the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Dick Armey), and this was in a speech which he gave, a foreign policy speech in June. He said that the U.N. squandered hundreds of millions of American tax dollars through bureaucratic waste and inefficiency of almost Soviet proportions. He goes on to say, ``I believe that an accurate accounting of our so- called U.N. arrearages will support only a far lower figure.'' The gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, right here from the well of the House on March 17 enumerating the several goals of this Congress, says our 12th goal, and listen to this, ``Our 12th goal is to reform the United Nations. We believe that the United States should get full credit for its financial contributions to the United Nations, including military capabilities, facilities, local government services, and the security we provide.'' That is all we are asking for. Our amendment is really very simple and self-explanatory.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer 2 amendments, Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, I commend the Members of the Western Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse [WMCALA] for joining thousands of Marylanders in declaring this week of September 21 through September 28 Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week. This group points out that we all pay for outrageous punitive damages and settlements from excessive and frivolous lawsuits. They note that this results in higher prices on goods and services, higher prices for medical care and equipment, loss of safety improvements or product innovations for fear of lawsuits, jobs lost, and businesses forced to close to pay judgments. Congress passed comprehensive legal reform and product liability reform. President Clinton vetoed both. We are all paying a heavy price for the $2.5 million in contributions from trial lawyers to President Clinton's 1996 campaign. We commend Western Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the sun is rising this morning in America and shining on many happy faces. Taxpayers are celebrating because conservatives in Congress and President Clinton have agreed on plans to simultaneously balance the budget for the first time in more than 30 years while providing tax cuts for the first time in 16 years. Liberals however have woken up and are crying boohoo. Liberals are aghast at the prospects of the Federal Government balancing its budget and reducing spending. Liberals are horrified by the Federal Government simultaneously letting taxpayers keep more of the money that they earn. Oh, the horror, the horror. Tax cuts equal more freedom for individual hard-working American taxpayers and less power for the Federal Government in Washington. No wonder liberals are crying boohoo.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, yesterday in Carroll County, MD, we laid to rest a great American, Hap Baker. Hap was the inventor of the guidance system for the Patriot missile. He was proud of that. But he was probably proudest of this little button which he was never without for the past several years: ``Politically incorrect, and proud of it.'' Hap felt that he was politically incorrect because he had an undying commitment to the great principles of limited government and individual rights set forth in the Constitution. Hap was aghast that a profligate Congress passes law after law and never questions the constitutional authority. He was particularly supportive of second amendment rights. But first and foremost, he was a conservationist. Hap understood that even in a perfect world, the Lord asked Adam and Eve to dress and keep the garden, and Hap wanted to help. We miss you Hap, and we will not forget you and what you stood for: ``Politically incorrect, and proud of it.'' God bless.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats on the other side make their arguments explaining why they oppose our tax cut package, I listen to them. It is not fun, but I do listen. The problem is their arguments are extremely weak. The first argument is that most of the benefits go to the rich. My response to that argument is that they speak as if there is a pot of money that is distributed to people, that the Government divides up some amount of benefits and decides where the benefits go. This is simply wrong. A tax cut simply means that the Government will take less. It will take less from upper income people. It will take less from lower income people. And let us please try to remember, it is their money to begin with; no one is giving them anything. The second argument is that the tax credit should apply to the working poor who pay no income taxes but who do pay payroll and other taxes. But low-income workers already receive a subsidy for the payroll taxes through the EITC, and payroll taxes are for Medicare and Social Security anyway, for which they will also get a subsidy. So that is why their arguments simply do not add up.