Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, the rich heritage of the town of Johnston, SC, began during the Colonial days with three families: The Lott family to the east, the Gomillion family to the south, and the Bush family on land that is in the present town center. Before the Revolutionary War, a gentleman by the name of Richard Bush accumulated land in the area. In the mid-19th century, his descendant, Isaac Bush, sold 1,200 acres of land to Dr. Edward J. Mims of the nearby town of Edgefield. Dr. Mims and his family moved onto this newly acquired land which is the original townsite of Johnston. The name of the town was not established until its inhabitants saw the rapid expansion of the railroad throughout the South. Dr. Mims was determined to include his community in the booming opportunity the railroad provided. He successfully petitioned William Johnston, president of the Charlotte, Columbia, and Augusta Railroad, to route the railway through the land on the Mims plantation. In return, Dr. Mims agreed to name the town for Mr. Johnston. Earlier the village was called Johnston Station, then Johnston's Turn Out, and finally, on May 25, 1897, it was chartered as its present name, Johnston. Today, Johnston, known as the Peach Capital of the World celebrates the centennial of its charter. The Johnston Historic District, a collection of 146 houses, businesses, and churches dating from the 1870's to the 1920's is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. From the 1870's Johnston had a renowned educational institution, first called the Johnston Academy, then the Johnston Institute, and later Johnston High School. The town of Johnston remains proud of its history and maintains its early emphasis on agriculture and education. However, the town also has a strong present and future with state-of-the-art manufacturing technology in its many textile mills. With firm roots and forward progress, Johnston will continue to prosper well into the 21st century.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2, printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I, too, would like to thank Chairman Goodling and Chairman McKeon and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, for putting together a bill that has been a very difficult task, but I think most of all for the good. The committee has come together in a bipartisan fashion to address some problems long overdue to be addressed, and to rescind duplication and get local control for the 21st century, something I think most Americans agree with. I have some amendments, I think, that are very appropriate, and I hope we can agree upon them. There are things about the bill that I would like to have changed that we cannot get an agreement upon. Federal school-to-work, I would like that to cease now, because I believe that program, the school-to-work program, should be run at the local level. But under the program that we have today, Federal school- to-work will terminate in 2 years, and given our current situation, that is something that I will have to live with. On balance, the bill is very good. The amendment that I offer today addresses concerns of family groups that I think are very legitimate, and to understand where people are coming from, a lot of folks are concerned that when we do things in Washington and when we do things at the State level, that does limit choices. Any time the government gets involved in an area, to me we need to do so as cautiously as possible, and allow people choices that are good for their community and their family. One thing that we have done with this amendment is we have clearly stated that nothing in this bill should be construed to affect home schoolers, or compel a parent engaged in home schooling to participate in the literacy program, family literacy services, or adult education. What we are trying to do here is to preserve the right to home school and make this program truly voluntary, and if a parent who is a home schooler does not want to participate, they certainly do not have to. When we talk about teaching reading and how to bring about literacy, one of the things that is important to me is that we have a full menu, and that phonics, I think a tried and true method of teaching literacy, be included. This amendment ensures that phonics will have a systematic approach and a place in the literacy program, something I believe that is very necessary and very appropriate. The last thing is that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] talked about local work force development boards. If you had to pick between Washington and home, I pick home. The local work force development boards are going to be made up of local official business leaders, who I think have the best chance of telling us what the job market is like a lot better than we do here in Washington. We are going to allow them unprecedented flexibility and ability to shape a work force so people, when they get out of school, are ready to go to work, and hopefully we can reduce the welfare rolls early on by giving the people the skills they need to be competitive in the 21st century. One thing we do not want to do is we do not want to mix job training with setting curriculum. Curriculum should be set by local educators and parents. I have offered an amendment that clearly says that the local work force development boards do not have any authority to mandate school curriculum. I think that is an amendment that clarifies and clearly limits and defines the roll of the work force development board, to make sure that parents and teachers control curriculum and not some other group we set up in the area of job training. On balance, the bill moves the ball forward. I am very proud to have been a part of it. Any time we make major changes, we do not make everybody happy. That is democracy. I think we have brought some common sense to bear on programs that lack common sense, and local people are more empowered today to affect the job training and education of their children than they were before this bill began. In my district we have lost 40 percent work force at the Savannah River site, the largest Department of Energy facility in the Nation. The reforms in this bill will allow more flexibility, more assets to be used in the local community to make sure that those people in my district and other districts who are losing their jobs have a chance to get retrained and go back into the work force. On balance, I believe this is a good bill, and the amendments I offer I think will strengthen the bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Thomas W. Greene, an exemplary public servant, selflessly served the city of North Augusta for 26 years. Better known as Tom to the citizens of North Augusta, SC, thanked the people for their support at his last city council meeting where he presided as mayor. The tearful event on Monday night, May 6, 1997, highlighted the resignation of a city icon. Born in Atlanta, GA, Tom received his bachelor of science degree in industrial engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology. After graduating from Georgia Tech, Tom served in the U.S. Air Force for 4 years as a pilot. Tom returned to North Augusta and within a year President Kennedy recalled him for another year. Upon completion of his military career, Tom began his 36-year career at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River site in Aiken, SC. Tom began his political career in May, 1971, as a city councilman before being elected mayor of North Augusta in May, 1985. Tom's foresight and vision facilitated growth throughout the city of North Augusta--most of all done without a tax increase. During his tenure, Tom's tireless efforts established a public safety department--merging the police and fire departments--along with the creation of a new municipal building and community center. His vision also encompassed the successful launching of the riverfront redevelopment on the banks of the picturesque Savannah River. As an active member of the community, Tom recognized the need for a recreation facility in the city. His intuition led to the creation of Riverview Park which houses numerous baseball fields, a state-of-the- art facility with several gymnasiums and numerous meeting rooms, and a walking path, the ``Greeneway,'' named after the beloved mayor. Once again, Tom's creativity coupled with his vision enabled the city to capitalize on one of their biggest assets--the scenic Savannah River. In addition to his support of community and economic development, Tom's desire to spiritually guide his city led him to organize the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast which is held annually on the National Day of Prayer. As an active member and Sunday school teacher at First Baptist Church of North Augusta, Tom relies on the Lord for guidance in all areas of his life--including his years in public office. Tom also generously served his community in other areas outside his official position. Due to his experience at the Savannah River site, Tom served on the site's citizen advisory board and continues to serve on the board of directors for Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness. His community activity includes extensive involvement in the North Augusta Chamber of Commerce, past member of the board of directors for the United Way of Augusta, and member of the North Augusta American Legion Post. He currently serves as chairman of the North Augusta Crime Free Task Force. While juggling the demands of a public official and community leader, Tom and his wife Barbara raised three children: Lynne, Susan, and Thomas, Jr. Tom is also a devoted grandfather of five beautiful grandchildren. Tom has always showered his family and city with love, concern, and patience. The retirement of Tom as mayor of North Augusta closes a successful and eventful chapter in the history of North Augusta. Tom nurtured the city of North Augusta into a prosperous and growing city with a very bright future.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, the members of the Park Missionary Baptist Church of Beech Island, SC, are planning a 125th anniversary celebration to commemorate the founding of the church on Sunday, April 14, 1872. The original location of the church was near Myers Mill on the east side of Pen Branch which is now part of the Savannah River site. The church remained on the east side of Pen Branch until 1899. At that time it was moved and rebuilt on the west side of Pen Branch. The church thrived at that location until 1938, when it moved near Highway 28 northwest of Pen Branch. In 1950, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission announced that its new production plants were to be designed, built, and operated by the E.I. Dupont de Nemours Co. near the Savannah River. About 250,000 acres were required for the site, and the Park Missionary Baptist Church was located within the designated area. Consequently, it was necessary for the church to move again. Subsequent to the announcement of the Federal Government, the church family selected a search committee to find a new location for the church. Land was purchased--23.2 acres for $1,392--on January 16, 1952, from Mr. James McElmurray, and the church was moved near Beech Island. The church entered a new phase of its dream in November 1977, when ground was again broken for a new place of worship. On September 17, 1978, the congregation marched from the old site to the new sanctuary which was then dedicated in special services on Sunday, October 1, 1978. The collective prayers of Park Church members were answered when on Sunday, October 20, 1990, the Reverend Alex E. Williams was called as the church's eighth pastor. Reverend Williams continues to serve Park Church today. Throughout its 125-year history, Park Missionary Baptist Church has ordained six men as ministers and has licensed two others as ministers. On January 21, 1991, the church held its first Martin Luther King celebration. This has become an annual event along with the Youth Crusade which was initially a project of the young adult department. Along with these two annual events, the church established a board of trustees, organized an adult choir, and has a full-time program with services each Sunday. The members have enjoyed the completion of a fellowship hall and continue to grow in faith and move toward their motto, ``Where All Hands Join Together.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, yes. And I have limited myself to 12 years because I think that is a reasonable period of time, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and his bill, because it is uniform: 12 years for the House, 12 years for the Senate. I would like to give my colleagues my views of some of the things that have been mentioned. Bureaucrats and term limits: The argument is if we rotate people through this body too quickly, we empower the bureaucratic side of government. My limited experience of 2 years tells me that the most cozy relationship in the world in Washington is senior bureaucrats with senior people in Congress serving on committees, because one knows how to take care of the other, and the biggest fear most bureaucrats have is new people asking new questions. So I do not buy that one bit. What do the people think? I would challenge my colleagues to go out and ask people on the street, and they will find out that 70 percent of them support term limits in some fashion, but if we had a national referendum there would be no doubt in my mind that there would be overwhelming public support for term limits on this body. That does not mean the people who occupy the jobs are evil, it just means people paying the taxes want change in their government. What would that change be? It would fundamentally change the way we view our job in Congress. The issues of the day, like Social Security, Medicare, they are complicated but they are not beyond the grasp of everyday people to understand. I know why Social Security has a problem. We are borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund and spending it to run the Government and we need to stop it. I know why Medicare has grown 22 percent since 1980. It did not take me a career to figure that out. I am willing to do something about it, and I have not planned my life around staying up here. I want to do a good job while I am here, and I want to go home and be part of my community. I think term limits would change the Government for the better, undoubtedly so, and 70 percent of the public, if had a chance to vote on it, I think would agree with me and disagree with the opponents.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, as the 105th Congress addresses the issue of financing campaigns, I believe we must first change the nature of our election cycle and limit the number of terms a Member can serve. The recent elections demonstrate that action on both campaign finance reform and term limits is needed and desired by the American people. Today, I am introducing legislation that combines a solution for achieving term limits and easing campaign finance burdens. This amendment would limit Members of the House to three 4-year terms and limit Senators to two 6-year terms. This is a lifetime ban. It would take effect only on terms of office beginning after the ratification of the amendment. By extending the terms of Representatives from 2 to 4 years, we can better limit the influence of politics and elections in the House and focus on better policies and laws for our country. Additionally, Members of the House would not be burdened by increasingly expensive elections every 2 years because the terms would be increased to 4. Fundamental institutional change is needed in order to improve the American people's confidence in Congress and to return to the Founding Fathers' ideal of a citizen legislature. We should abide by the will of the people and end career politics as we know it. While term limits will not solve all our country's problems, or the need to overhaul our campaign finance system, it is a large step in the right direction. It continues the process of reform and strengthens the integrity of Congress. Let us succeed where we failed last congress and pass term limits.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and congratulate the town of Ninety Six, SC, which is having is 1996 centennial celebration on Friday, September 6, 1996. The town of Ninety Six, located in Greenwood County has a distinctive history dating from the mid-1700's. During colonial times, the trading settlement began to grow around the 96th milepost on a trail from the Lower Cherokee capital, Keowee, thus giving this town its name. Noted for its historical significance, Ninety Six played an important role in the Revolutionary War. It was the site of the first revolutionary battle in the South on November 19-21, 1775. The British overtook this settlement and fortified it as an important strategic fort. This settlement existed until after a second battle for the area that was ultimately won by the British. Shortly after the attempted siege of the fort, the British abandoned the area. The town grew and was renamed Cambridge after the College of Cambridge which was built after the Revolutionary War. During the 1800's, the village became a ghost town. In 1852, the town assumed its original name, when the second railroad in South Carolina was built through the area. Ninety Six is also historic in the States rights debate. In 1856, 10,000 citizens came out to honor Congressman Preston S. Brooks with a dinner in vindication of his assault on Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the Senate floor for a speech insulting to South Carolina and Senator Butler of South Carolina. Today, Ninety Six is comprised of a population of 2,200 with industry ranging from retail firms to manufacturing plants and textiles. Located near Lake Greenwood and Ninety Six National Park Historic Site, Ninety Six provides many opportunities to enjoy this area's natural beauty. It is my pleasure to honor this historic town and its people on this day.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 393, I was attending a committee markup. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let us try to answer the why question. Why are we doing this? We are asking that English be the official language of government. I think it is important for the folks listening to understand what we are trying to do and what we are not doing. We are trying to make sure that this Government conducts the language of its business in English, because that is the one unifying thing about America, is that that is the formula for success in America, a good work ethic and a command and knowledge of the language. We are not asking people to give up their culture, we are not asking people to stop teaching languages, we are not asking people to interact only in English. We are asking the Federal Government to do its business in English. And one of the reasons we are asking for that to be done is there is a growing trend in this country to accommodate 320 different languages in terms of the Federal Government conducting its business. In one case, the IRS produced 500,000 10W40 forms in Spanish and got 700 replies back at $157 per form, and this program is growing. I think it is time to stop that. We are trying to set policy that is good for the Nation, and the policy we are trying to set is simply this: That the Federal Government is going to conduct its business in the unifying language of America because that is good policy. The formula for success has been and always will be a command and knowledge of the language and a good work ethic, and the policies we should be setting in this country should bring out the best in Americans. Where do we stop with 320 languages to accommodate? I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Federal Government to conduct its business in the unifying language of this Nation, and to do otherwise is impractical. There are many exceptions in the bill that are commonsense based. Some people ask about phrases on money. We have an exception for art and phrases that are commonly used in other languages. We have a health and safety exception for the EPA to notify a community about a dangerous situation with drinking water. The exceptions are sound, this is a good bill, and there is a good reason we are doing this. I ask for Members' support.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, to begin with I would like to congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] and our committee chairman for working on some legislation for a long period of time that really will help people. This Congress has been historic in the sense we have done two good things: We have applied all of the laws in America to the body itself. I think that is going to make the laws in this country better because we have to live under them as an employer, the U.S. Congressmen and their offices themselves. But what we have done here is we have extended to the private sector some options that people that work for the Federal Government have. If you want the time off rather than the money for working overtime, it is your option as an employee. That is a good thing. That is what we do in the Federal Government. The private sector should have that same right. But it is up to the employee. It is true that when you schedule the compensatory time, that the employee has to work with the employer, just like we do here in the Federal Government. That is the way business works, that is the way it works here, that is the way it works in the private sector. We have extended some benefits to the private sector that we in the Government have had for many years. I think that is a good thing to do. It is time for us to take on the burdens of the private sector. I ask for support for this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements and contributions of Allison Dalton. For nearly 40 years Allison has been a tireless servant of his community and this country. Allison Dalton started serving his country upon graduation from Clemson University. He entered the U.S. Army, where he was stationed in El Paso, TX. After serving his country in the Army, Allison returned home with his wife Carolyn and obtained a masters degree from Clemson University. Upon graduating from Clemson, Allison went to work for the textile industry--which is a paramount industry to South Carolina and the United States. In the mid 1960's Allison Dalton went into business with his brother Charles in Pickens, SC. They opened a furniture business and ran it successfully for 13 years, until Allison left his business to work on Senator Strom Thurmond's reelection in 1978. After Thurmond was successfully reelected, Allison went back to his alma mater at Clemson University working in the athletic department. While there, Allison helped make the athletic fundraising operation one of the best in the country. What is amazing about the life of Allison Dalton is that during this extensive work history, Allison raised two successful children, was and still is a Sunday school teacher, was a school board member, State School Board Association president, and has served on a board of directors for a local utility. In 1994, Allison Dalton came to Washington to serve as my Chief of Staff. The job that he has done can only be described as extraordinary. The outstanding constituent services enjoyed in the Third district of South Carolina are due to Allison's implementation and hard work. Later this year I received an unwelcome surprise when Allison came to me with the news that he had been sought out by the South Carolina Baptist Foundation to serve as their president. This is an opportunity that comes available every 30 years or so--you could say it's a once- in-a-lifetime opportunity. Very reluctancy, Allison has decided to accept this new opportunity and bid the House of Representatives farewell. Mr. Speaker, I speak for myself and my staff when I say that we are sad to lose such an outstanding individual and friend. However, I am also proud to recognize the achievement of Allison Dalton, and I know that my colleagues will join me in honoring him for his dedicated service to the House of Representatives and to congratulate him on his appointment as president of the South Carolina Baptist Foundation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, Martha M. Rich, who is known affectionately throughout Edgefield County as Miz Martha, has served the people of Edgefield County in many ways since moving here in 1956. In that year she began work with the South Carolina Highway Department. Previously, she had worked as a bank teller in Augusta, GA, and operated a restaurant and motel in McCormick County. It was in 1963 that Martha Rich was asked by then-County Commissioner Frank Timmerman to consider working for Edgefield County. Starting her county work in the tax assessor's office, she was involved that year in the very first property value reassessment program. In 1970, she was named assistant county administrator. During her 33 years with the county, she has served the public on matters as diverse as roads and bridges, emergency medical and fire operations, and waste disposal. Ms. Rich was a key figure in the transition to home rule, when county governments were gaining local control under new laws enacted at the State level. In the often trying political environment of country government, Ms. Rich has served six county administrators and numerous local elected officials. She has also remained a key contact person with State and Federal office holders on behalf of Edgerfield County. Her professionalism and historical perspective of our county government will be missed tremendously now that she has decided to retire. Though her work schedule has remained heavy throughout the years, Mr. Rich has always made time for community and family. She has been active in the Senior Citizens' Advisory Council, Piedmont Technical College, the Edgefield County Red Cross, the Edgefield County Transportation Committee, and the Governor's Beautification Task Force. She is also a fixture at Red Oak Grove Baptist Church, where she participates in the WMU and the Edgefield Baptist Association. Away from public life and civic pursuits, Martha Rich occupies herself with family. She has a son, Jackie, and three daughters: Patsy Smith, Greenie Crowder, and Georgia Morris. she has one brother, Kenneth Morgan. Six grandchildren also keep here quite busy and bring her a great deal of joy. Ms. Rich looks to family as a first priority in her retirement. We wish Miz Martha the best in retirement, and we thank her for the work she has done on the behalf of Edgefield County.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I think we are detecting a pattern here. Somebody is going to get up and say that X amount of people lose jobs in a congressional district or State, and somebody on the other side is going to get up and say X amount of people get more money. I would like to say this. Why can the greatest Nation in the world with very smart people not increase take-home pay without costing anybody their job? I have yet to have anybody come down here and deny the fact that we are going to have between 100,000 and 500,000 people lose their job if we raise the minimum wage. Using their own numbers, 37 percent of the people earning minimum wage are under 20. One gentleman said, well, 19,000 people may lose their job, but three hundred and some thousand will get a pay increase. That is not a good trade-off. Go tell it to the 19,000. If you are at a football stadium this year, remember this. If it is a 100,000-seat stadium, everybody sitting in the stadium is going to be some kid without a job. We are the greatest nation in the world. We should be able to do better. Because President Clinton has the ability to flip-flop with style and grace on an issue that is going to cost people jobs, that is no reason for my party to follow along.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. If there is a young person who, for whatever reason, missed school today and is sitting, listening to this debate, let me tell them why I think their country is in such debt and why I think the President's budget does not help a whole lot. The deficit is about $150 billion. There is a thing called the national debt that, as I speak, is $5,098,866,418,898. It is worth $19,250 for every man, woman, child in America. The reason that we got a $5 trillion debt is because entitlement spending in this country has gone through the roof, and both parties are sitting here yelling at each other about who caused the problem. In my opinion, both parties have let the entitlements grow to the point that they are 50 percent of the budget. When we add the interest element to the equation, 67 percent of the Federal budget is on auto pilot. If you want us to balance the budget, please make us change the reason Medicare has grown 2,200 percent since 1980. If you want to free America up, balance the budget and help people, please change welfare so the average person does not stay on it 10 years. If you want us to do something about education in your State, please make us change Medicaid so it does not grow at 19 percent a year and takes money away from the State to run its education program just to get health care dollars. President Clinton's budget has no entitlement reforms. It does not address why we are in debt. It does not change any of the reasons that led to every man, woman, and child owing $19,000 today. If you want us to change America, let us give choices and get government back home.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman from Florida for participating and providing facts that I think show very clearly that the efficiencies in government that we are seeking can be found without looking very deeply. That if you had an opportunity to come up here yourself, the ones listening to me tonight and look at these programs and spend a few minutes analyzing how they are run, you could save $10 billion pretty quickly, also. It is not that hard to do. The hard thing is to convince people that when you are trying to improve the student loan program for the two-thirds of the students who never get in it but pay the taxes for it, that you are not being mean. When you try to stop Medicare from growing at 2200 percent so you can keep the budget balanced, that you are not being mean, because you can provide quality health care from Medicare to seniors in this country without allowing the program to grow 2200 percent every 15 years. The amount of money and the efficiency do not relate. We are spending more money than we need to. We can deliver a better quality program, a better quality of life and save money in the process. That is not only something we can do, it is something we must do. If you allow us, we will do it.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think probably a good lead-in to this debate is the last comment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] that every American should get involved with what is going on in Congress, and I think compassion and understanding are very good guides to have, and I think reality needs to be in there somewhere. Let us talk about the budget real quickly, then we are going to get into something near and dear to everyone's heart in this country, and that is education. The Federal role in it, what we have tried to do at the national level in this Congress, I think to improve education, and to have an effective delivery system that recognizes the need to educate our children, to balance the budget, and what role money should play in all that, what role the Federal Government should play. Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that we can balance the budget and remove the deficit without affecting entitlements. That is very curious. I need to read the article by Mr. Novak. As I understand the dynamic that we are facing, two-thirds of the Federal budget that we deal with is on auto pilot. Sixteen percent of the Federal budget is interest payments. We paid more in 1997, will pay more in 1977 for interest on the national debt than the entire Defense Department, over $400 billion. Forty cents of every individual income tax dollar collected in this country goes to pay the interest element of the national debt. Over 50 percent, I believe it is 51 percent of the Federal budget consists of entitlement spending, such as Medicare, Medicaid and welfare. Medicare has gone up 2,200 percent since 1980. When we look at the Federal deficit and the national debt, the national debt is over $5 trillion, and I ask people at home what a trillion is. It is a number, it is a term that really is beyond imagination. I think a lot of people can relate to a million. They may not have a million, I certainly do not. But they can relate to the concept of a million dollars. If you spent a million dollars a day, Mr. Speaker, it would take you 2700 years to spend 1 trillion. If you collected $1 trillion in taxes from the American public, it is the equivalent of $3,814 from every man, woman and child in America, and we know that every man, woman, and child in America is not paying taxes. So those of us that are are paying a lot. Let us talk about the Federal budget now that we understand what 1 trillion is. The Republican budget that Mr. Owens criticized so harshly and the President vetoed appropriated $12 trillion to run the Federal Government over the next 7 years. That is right, the Republicans have spent $12 trillion at the national level over the next 7 years compared to the last 7 years. That is a 26-percent increase in Federal spending, a 64-percent increase in Medicare alone over the next 7 years, from a $4,800 per senior citizen expenditure this year, to the year 2002, it will grow to $7,100. A tremendous amount of money is being spent on welfare and Medicaid, an over 50-percent increase. Student loans in the education area, we have increased student loan funds by over 50 percent in the next 7 years. What the Republican budget has done is tremendously increase spending over a 7 year period 20 percent, 6 percent across the board, tremendous increases in entitlements, but less than the projected amounts, because the projected amounts are going to be well above 50 percent, well above 63 percent. Those of us who say that we want to balance the budget, I think we need to start being honest with each, and I know my colleague from Florida has been a real champion in this cause. If Members really want to balance the budget, I think it is time to address why we have debt to begin with. Why did America get into $5 trillion worth of debt? Was it because Ronald Reagan increased military spending during the 1980's where the deficit did grow? Well, the truth is that he did. I was in the Air Force from 1982 to 1988. After the Carter years, the military was a place that needed expenditures. Spare parts were in short supply. We had squadrons of airplanes grounded. The Navy could not sail ships because of lack of funding. So Ronald Reagan decided to increase military spending during the 1980's, and Congress allowed him to do so but they required an increase in social spending. The truth be known, it is not because Ronald Reagan wanted to increase military spending. It is not because Tip O'Neill and Tom Foley increased social spending at the rate of 3 to 1 during the 1980's. The truth is that the national debt grew to such large proportions as it exists today because during the 1980's, entitlement spending went through the roof. One program, Medicare, increased 2200 percent since 1980. And all of the other entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, have grown tremendously. Medicaid is growing at 19 percent a year since 1990. So if you want to blame anybody, I think you can blame both parties, because we have sat back and we have watched entitlement spending go through the roof to the point now it is over 50 percent of the Federal budget. If nothing changes in this country in the next 17 years, the Federal budget, the Federal revenue collected from the taxpayers at the national level, will be spent in two areas: entitlement spending and interest payments on the national debt. It is already two-thirds of our budget. In 17 years it will consume the entire revenue stream. There will be no money left to fund the Defense Department, Education Department, the Commerce Department, and environmental agencies that exist at the Federal level. And that is not a Republican statement. That comes from Senator Kerry, a Democratic Senator, who has been involved in entitlement study and reform. And the facts are just what they are, facts. Entitlement spending is out of control and it is going to consume the entire revenue stream unless we do something about it. We have tried to do something about it, and I think in a very responsible manner. What we have done is we have allowed increased spending in Medicare alone 2\1/2\ times the inflation per year, a 63 percent increase in a 7-year period, a tremendous amount of increase, but we are going to create options available to senior citizens that are more efficient than this 1965 fee-for-service Medicare model that is full of fraud. We are going to give people something they very rarely get from the Federal Government, and that is a choice. A choice to pick a program that may deliver more effective medicine, less bureaucratically, and a better deal for the taxpayers. It is time to give people choices that mirror private sector growth in health care. The private sector programs are growing at 3 to 4 percent, the government programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, are growing at 13 and 19 percent because they are very inefficient, they are full of fraud, and they have the wrong incentives. It is hard to get preventive medicine reimbursed under Medicare. The number one expenditure in Medicare is diabetes, but you cannot get insulin paid for. So it is a system that is really overdue for an overhaul. And we have allowed private sector programs to be placed on the table and let senior citizens make choices, and we are going to give them four to five different options to Medicare as it exists today. But they have to choose. And if they do not want to make a choice, they stay in Medicare as it exists now. And that is just one example. In Medicaid, we are going to allow the States to take the increased spending at the Federal level and manage care the money. Right now our Medicaid programs are growing at 19 percent. If you are a Medicaid recipient and you go to the hospital and have a $300 visit for a cold, something private insurance would not allow you to do, Medicaid reimburses people for medical conditions four and five times the expense that the private sector manages those same illnesses. So it is time now to start allowing States to put into place managed care programs for the Medicaid recipient that are good, that are compassionate, but that have cost controls on them so it does not grow at 19 percent. If you want to improve education in my State of South Carolina, which I do, and I think everybody who is listening to me in South Carolina would like to see that happen, let us change Medicaid. Because when Medicaid grows at 19 percent at the national level, that is the health care for the disabled and the welfare recipient, when it is growing at that rate for the State of South Carolina, to get any Medicaid money from the Federal Government they have to put money on the table. It is a matching formula. So when the pot of money at the Federal level grows at 19 percent, then for South Carolina to get its Medicaid money, its share grows at the same rate, so you are robbing our State budget to get Medicaid money from the Federal Government. And if we do not change, if we do not change that dynamic, every State's budget is going to be consumed by getting matching portions of Medicaid. And as the gentleman from New York, Major Owens, indicated, the Governors in this country, Republican and Democrat alike, have gotten into a room and said: Enough. You are bankrupting our State. We are having to spend most of our budget to get Medicaid dollars because the pot of money at the Federal level is growing so large, the mandates are so onerous, we have no flexibility. Please, give us a break. We can get by on less money if you will give us flexibility to create programs that mirror the private sector. And unless we do that, ladies and gentlemen, you will not balance the budget. If we do not address the reason Medicare grows at 22 percent every 15 years, it does not matter if you spend less in 7 years to get the numbers right, you are going to be back in debt. It does not matter if you slow the growth of Medicaid down temporarily, as the President's budget does. If you do not change the reason it grows at 19 percent, you are not going to keep the budget balanced. And it does not matter what you do in welfare reform if you do not address the reason people stay on welfare 10\1/2\ years. So what I am looking for is a budget that addresses the reason we got in debt, a budget that addresses the underlying problem, which is entitlement spending. Let us reform entitlements up here in a fair and compassionate way so that we can deliver you a balanced budget that will stay balanced. Let us create a welfare system so that the average person does not stay on it a decade. I believe most people want to get off welfare, go into the private sector and live with dignity and not be dependent on the Federal Government, but it is darn hard to do that. If you live together as man and wife under our current system, we look at both incomes and deny benefits. If you get a part-time job we will start taking benefits away from you when you start moving up the economic ladder. We are trying to keep your vote, but we are not allowing you to be free from government control. I am looking for a welfare system that helps people who need help, that will give you training, give you educational assistance and will allow you to get a job. And the way you create a job is not by me talking about it on the floor of the House, it is by lowering taxes so people have more money to invest and grow their businesses. Capital gains tax reductions will be good for this country. It will create jobs and bring in additional revenue to the Federal Government. It did in the 1980's when we lowered capital gains tax rates, it will in the 1990's if we can ever get it passed. But the way you create a job is to change this model that currently exists of where we are overtaxed, we overlitigate, and we overregulate. And the ultimate hope of welfare reform is a system that allows people to help themselves, that pushes them forward, that will not pay them to have children they cannot afford, but will have a job waiting on them. And to do that you need to change this bureaucratic model that we have created for the last 40 years that is strangling American business. I think that is compassionate. I think that is the way to truly deal with the Nation's problems, because the poor in this country want the same thing as anybody else who is an American: the hope of having it better for themselves and their children than the last generation, a chance to have a private pension plan, a chance to have health care that they own and is now given to them by the government. We all have the same values, we just have a different belief on how to get there. The special order topic really tonight is about education. And nothing is going to change in this country until we provide an educational system that brings the best out in our kids, and that is a school environment where you can go to school and not worry about being beaten up or having a drug deal occur under your nose. The national role in education since 1979 has grown dramatically. Test scores have gone down. Education quality is stagnant. We are not moving forward by having more control at the national level. The Department of Education's budget in 1979 was about $16 billion. It is $32 billion now. Six percent of all education dollars spent in this country comes from the Federal level. Ninety-four percent of education funding comes from the State and local level. When you talk about education reductions at the national level, it has to be put in perspective of the total funding. The bad deal is that 50 percent of the mandates, how to spend the money at the local level, comes from the Federal Government. We give you very few dollars, but we put a lot of requirements on our local educators, our State and local systems, and we are not getting a quality product. The only model that will work, in my opinion, is to have parents and teachers and the community leaders involved, and the current Federal system does not allow that to happen. It is a wall between quality education and the State and local community. I do believe that we have an overly intrusive Federal role in education that is not bringing out the best in our kids, and that we have programs on the books that are very inefficient, all done in the name of compassion. Title I, that Mr. Owens mentioned, is a program that started in the 1960's to help school districts that had a disproportionate number of disadvantaged and poor students, to give them a leg up, a little extra tutorial time. That program has grown now to almost where 80 percent of school districts in this country receive title I money. It has become a candy store. Title I money is spent on disadvantaged students, and the definition of disadvantaged has grown greatly. And the facts are that 80 percent of the people who provide this extra tutorial time are not certified teachers, they are teachers' aids. It is becoming an employment opportunity for the major cities in this country. The test scores of the children receiving title I assistance have not moved up any. What we are doing is basically we are taking an average of 10 minutes a day extra time for a title I student, getting no return on our money, giving the money to someone who is not a professional educator, trained as a teacher, taking them out of the class and spending $6 billion a year doing that. That is not a good deal for the taxpayer and we are not moving forward. The gentleman from Florida is going to tell us a bit about Head Start and how unsuccessful that program has been when measured by objective criteria. It is a good idea. It is a compassionate idea, but eventually you have to look to see if the idea is delivering a quality product. Title I is not a good investment educationally or financially, and Head Start, I believe, falls under that same category when you look at the return for your money. I would yield now to the gentleman from Florida to tell us a little about title I, then we will talk about student loans.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman from Florida for talking about facts, because sometimes facts get in the way of a good story. Head Start is a good idea, but when you look at the facts you described, you have to wonder if the program is working as efficiently as the taxpayers deserve for it to work. It is obvious that you care about education, that you have made it your life's work, but you also care about the national debt, the $5 trillion debt, and the role that money plays in education and the debt have to be examined. I would suggest to you that the education problems in this country are not all about money. They go a lot deeper than that. They are about the breakdown of the home, they are about relying on someone else from far away to solve all your problems, just like a lot of problems exist in America today, and we, the people, are responsible. You can blame Congress, it is a fashionable thing to do, and we do deserve to be blamed for allowing this Nation to get so far in debt. We should be allowed to talk openly about improving the educational climate in America and balancing the budget without having people throw rocks at you, because you heard the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, speak. I hope you are convinced, I know I am, that he is sincere about providing a quality education, but he has a responsibility to manage the taxpayers' money wisely and to provide that quality education. I would suggest that you are not getting a return on your investment, as he has indicated. Let us talk abut student loans for a minute. You have heard a lot of talk about student loans. I know the gentleman from Florida has, and our Speaker is very knowledgeable about the student loan situation in America. I am the first person in my family to go to college. I am not a country club anything in that regard. I am the first Republican in my district in 120 years. They hung the other guy, so I think I am doing a little bit better. But things are changing down South. It is a district with an average per capita income is $13,200. It is not a wealthy district. It is a very proud district where people want to pass on their hopes and dreams and make it better for their children. I received student loans. My parents died when I was a junior and senior in college, and I had a 12-year-old sister who received student loans. They worked very hard to give me an education, and I helped my sister, and the Government helped us by allowing student loans, making student loans available to us. That is going to continue, because most of the people in my district who are qualified students to go to college will go into a banker's office and say, I would like to go to college, and the banker will say, what do you own? The student probably owns very little, and sometimes the parents do not have the assets to make a loan on the up and up, so the Federal Government comes in and guarantees that loan. That will continue, as long as I am in Congress, because that is a very much-needed dynamic in this country. What will not continue is to lend money blindly, to waste money in the name of compassion, and to take the hard-earned taxpayers' dollars from two-thirds of the children, the kids who graduate high school and go into the work force and never get a student loan. We have some obligation to run the student loan program like a business. Here are the facts. The Republican budget increased student loan spending from $24 billion to $36 billion over the next 7 years, a 50 percent increase in the amount of money available for student loans. The number of students eligible for a student loan has grown from $6.6 million to $7.1 million over the next year under the Republican plans. We have increased Pell grants to the highest level ever. $2,440 will be available for eligible students to receive a Pell grant, money that you receive that you do not pay back. My sister, when my parents died, was eligible to get a Pell grant. That program continues and is fully funded. There is more money in the program than in the history of the program. We are looking at the number of people eligible, but trying to ratchet down the income levels, so the money will go to the people who need it the most. You cannot be everything to everybody and balance the budget. That is a bad dynamic to create, even if we were not in debt. The supplemental education opportunity grants program that helps disadvantaged students is funded at the same level it was last year. The college work-study program is fully funded at $617 million. The Perkins loan program remains at $6 billion, just like the President requested. The Trio program for minorities and disadvantaged students is fully funded at $463 million. That is the Republican budget. What we did try to do is we tried to look at the student loan program and see if we could improve it and make savings to help balance the budget, because I think we have a moral obligation to look at the way we spend money and to craft programs that help people, but not overly waste money for the two-thirds of the students that never borrow it to go to college to begin with. We were able to save $10 billion in about 2 days of talking. Unfortunately, most of those savings will never go into effect, but I am going to tell you, in just about 2 minutes, how you can save $10 billion and I believe not hurt a soul, help the taxpayer, and make this student loan program more energetic. Mr. Speaker, we were going to save $5 billion by doubling the risk that the bank shares in the event of a default. Under the current student loan program, when a bank lends the money the Federal Government guarantees the loan, and if there is a default, the bank gets 98 cents on a dollar. Do you think they spend a whole lot of time chasing that loan down? That is not a good business deal for the American taxpayer. I want banks to make money. I think banks should be the primary lender of student loans. They should be able to get into the student loan business and make money, but the Federal Government needs to do a better deal than 98 cents on the dollar. Under the Republican reform, we double the risk the banks will accept in the event of a default. They will still be able to make money, but there is less risk for the taxpayer, there is more risk-sharing. That saved $5 billion, and had nothing to do with anybody who is getting a student loan. It had to do with the banks. Mr. Speaker, we saved $1.2 billion by eliminating a program the President is pushing called direct lending. The student loan guarantee program where we underwrite loans of the private sector needs to be improved. It is not a good business deal for the taxpayer. It is inefficient. The risk is not shared in a fair amount. We are going to improve that. We are going to double the risk. We are going to stop subsidizing the guaranteed agencies to the extent that they are subsidized now. We are going to do a better business deal for you, the American taxpayer, and still help students. The President, who is critical of the guaranteed program, wants to go the opposite direction. What he would like to have happen is the Federal Government become the primary lender, become a bank. Can you imagine the Department of Education becoming the third largest consumer bank in America? The bureaucrats that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has described would have a huge loan portfolio available to them. They would replace the private sector. We would go borrow the money, the Federal Government. We are broke, we do not have money, we would have to borrow money. We would let the Department of Education become the lender and the collection agency. It would be a disaster. It may be easier to get the money, somewhat more efficient, they say. That is not true. We would have a government bureaucracy at the Department of Education with unlimited growth potential. They would be the third largest consumer bank in America, and a bureaucratic Department of Education gets paid whether they collect the loan or not. It is not their money. The banks are lending their money. They have a reason to go collect the money. They are in a business. The Department of Education are not bankers, they are not in the banking business, and the President wants to replace private sector capital with public borrowed money, replace bankers who are in the business of collecting money for a living with bureaucrats. That is the worst idea I have ever heard of in this Congress, and it shows us how much he believes in big government. I will never ever vote, I will never ever allow that to happen, to take a private sector program that should and could be improved and replace it with a dominated Federal program where the default rates are going through the roof. If we think there is a problem now with defaults, let the Federal Government be the lender and the collection agency. They could care less. They want your vote, not your money back, not the money back. That would be a disaster, and it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen if we control this place. It will happen if the other party takes over, unfortunately, and there are Members of the other party who think this is a bad idea. Please do not allow the Federal Government to become the third largest bank and replace private capital with government borrowed money. That is a horrible idea. The Congressional Budget Office has told us if we would get the Federal Government out of the lending business in education, we would save $1.2 billion. That shows us how big a bureaucracy has grown up over a 10 percent share of the market, where direct lending has 10 percent of the student loan business now, there is a $1.2 billion savings if we wiped it out. The President wants to do 100 percent direct lending, but we save $1.2 billion in our budget by wiping it out, $5 billion by doubling the risk of banks. One thing we did do for students, that under the current program, Mr. Mica, if you graduate from college, we forgive the interest payment of your loan for a 6-month period when you graduate. We have proposed to allow the interest element of your loan to continue to run. You do not have to pay it if you do not have the money, but we are going to let the interest continue to run, not forgive the interest for a 6-month period. That would save $3.5 billion to the American taxpayer. It would mean to the average student a $4 a month increase, but it would save $3.5 billion for this Nation. I could tell you right now if we got to the point where we cannot forgive the interest for a 6-month period and that be devastating to education and a student cannot incur a $4 a month charge, then something is wrong and we are never going to balance the budget. That is not too much to ask. That is an appropriate thing to do to save $3.5 billion for the American taxpayer, and that is part of this package. We save $10 billion and I have just described to you, we increase the interest rates for parents who are not eligible for the guaranteed program to borrow the money at Treasury rates plus a percent, we increase that 0.1 percent, that will result in about half a billion dollars. We save $10 billion for the American taxpayers and the only thing to happen to a student is that they would have to pay $4 a month more because they are going to have to pay their interest for the 6-month period after they get out of college. We are not going to forgive it. To me that was very reasonable and responsible. It helped us balance the budget, and I think it improved the student loan program that needs to be improved. Those two-thirds of high school students who never go to college, who never go on and receive a student loan, they deserve our time and attention, too. Because they are the ones paying the bill and we can have a quality student loan program. Access to education is a must. I will always vote to ensure that money is available to help needy students and families who cannot go it on their own have money available to go to college. But as long as I am here, we are going to run it more like a business, we are going to ask the private sector to share the risk, we are going to improve the quality of the student loan program, we are going to negotiate a better deal for the taxpayer and we are going to save money in the process, and we are going to ask those students who borrow the money to pay it back. We have reduced the default rate by 50 percent and it has got nothing to do with direct lending. It has got to do with a Congress who has finally gotten tough and tells the school that has a 25 percent default rate, ``You're going to get out of the program.'' There are schools in this program that have 50 and 60 percent default rates. They should not be allowed to participate. We are going to start asking people to pay the money back, we are going to ask schools to get involved and run it more like a business at their level. We are going to renegotiate a relationship between the student loan program and the American taxpayer that will ensure access to education, but we are going to save some money because we are wasting money now and they are not contradictory principles. You can have efficiencies in government and improve the quality of people's lives, and that is the goal of this Congress, in education and every other area. I am proud to have been a part of it. Instead of getting criticized, I think we should be applauded for taking on programs that have not been looked at since 1965.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, it has been a great debate to listen to. It has kind of brought me down here, kind of got my blood stirring. One thing that was talked about a lot is the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement to raise taxes. And it has been very well articulated why you need that. One observation I would like to make, if you took 435 people at random, any town in America, any district in the Union, and you asked them to vote on this particular measure, the only group I know of that would have less than a two-thirds agreement is here in Congress. You could take 435 people in any town in my district and ask a simple question, should there be a wall between you and the politician to get in your pocket a little higher than the one that exists, they would have jumped on it a lot more than two-thirds vote. It would have probably been unanimous. Unfortunately, because it was a constitutional amendment, we needed a two-thirds vote. We were about 30 votes short. The idea is alive and well and the good thing about this Congress, it has been an historic Congress. We have not spent much time talking about what we have accomplished because we have been so busy doing it and ducking rocks being thrown at us for having done it. The line-item veto by itself is probably the biggest change in the last 200 years. The line-item veto allows the President to look over our shoulder for the first time and look at how we spend money. This tax debate is a good debate to be having, but it needs to be linked up with the spending debate that is going on. One thing is for sure, Americans are going to complain about the umpire and they are going to complain about taxes. If you go back in time at any time in the history of our Republic, you will find people complaining about how much they have to give to the government, I think that is just our nature. But we always give. We always meet our obligations. But the question that you must ask now, are people complaining for a good reason. I think they are complaining for a darn good reason. When you take money from the American public you should have a game plan in mind on how to spend it. We collect taxes to provide services at the national level. Are we providing quality service? Are we spending an appropriate amount of money, or are we spending too much? Are we doing too many things at the national level? Should some of those things be done at home? Should some of those things be done by the private sector? That is a great debate that must be joined with the tax debate. I would suggest to you that the money that we are taking from you is too much. The average person, black, white, rich, poor, conservative, liberal, says 25 percent from State, local, Federal taxes is enough taxation on the American family, and the reality is it is almost 40 percent. So I would suggest to you that not only does the American public believe we are taking too much, there is a new group in Congress that believes we are taking too much. But we are in the minority, but we are growing. Thanks to the vote in 1994, we have grown a lot. And just hang in there with us and get enough people up here to do something about it. We are here talking about it. We need more votes to make it happen. But the average American believes very sincerely they are having to pay too much. I agree with them. You agree with them. It is about time to start delivering. But we take their money. And what do we do with it? We provide services. Medicare is a good program. I come from the South where a lot of people who have worked in the textile industry in years gone by did not have good pension plans or health care plans. That is getting better. Medicare was a safety net program for folks that has grown tremendously. Do you know how much we have increased Medicare spending since 1980? We have increased it 2200 percent. Welfare, a tremendous explosion in welfare spending in the last 30 years; $5 trillion have been spent in the name of compassion. And we have more illegitimate children, more poor and disadvantaged people than we have ever had. I would suggest that the Federal Government could get by with less, that not only are you right when you are saying we take too much from you, you are right when you believe that Congress does not spend your money wisely. We can come up with a Medicare system that will take care of our seniors, that will not grow at 2200 percent every 15 years. We can provide compassion. We can provide welfare. We can help those people who are disadvantaged without paying them to have children they cannot afford. We can help people of alcohol problems without sending their check to the bar. We can reconfigure this government. We can take less of your money and do a better job. But you are going to have to help us. We have got to reinvent systems that are long overdue to be reinvented, and we can get by on less money. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, because it is a complete distortion to say that the Federal Government is a few billion dollars short. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, if there is something wrong with our corporate code, and there may be, and if foreign corporations are getting away with tax murder, we need to change it. But I would suggest that the party that has been in control for 40 years has some blame to accept that that is true. Let us stop blaming each other and try to fix the problem. What is the problem? It may make the gentleman feel better that this is an election year, but I ran on the same concept in the election year 1994. This is not a new thought to Congress. I believe very deeply that there should be a wall between your pocketbook and the U.S. Congress' ability to take money out of it. One thing we have learned is that if you leave Congress to its own devices, you lose. What would the Founding Fathers say about this debate? They would want to know, how is the country doing? If you tell them they are in 5 trillion dollars' worth of debt, they would say, ``What is $1 trillion?'' We have created new money amounts. I do believe it is time to change the way we do business in Washington, and this is a start. I do not trust the Republican Party enough to leave it unhindered. I want to change America for the sake of the people who earn the money and have to pay the taxes. Let us have the line-item veto and give it to a Republican and Democratic President to regulate the way we spend. Let us have a balanced budget amendment that regulates both parties' conduct, so we cannot leave here with a deficit. Let us have term limits so Congressmen will come here with a different view of how to serve the public. Let us change America and be serious about it before it is too late. Some say it is too late. I do not believe that. The two-thirds super- majority vote requirement to raise taxes is long overdue. It is needed, because we in America, in Congress, have been irresponsible. Do not trust party rhetoric, do not trust political rhetoric. Change the rules of how Congress taxes you, how it spends money. If we do not do that, nothing in America is going to change. This is a great debate to be having, and there is going to be a vote pretty soon, and you will find out who is with you and who is against you. If you believe this is corporate welfare, a way of protecting it, then you can punish me if you thing that is true. If you believe this is a good rule to limit congressional spending long overdue, you can punish the people who voted the other way. This is a great debate to be having. It is one of many we have had. I am proud to be part of it.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring up a subject that is on many people's minds and affects every Member of this body, and that is the student loan program and the Department of Education's mishandling of almost 1 million student loan financial aid applications. I have got behind me here an article in last week's Chronicle of Higher Education. The article is titled, ``Sorting Out a Foul-up in Student Loans.'' The foul-up is that 900,000 financial aid applications that should have already been processed by the Department of Education are in a bureaucratic backlog caused by the irresponsible mismanagement of the student loan program. Before we go any further, I think it is important to note the way the student loan program works. Most student loans are guaranteed by the Federal Government, and the money comes from a private banking institution. The banks will be reimbursed in the event of a default, 98 cents on the dollar. We are trying to streamline that process to have more risk being shared by the private sector. But believe it or not, there is a move afoot to replace private-sector capital, private-sector enterprise and have the Federal Government become the sole lending agency for student loans in this country. Can you imagine the Department of Education becoming the third largest consumer loan entity in the United States? Now, what this means is that there is a move afoot by this administration to replace the private sector totally where we share risk with the private sector. The Federal Government co-signs these notes and in the event of a default, the private sector absorbs part of the loan default and the Federal Government absorbs the largest part. But the direct lending program advocated by the administration would totally take the private sector out. The Department of Education would become the third largest consumer loan institution in America. You would have bureaucrats at the Department of Education become bankers. They would lend the money. They would collect the money in theory and it would be a disaster. It would be a disaster for the taxpayer. It would be a disaster for the students because the very same group that would be in the banking business is the very same group that is trying to process applications for loans that would be approved by the private sector. The state of that situation is that 900,000 student loan applications are backlogged and the Department of Education is trying to blame it on the snow and the shutdown of the government for 21 days. Both of them are just flat false reasons. The truth is that it is a very bureaucratic, very ineffective system that they have in place to process these loans. The last thing in the world we need to do is to extend their power, not only let them process the applications but lend and collect the money. That would be disastrous for the American taxpayer.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. While you are conducting hearings, there is another area that I would like you to look into that I have asked the GAO to investigate, and that is that there are millions of dollars of unreconciled money responsible by the Department of Education. We need to find out where the money is at.