J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not suggest that for everyone on the other side of the aisle, and certainly administration representatives, and I know representatives from the Committee on Appropriations, were here. But, apparently, the House Minority Leader, the man in whom Members of the opposition party place their trust and the responsibility of leadership, saw fit to leave town instead of being involved in the budget negotiations. It brings all of this talk about a do-nothing Congress, it rings kind of hollow for those who, I suppose in good faith, want to see a solid record, to leave town on a fund-raising trip for campaign cash.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank my friends from the left, in the minority, for offering some points of view. And others will come later. I think it is important to remember this. As the President said when he came to give his State of the Union message, first things first. Now, we had to get him to agree with us, and he finally did so after initially wanting to spend almost 40 percent of the Social Security fund on new government programs. We finally got him to agree, no, no. Let us save 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security. We welcome that. The President was also content to let the House work its will when we brought to the floor his package of new taxation, higher taxation, and fees in the billions of dollars. And not a single Member of this body voted for those new taxes, neither Republicans nor Democrats. So we appreciate him acceding to the will of the House in that regard. Now, we cannot make too much of this, Mr. Speaker, or emphasize it enough. The President and the Speaker of the House had agreed to the notion of across-the-board savings, maybe not even a penny on every dollar, but savings enough to make sure we stay out of the Social Security Trust Funds. We welcome back the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. We are pleased he is back in town, back from his campaign cash swing on the West Coast. We hope now he will sit down and solve the problems. We can get it done.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield time to me? I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Georgia. I am sorry that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations is no longer here with us, because I think we have an honest disagreement in terms of the way he portrayed what we have done to save the Social Security fund, which we pledged to save, in stark contrast to the President who came in January and said let us save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus and then spend close to 40 percent on new government programs. I did not hear from the gentleman from Wisconsin, was he proposing new taxes on the working poor to go to this? I did not hear that side of what he was talking about in terms of the tobacco settlement, so I am uncertain. If he was proposing new taxation on the working poor and on working Americans, I think there is justifiably a problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points. First of all, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we can reiterate this enough. Because last month, the folks who do all the calculations, the budgeters in this town took a look, and the reason that chart exists as it does today is because all the folks who deal with all the economic forecasts and who take a look at the tax receipts coming in and the money being spent going out evaluated what transpired in the last fiscal year. What they said was nothing short of historic and cannot be repeated enough. They found that, for the first time since 1960 when I was 2 years of age, when that great and good man Dwight David Eisenhower resided at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in our executive mansion as President of the United States, for the first time since 1960, Congress balanced the budget, did not use the Social Security Trust Fund, did not raid those funds for more spending, and, moreover, generated a surplus. My friends who joined us, our friends who were on the political left tend to bemoan any type of spending reduction. The other reason, and I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) agree with me, you see the other reason to make sure Americans have more of their hard earned money back in their pockets. It is a simple fact, Mr. Speaker, that if the money is not given back to the people who earned it, there are special interests here in Washington who are more than happy to spend it. So we should really thank the President for at long last coming to our point of view for saying, in the wake of his State of the Union message, let me reconsider. Instead of 62 percent, I will go along with the majority party, save 100 percent of the Social Security. That is a victory for the American people. I thank my friends on the left, despite their vociferous opposition here earlier in this special order to tax relief for going on the Record with us. Do my colleagues realize, Mr. Speaker, again last month, when we brought the President's plan to raise revenue through an increase in taxation and fees, not a single Member of this institution voted in favor of the tax increase. So I appreciate the fact that the President was willing to let the will of the people through the House of Representatives speak. I think that is a positive point. Now, today, we hear that the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, agrees with the Speaker of the House that there can be an across-the-board spending reduction. The one part of the puzzle that we hope we can work out, and we are glad the minority leader returned from the west coast and his political fund-raising trip, because now he can join the Speaker of the House at the table and agree to across-the-board savings so we can make sure that hands stay off the Social Security surplus.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. And I would like to refresh his memory, because it is burned, it is seared into my memory, the first subcommittee meeting for parks, the Inspector General, the accountant for the Interior Department, with the then director of the National Park Service at his side, the Inspector General testifying in front of that Resources subcommittee said that the National Park Service for that budgetary cycle, for that year, could not account for $73 million of taxpayer funds. My colleague from California pointed out, were this the private sector, it would not be a national park someone would be spending their time in, they would be incarcerated for malfeasance. And the challenge for my colleague from California and others who have that wonderful mission of serving on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget is to restate our rules so that we have a way to impound those types of funds out of administrative accounts in the next few years. But that is the challenge we face and that is ample evidence. And then we have the other evidence, the infamous outhouse, $1 million for an outhouse at Glacier National Park in Montana. It took over 800 helicopter trips. That is how inaccessible, we are talking about really out there, this outhouse, the million-dollar outhouse. Maybe that is $1 million out of the $73 million of that budgetary cycle. Yet my former governor, the Secretary of the Interior says there is no waste. The American people know better, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues have amply demonstrated that.

Mr. HAYWORTH. As I sat here that evening listening to the President's speech, in 77 minutes he outlined over 80 new spending programs, I believe it was well in excess of $70 billion, in fact almost twice that much.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think this point should be made, because again in the spirit of bipartisanship, we welcome the President with his change of mind. We appreciate the fact that good people can disagree and then reconsider and come along. Now he says, let us save all of the Social Security trust fund for Social Security. One other thing we did in this Congress, when he proposed the tax and fee increase, we brought it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, again just to refresh the collective memory of this body and clue in the American people, not a single Member of this institution, Republican or Democrat, or my friend from Vermont who is a self-described socialist, an independent, not a one voted for the tax increase. So in that sense, the House worked its will. The President has bowed to that. Again, the 1 percent solution makes dollars and sense. A penny saved is retirement secured.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. He outlines the parameters of what should be a common sense, straightforward decision. Because in a government that has grown so large, so overreaching, so all encompassing, we have heard Mr. Speaker, from various media outlets of waste, fraud, and abuse. One television network regularly runs a feature entitled ``The Fleecing of America.'' Another television network runs a franchise and a report entitled ``It Is Your Money.'' Mr. Speaker, that is precisely it. The money does not belong to the Federal Government. It belongs to the American people. What we say is rather straightforward and I believe fraught with common sense. Because I hold here a penny, made with good Arizona copper, no doubt, and what we are simply saying, Mr. Speaker, is that, when it comes to budgetary decisions, just as families have to make those decisions to find savings, and, indeed, I happen to notice in the Arizona Republic on Sunday over $50 worth of coupons that my wife Mary sat down and went through to realize savings, if it is good enough for America's families, why is it not good enough for Washington bureaucrats? Why can we not find those savings of one penny out of every dollar of discretionary spending? That is the challenge that confronts us as we work to achieve what is constitutionally required of the Congress of the United States, to work with the executive to finally determine the amounts spent in the budgetary process and to live within our means. Now, we have made progress. That is the good news, Mr. Speaker. Because at the podium behind me here 11 months ago the President of the United States came to deliver his State of the Union message, and in that speech he proposed to save 62 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund for Social Security, which a quick check of mathematics would imply, and what was not articulated that night but subsequently outlined in more programs, the President wanted to spend 38 percent, almost 40 percent of the Social Security funds on new government spending, new Washington programs. And we are pleased that through our effort of cheerful persistence, Mr. Speaker, we were able to persuade the President of the United States to truly join us in a program to save Social Security first and agree that 100 percent of the Social Security funds should be spent on Social Security. Now, that is scarcely a news flash to those of us who serve in the Congress of the United States. Indeed, as my colleague from California and as my good friend from Texas who will join us here momentarily will attest, that is something we have heard from our constituents in town hall meetings since we have come to the Congress of the United States. And even as the President has agreed with us on that firm foundation, and we are glad he could come around to our way of thinking, we should also point out the good news that the media reported, although it was given scant attention, and we cannot articulate it enough, and that is the folks who do the estimates, the calculations, for fiscal year 1999, sharpened their pencils, got out their calculators, took a look at the receipts coming into the Federal Government via taxation and other means, took a look at the expenditures and, Mr. Speaker, the American people should understand this because it is a measure of how far we have come in a little under 5 years with a new majority in the Congress of the United States, the budgeteers found for the first time since 1960, when I was 2 years old, when a great and good man named Dwight David Eisenhower lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and served as President of the United States, for the first time since 1960, this government operated within its means to the tune of a balanced budget without dipping into Social Security revenues to meet obligations of the government. Moreover, there was a true surplus. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, I mean there was a surplus over and above the money set aside for Social Security, a surplus to the tune of $1 billion. And in that process we have also retired billions of dollars of debt, and we will do so again this year. But, my colleagues, it is really a simple process. I mentioned President Eisenhower. Ike had a favorite term, Mr. Speaker, when things seemed needlessly complex. President Eisenhower would refer to ``sophisticated nonsense.'' And a lot of the time here in Washington, with all due respect to my friends at the State Department, and I think I know why they call the location Foggy Bottom, but apart from diplomacy it also works in terms of economics. Sometimes we get things way too complicated and we have a battle of acronyms; CBO, OMB, GNP, all these different terms. My colleague from California offers the solution in the spirit of President Eisenhower, in the spirit of common sense, folks on both sides of the aisle and across the political spectrum, because again he says let us take a look at the 1 percent solution. One penny of savings out of every dollar of discretionary spending. It ensures that we keep a promise to today's retirees and to future generations, because now that we have established the guidelines and achieved what had not been achieved since 1960, and that is walling off, not using Social Security funds in the general revenue, balancing the budget over and above that, we dare not retreat at this point. And so we say let us save one penny out of every dollar of discretionary spending. Now, again, I mentioned the work of several different television networks, several different newspapers, and magazine articles that talk about government waste. And Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence and the obvious modesty of the gentleman from California, I would simply call the attention of this House and the collective attention of the American people, who may join us in hearing these words, to the efforts of my colleague from California on the Committee on Ways and Means with reference to understanding who deserves Social Security payments and how to protect the program for retirees. My colleague from California (Mr. Herger), in his efforts on the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced legislation that would make sure that felons behind bars would not receive Social Security payments. They have a place to sleep, three meals a day. Now, granted they do not have their freedom, but why on earth would they receive Social Security payments? And initially the budgeteers said, well, there will be a few million dollars of savings. Through the efforts of my colleague from California, who brushed away the sophisticated nonsense and took a look at the basic issues confronting Social Security and payments to felons behind bars, the Social Security Administration found something both profound and, I daresay, profane. The Social Security Administration ran the numbers: $3.46 billion. To use the proper mathematical terms, $3,460,000,000 in SSI payments, Social Security payments, would illegally go to prisoners over a 5-year period, including a serial killer who was receiving $80,000 in Social Security disability while he was on death row. My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), from California made an important first step to wall that off and to save money, and he is working for more commonsense legislation to completely wall that off. Because that money should not go to convicted felons. That money should go to people who have paid into the program who are law-abiding citizens who have played by the rules. And that is a demonstration of where there are savings to be realized. And, Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people, Republicans, Democrats, and independents instinctively understand. Because we could talk, as the President of the United States did in a previous visit when he uttered the famous phrase ``The era of big government is over,'' and we could debate that; but, Mr. Speaker, let me redefine what we should be about. The era of good government should begin, in this place, at this time, with Members of both parties working to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse that sadly has grown rampant in a government of this size. One other note, and I see our colleague from Colorado joins us, and I am so happy to see my friend from Texas, and perhaps my friend from Colorado could expound upon this, because he and my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), went down to the Education Department, where Governor Dick Riley, an old friend of mine, former Governor of South Carolina, Cabinet Secretary for the Department of Education, said that there was no waste in the Department of Education. And yet, and yet, when we check what goes on in the Department of Education, and understand that it is our philosophy that dollars should end up in the classroom helping teachers teach and helping children learn, but right now, sadly, the Department of Education, as near as we can calculate, maintains a $725 million slush fund, and folks at the Department of Education cannot account for its use. Indeed, there is no way we understand, for the Inspector General, which is, Mr. Speaker, the fancy name for the accountant who would audit these things, the Department of Education's books are unauditable. The irony, of course, is that simple accountancy and mathematics is a basic skill. One would hope those engaged in education would understand that here in Washington. But that is yet another curious example, and examples abound. But again it comes back to a very simple notion. To really maintain the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund, to make sure we do not dip into it, it comes down to this simple notion: Let us save a penny for every dollar of discretionary spending. Because, Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, a penny saved is retirement secured.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, I have come across the aisle symbolically to reach out to my friends in the Democratic Party, to reach out to the administration. In a previous life, before coming to the Congress of the United States, I was a broadcaster. Oft times I was entrusted with updating current events, what we call in common parlance the news. Mr. Speaker, the news tonight as my colleagues have outlined, is as follows: At this minute, at the White House, congressional representatives and representatives of the administration are involved in negotiations. The most effective way to realize the savings necessary so that we can reach an agreement between the priorities of the administration and the necessities of the American people as reflected through our programs in this common sense Congress is for the administration to agree with us to the 1 percent solution, one penny of every dollar of discretionary spending. As my colleague from Texas pointed out, we are not talking about Medicare dollars, Medicaid dollars, Social Security dollars. We are not talking about vital funds to programs known as entitlements. We are talking about discretionary spending, where choices can be made. One other note because as my friends talk about education, we should also talk, as I was honored to serve with my colleague from California earlier on the Committee on Resources when I first came to the Congress of the United States, one note on this, because also Arizona's former governor, Secretary Babbitt, at the Interior Department, has followed the predictable, what we call in this town, spin of the administration and said that the Interior Department cannot realize any savings.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of our committee and the dean of our delegation from Arizona for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the 11th day of the 11th month of the 11th hour, I joined with veterans in Apache Junction, Arizona, and then later that day in Payson, Arizona, to commemorate their contributions to our national security on Veterans Day. It is in their honor, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, in honor of all who have worn the uniform of our country in peacetime and in war, that I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2116, the bipartisan Veterans' Millenium Health Care Act. Mr. Speaker, veterans' benefits are truly earned opportunities. I am very pleased we are able to approach this new century with comprehensive new legislation. This bill makes a number of needed improvements to programs serving veterans, two of which I would like to briefly highlight. As the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) indicated, the bill would authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission to begin construction of the World War II monument here in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the World War II generation, as NBC nightly news managing editor and anchor Tom Brokaw has written, is in fact the greatest generation. What greater gift can one generation, in this case, our World War II generation, give to the generations that follow than freedom? And, what more enduring thanks can America give our World War II veterans than to build their memorial, and build it now? H.R. 2116 also aggressively authorizes appropriations to the Department of Labor for the homeless veterans reintegration program. Mr. Speaker, as we approach a new century, on any given evening it is estimated that more than 275,000 veterans, the equivalent of 17 infantry divisions, will sleep in doorways, in boxes, and on grates in our cities, and in barns, in lean-tos, and on the ground in our towns. Mr. Speaker, our millenium bill aims to help many of these men and women find jobs by authorizing a 4-year increase in Labor Department funding for this competitively-bid nationwide community-based employment program. I know of no group that wants to break the cycle of homelessness more than America's sons and daughters who have worn the uniform of this country. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that despite the strong efforts of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump), the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the efforts of our own subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the House version for the current G.I. bill and the role it hopefully will play in resolving veterans' transition and military recruitment issues in the next century is not part of this legislation, but Mr. Speaker, it will be a top subcommittee priority next year. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2116 is the result of bipartisan hard work, for which I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle, and specifically, the members of our Subcommittee on Benefits. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this millenium bill because it accords veterans opportunities that they have earned; nothing more and nothing less. I thank the chairman of the full committee for his longstanding leadership on behalf of our Nation's veterans, and I thank the ranking minority member for his continued commitment and support, as well. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would celebrate the bipartisan nature of this bill, and join with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) in congratulating Ms. Jill Cochran, longtime Democratic member staff director for the Subcommittee on Benefits, on her upcoming retirement after a quarter century, 25 years of dedicated service to our veterans affairs committee. Mr. Speaker, Jill has made a wonderful contribution. I know my colleagues in this body extend their kindest wishes as she embarks on the next phase of her journey in life.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the three Rs when it comes to education. Let me add a fourth R: responsibility, because responsibility is the key. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, responding to the press when it comes to judicious spending of educational dollars said, and I quote, ``Well, because it is not their money.'' Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ought to understand both the arithmetic and the responsibility. My liberal friends want the money to be controlled by the educational bureaucrats in Washington. We in the common sense, conservative majority say the money should be spent at home, first and foremost by teachers in the classrooms, by superintendents in the districts, and yes, by governors in the States, along with the respective superintendents of public education. Because while education is a national priority, it ultimately is a local concern. Mr. Speaker, the President and my liberal friends should join with us to make sure that local control and responsibility is paramount.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and I would echo the comments of my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and simply say that for rural hospitals this refining piece of legislation is absolutely important. I would agree with the portion of the statement of the gentlewoman from Florida that when it comes to immunosuppressive drugs for transplant patients, this legislation is vitally important. When it comes to teaching hospitals, this legislation is vitally important. When it comes to accountability in the legislative branch, and let us be honest about the budget negotiations in 1997, many of these provisions were not advocated by either the majority or the minority here but at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. When we choose to correct, we are being responsive to our constituents. I welcome constructive comments. We will save the politicking for a campaign. Today we do the people's business, restoring rural health care, restoring home health care, expanding immunosuppressive drugs and making a difference with a prescription for success for health care and the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let me follow, then, in the spirit of bipartisanship offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), I welcome that candid exchange, and I think one way we can really get started is for the Blue Dogs to join with the conservative majority in a pledge to realize savings of 1 cent of every dollar spent. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) says, let us save money. We agree. Join with us. But, see, the problem is within the minority caucus, sadly my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition are a minority within that minority. So I would invite my friends, moderate conservatives on the other side of the aisle, to join with this working majority for a center right coalition to realize savings. All we are talking about is 1 cent on every discretionary dollar. That is easily done. It saves the Social Security money for Social Security. Let us do that in the spirit of bipartisanship. To my friends in the Blue Dog Caucus, I extend my hand in that bipartisan fashion.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If I can just make the point, I thank my colleagues from Georgia and from South Carolina, and our other good friend who serves on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) put pen to paper and started to estimate all the promises in the last 7-plus years. Mr. Speaker, and I am glad the Speaker is seated, there are $22 billion in promises of American funds to foreign governments on the road, and Mr. Speaker, we ought to issue this travel advisory, the President again, following Veterans Day, November 11, I believe November 12, is scheduled to make another trip to Europe. Mr. Speaker, we should ask the President to uncharacteristically restrain the price of his promises. We do not need finger wagging or redefinition of the word ``is,'' we need old fashioned fiscal discipline. We invite the President and the administration and our friends on the left to join us in that process.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Or, if my friend would yield, given the rather considerable elector difficulties that this Vice President is encountering, we should point out that our former colleague in the other body, former Senator Bradley, would not end this either. Indeed, we should point out that the Washington Post, not exactly a bastion of conservative values, the Washington Post in work done in part by reporter C.C. Connelly pointed out 2 weeks ago that the campaign promises of Messrs. Bradley and Gore alone would require all of the surplus funds, including Social Security. It boils down to a very simple choice, Mr. Speaker: If you want to empower the culture of spending and having Washington take more and more and more of your family's budget to spend on the national budget, well, the standard to follow on the left is pretty clear. It is offered unapologetically by their 2 presidential candidates. If, however, you believe the money you earn and the sacrifices that my colleague from Georgia pointed out as a common notion of light, if you believe for too long you have been asked to sacrifice so that Washington can allegedly do more, and we need to reverse that, as we have done with common sense priorities in this House, and make sure that Washington saves so your family can have more, then, Mr. Speaker, we should invite the American people to join with us to be understandably wary of the bill of goods offered by the left and to point out again the comments of the minority leader of this House, who now tends to hedge and says on national television, ``Well, we ought to try to spend as little of the Social Security surplus as possible.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple notion: A penny saved, one penny, out of every discretionary dollar spent, one penny saved, is retirement secured.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me, and I appreciate the fact that he has organized this time, Mr. Speaker, to go directly to the American people. Indeed, following, as we do, our colleagues from the left, I think it is important, even as much as we would like to set this up with a very positive dynamic, we are also compelled by the instant revisionism of the left to address a couple of their arguments. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we hear the ferocity of the denial of what has gone on for so many years on the left, as the folks stepped up to the plate tonight, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to set the record straight. First and foremost, the fact is, before the gentleman from Texas and I came to the Congress of the United States, for 40 years the Social Security surplus was routinely spent on pet programs of the left. Indeed, so much money was spent that the country was taken further into debt. We heard all the name calling about the notion that Americans keeping more of their hard-earned money was somehow unpopular. Mr. Speaker, what is really unpopular on the left, sadly, is a failure to step up and recognize fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a 1 percent solution. There is a success we can already celebrate. The budgeters, the folks who take care of all the numbers, have done some studying. They tell us for this fiscal year, fiscal year 1999, for the first time since 1960, for the first time since Dwight Eisenhower was ensconced in the big White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, this Congress balanced the budget, and did so using none of the Social Security surplus and, also, we might add, generated a surplus over and above the Social Security funds to the tune of $1 billion. That is cause not only for celebration, Mr. Speaker, it is cause to signal our commitment. Now that we have done that, we dare not go back and to hear the charges from the left. Let me offer what any computer student knows, what most folks understand here in the United States, one of the oldest games in the world, and, sadly, one of the first casualties in dealing in debate with the left, one of the first casualties of such debate is truth. When one sends the folks in the budget office a set of false assumptions and one says, assuming the following things, then what does one see? The folks who crunch those numbers are honor bound to say, well, making those assumptions, we expect X, Y, and Z. In the popular vernacular, Mr. Speaker, that comes down to garbage in, garbage out. My friends who preceded us here on this floor involved in the instant revisionism were offering a clear example of that. I mentioned just a minute ago the 1 percent solution. Mr. Speaker, I hold here a shiny new penny, made, no doubt, with Arizona copper. What we are saying through this appropriations process, through what the media calls the battle of the budget is as follows: Cannot we step up and save one penny out of every dollar given the massive waste, fraud, and abuse fraught on the American people by Washington, D.C., cannot we save one penny out of every dollar to save Social Security? An example is as follows here with this chart, which graphically demonstrates what has transpired. It is entitled, Mr. Speaker, ``Mr. Clinton goes to Africa.'' My colleagues may remember the trip in the news, a few positive policy notions discussed there. But what was disturbing about the trip, Mr. Speaker, was the President took along 1,300 people. Included in his entourage were some Members of this body, the mayor of Denver, Colorado, and others. Mr. Speaker, what is compelling is the cost of that trip was almost $43 million, including an entourage of 1,300 folks. Now, under our modest proposal, the 1 percent solution, saving a penny out of every dollar, what would have happened was that 13 members of this 1,300 member delegation would have had to stay home. Maybe the mayor of Denver had concerns he could have better added in Colorado within the environs of the city limits of Denver. Maybe 12 other folks could have stayed home. I believe Mrs. Curry, the White House secretary for the President, was also on the trip. Maybe she could have tended to things back here. But all we are saying is this is not a draconian cut. My goodness. If anything, it is somewhat modest. But this demonstrates the waste. Let me point out to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, and others who join us, understand, the 1,300 people in this entourage did not, I repeat, did not include the security personnel that every American understands a President, given these trying times, needs both at home and abroad. We are not talking about secret service. We are not talking about a security entourage over and above that. We are talking about 1,300 people. You combine this number of folks with other trips to China and Chile, and you are looking at a bill of close to $70 million.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, would my friend please repeat those numbers, because I think it is important; and it is something, given the many curious mathematics of Washington, D.C., and the failure of both accountancy and accountability at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Would my colleague repeat those numbers. That is actually an increase, is it not?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what we are talking about here, we need to point out facts are stubborn things. And the chart, basically, sums it up right here. In terms of spending, we see what is going on here. We are just simply talking about reducing spending, realizing savings of 1 cent, 1 cent on every discretionary dollar. My colleague from Texas pointed out the fact, and again, facts are stubborn things despite what some of this town call spin, others would more properly label as propaganda, how can you spend $2 billion additionally funding priorities and at the same time be accused of irresponsibility. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues remind me of George Orwell's seminal book ``1984'' where the mythical republic of Oceania embraced slogans such as ``Ignorance is strength.'' ``War is peace.'' Now we are hearing in this town that fully funding, and then some, is a draconian cut. It just does not add up.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his comments. Two points. Number one, again, in the vernacular of this town, which some folks who are onlookers call spin, or should properly call spin propaganda, there is also something known as message discipline. And our colleague from Texas recites not only the statements of the White House press secretary but several cabinet officials involved in message discipline, to use the vernacular of the city. How unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot be involved in fiscal discipline, stepping up with us with a 1 percent solution. A penny saved out of every dollar of discretionary spending goes a long way toward protecting the Social Security Trust Fund. It is summed up like this: a penny saved is retirement secured. My colleague from Georgia alluded to this. This was 2 weeks ago, October 24 of this year, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the House minority leader, appeared on this week on ABC. The question was, ``What's the problem with spending the Social Security Trust Fund? You've been doing it for years,'' which sounds to me like a set- up question just as an average citizen in addition to a Member of Congress. But here is what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said: ``I understand. But there is a feeling now that since we have a surplus and since we got to get ready for the baby-boomers,'' and this is the key clause, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, ``that we really ought to try to spend as little of it as possible, none if possible. We really ought to spend as little of it as possible.'' This is not rocket science, Mr. Speaker. What you see are two very different visions of government. We believe to help Americans realize the limitless nature of their dreams, we should put limits on wasteful spending in Washington. The other side says, let us never put limits on spending. There is always more and more and more to be spent, and they engage in dubious mathematics and spin. The President of the United States stood here in January of this year and talked about putting Social Security first and then had the audacity to say let us save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus. Now, a quick check of math, Mr. Speaker, indicates that that evening he was prepared to spend 38 percent of it on other priorities. And that is the operative factor: spend, spend, spend, spend some more.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It is amazing the efforts which the left will employ to avoid common sense savings. I was especially surprised and sadly disheartened at the comments of my fellow Arizonan the Secretary of Interior, our one-time governor Mr. Babbitt to now say that there is no waste in that department. I would simply refer the Secretary to a finding made just a few years ago, in my first term in the Congress of the United States when I was privileged to serve on the Committee on Resources and we had the Interior Department's accountant, in Washington, we give accountants fancy names, the Inspector General was there, that is the accountant who takes care of all the books, conducts the audit, and sitting alongside him at that point in time was the director of the National Park Service. The accountant, the Inspector General for the Interior Department, reported to our committee that for that fiscal year, the National Park Service could not account for over $70 million in funds authorized and appropriated to be spent by the National Park Service. They could not account for it. Mr. Speaker, we have the crown jewels of the Park Service in Arizona, the Grand Canyon, Canyon de Chelly, a variety of amazing sites of natural splendor. We depend on the Park Service to be good stewards of those national treasures. But is it too much to ask the Park Service and other Washington bureaucrats here to also be good stewards of the treasure of the American people, the tax money they send here year in and year out? And so, Mr. Speaker, I would invite my fellow Arizonan to take a very close look, mindful of that report of a few years ago. Certainly there is savings of one cent on every dollar spent, because I know a whole lot of Arizonans who sit down every Sunday with their newspaper and start to clip coupons, because they need to save 50 cents on a box of cereal. This is something that is not foreign. This is something that we do not need any highfalutin economics for. It is just common sense. We can do better. I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would say to my friend from Texas, I am indebted to him for pointing this out, and for my colleague from Georgia, who I think used a term that is all too revealing about the mind set of Washington and the wasteful spending therein and what transpires. The phrase is ``other people's money.'' Some folks in this town come to view the Federal Treasury as one big piece of pie, or, perhaps more appropriately, as the ultimate lottery winnings of all times, equating with trillions of dollars, rather than realizing this money belongs to the American people we are entrusted with. While my friends talk about the accountability, we are also indebted to our colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who serves on the Committee on Education and the Work Force, who has gone back and done some checking, because our good friend, the former Governor of South Carolina, the Secretary of Education, Mr. Riley, has also said that there can be no reductions. Mr. Speaker, our colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) points out that the Education Department cannot account for $120 billion of taxpayer money. Today, more than 7 months after the March audit deadline, the Department of Education still cannot produce the required paperwork to allow their financial works to be audited by the GAO. In other words, they cannot even supply the information, and they cannot use the excuse that the dog ate the homework. The Department of Education is the only Federal department that has not been audited for fiscal year 1998. The Department of Education is responsible for distributing $120 billion a year in education spending, $35 billion in appropriated funds and approximately an $85 billion loan portfolio. Unfortunately, they do not know where the money is going. Mr. Speaker, is it too much to ask for accountability? Is it too much to say based on the fact that the figures are incomplete, that apparently our friends in the Department of Education do not know where the funds are going, could they not at least take the modest step of trying to find one penny in savings out of these $120 billion? I see we are joined by our colleague from South Carolina, who has helped to make a difference from the low country, who must hear with interest the comments of the former Governor of South Carolina, the current Secretary of Education, about this topic, the out and out refusal of the administration to join with us to find savings of one penny on every dollar. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, again, we are actually adding $2 billion more to this defense budget than this White House and the Pentagon requested. Facts are stubborn things. No means no. But to the minority party in this chamber and to the folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, no apparently means maybe when it comes to the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, the transcript of what transpired today in the White House press room, a journalist to Joe Lockhart, the Press Secretary, question: ``Just to be clear, the third option you would consider, you would under no circumstances accept going to the Social Security surplus at this point; is that correct?'' Mr. Lockhart responds, ``We have put forward a better way. We hope they will consider it. We will be here. They understand what our ideas are.'' This President stood in the well. He said save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus, implying he would spend 38 percent of it on other programs. He outlined various new ways to raise revenue. We brought it to the floor of this House. Not a single Member voted for the Clinton tax-hike package, not anyone on that side. So no meant no when it came to raising taxes. All we say is this, Mr. Speaker, our 1 percent solution, one penny out of every dollar in savings will save Social Security and stop the raid. A penny saved is a retirement secured.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) because he points out something that there are so many examples of, and some of these examples, quite frankly, you laugh to keep from crying, Mr. Speaker. For example, the Agency for International Development. Now remember, the President has just vetoed a foreign aid bill saying we are not spending enough on other folks around the world, we need to take $4 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund, or I guess he is suggesting we ought to raise taxes, to take care of this. But here is an example of international development, the Inspector General, the accountant, checking that from the report. Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, the folks up in Vermont; they have a few stores in Arizona, a couple of stores in the Sixth District, but also they have an interest in the former Soviet Union, the Russian Republic. In fact, the Agency for International Development, Mr. Speaker, gave Ben and Jerry's $850,000 to develop and distribute ice cream in Russia. Now the folks at Ben and Jerry's wrote our majority in Congress and told us, ``Oh, this is a pretty good idea to use taxpayers' money for ice cream going to Russians, and instead of following the free market route, to have taxpayers pay for the marketing of Ben and Jerry's ice cream.'' Oh, there was something else, Mr. Speaker, that the Ben and Jerry's folks added in their letter; their belief, Mr. Speaker, that we should completely zero out defense spending and defense capabilities. Mr. Speaker, I hope I can arrange an introduction of General Henry Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to Ben and Jerry and their ice cream, and I would just like to clear up any rumor, Mr. Speaker. There apparently is no truth to the rumor that Ben and Jerry want to develop a new flavor in honor of their pacifist leanings, even as they are happy to take American tax dollars to market ice cream in Russia. There was some talk going around that they had developed a new flavor: surrender sarsaparilla. But I do not think that is going to happen. I gladly yield to my friend from Texas.