J.D. Hayworth

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. Mr. Speaker, for three trips, Africa, Chile, China, the grand total was in excess of $70 million with thousands accompanying the President, well over 1,000 in his entourage. That is not taking into account the justifiable needs for security, secret service, and the like for the President of the United States. I agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma. We need at long last, Mr. Speaker, leadership by example. Part of that bill that the gentleman from Oklahoma will be talking about and helping to manage on this floor tomorrow includes a 1 percent reduction in salary for Members of Congress. Again, I would renew my challenge to the President. He should reduce his salary. Cabinet level officials should reduce their salaries. They should lead by example.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I think, Mr. Speaker, the American people reflect the sentiment expressed by my friend from Texas (Mr. Brady). We need to approach this not as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans; and yet even as we celebrate that notion of nonpartisanship, we cannot help but note a difference that, Mr. Speaker, we need to inform the American people about. You see, to us we have taken the commitment. No means no, hands off Social Security funds, Social Security funds should be used exclusively for Social Security. No means no to this common sense conservative majority, and yet to my friends in the minority and the folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue no means maybe. Here is the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri, on ABC's This Week last Sunday. The gentleman from Missouri says, quote: ``We need to save the Social Security surplus as much as we possibly can.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, why can he not join with us to say let us save 100 percent of the Social Security surplus? Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to another newcomer to this Chamber, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. HAYWORTH. It would seem to me that the gentleman from Colorado has not only pointed out wasteful spending, but something that is equally, if not more, troubling, the blatant disregard for simple ethics and honest stewardship of the organs of government. Indeed my friend from Colorado mentions his experience now as a freshman. I can harken back to my first term in office, honored to come here as part of a new majority, also serving at that point in time on the House Committee on Resources; and let me tell you this waste notion is nothing new. I can remember our first hearing on the subcommittee dealing with parks. Now, Mr. Speaker, government does this, and my friend from Colorado can bear this out with his past administrative experience because government gives an interesting name to accountants. The Federal Government calls them inspectors general. And so the Inspector General for the Interior Department was seated besides at that time the Director of the National Park Service, and the audit offered by the Inspector General at that time said that the National Park Service could not account for over 70 million dollars of taxpayer funds; and indeed, as we have seen from the latest study offered by our budgeteers and the General Accounting Office, the folks who do this to check on the business of government, if you will, there is waste and a lack of accountability to the tune of $800 billion, and yet there are those in this administration who refuse to stand up and offer straight talk, who sadly, as agents that are in essence political provocateurs, abuse government property and taxpayer funds for political endeavors and still cannot seem to come to grips with a 1 percent solution that we need now more than ever to save Social Security and make sure that the raid is not renewed, a raid that will come based on the insistence of this President who vetoed a foreign aid bill saying he wanted to spend $4 billion more on non-Americans. One penny out of every dollar of discretionary spending is all we ask. And I appreciate the service of the gentleman from Colorado who will offer us more thoughts on his past experience in a moment, but I must turn now to a gentleman in his second term in office who honors us and honors the people of the Lone Star State of Texas. I yield now to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I think, Mr. Speaker, that this bears amplification. What the gentleman from Colorado is telling this House at this hour, based on investigations by the House Committee on Resources, officials within the administration, on government time, using taxpayer dollars, were involved in partisan political campaigns.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from North Dakota and North Carolina for the conclusion of their time on this floor as they renewed their calls for something quite needed. As a North Carolinian by birth, but now proud to represent the State of Arizona, Mr. Speaker, I would assure those North Carolinians and all Americans who have been affected by Nature's wrath and fury that we are acutely concerned for their plight. And I believe that we can work in a bipartisan way to solve those problems of an emergency nature, although one cannot help but note, Mr. Speaker, how much better it would have been if some $20 billion in American taxpayers' money had not been used for foreign adventurism in the Balkans, but instead that money remained in the Treasury of the United States to help Americans when they were put in harm's way. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to respond to some of the other less bipartisan statements made earlier by my colleagues on the left. I think it is important to offer straight talk, Mr. Speaker, to the American people about what we can call the 1-percent solution. First we must celebrate our achievement. And my former colleagues in journalism, as I spent many years in radio and television covering the news before I was honored to be sent by the people of the Sixth District of Arizona to this chamber, I would commend to my former colleagues and, Mr. Speaker, to the American people news that may have escaped the notice of the American people over the last 10 days as the budgeteers in both the White House and the Congress sat done and reevaluated what has transpired. The fact is there is very, very, very good news. Because, for the first time since 1960, for the first time since Dwight David Eisenhower served as our President, this Congress has not only balanced the budget, this Congress did so without using one penny of the Social Security surplus. And moreover, Mr. Speaker, this Congress generated a surplus for the American people of $1 billion over and above the reports we received today of close to $124 billion of Social Security surplus money. So that is indeed good news. But it does not change the fact, Mr. Speaker, that good people can disagree. And even as we welcome former President Ford and his lovely wife, Betty, today to receive jointly the Congressional Gold Medal and, in so doing that ceremony, we welcome the current President of the United States, it is worth noting that there are profound differences in our approaches. Even as we celebrate the achievement of not raiding the Social Security Trust Fund for the first time in 40 years, we must remain steadfast in our resolve to stop that raid. And accordingly, those of us in the common sense conservative majority have offered the 1-percent solution. I am holding in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a shiny new penny, no doubt made with copper from my home State of Arizona; and I hold this up, Mr. Speaker, to symbolize the 1-percent solution that we offer. Because we in the majority, to preserve and make sacrosanct the Social Security Trust Fund, say to the American people, Mr. Speaker, we simply need to have savings of one penny out of every Federal dollar in discretionary spending, a 1-percent savings; and in so doing, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to protect the Social Security surplus. Now, sadly, from time to time in the discussion of public policy and different philosophical approaches, there is a casualty. The casualty is truth. And perhaps there were mistakes offered unintentionally by the House minority leader earlier today. Perhaps there were mistakes, misunderstandings offered by the White House press spokespeople today. But as former President Reagan used to say, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Here are the facts with all due respect to Education Secretary Dick Riley, a former governor of South Carolina who stated yesterday that there would be massive cuts in education. Let us state for the record the fact, our majority budget plan spends $34.8 billion on education. The President's proposal was $34.7 billion. In other words, Mr. Speaker, our common sense conservative majority is prepared to spend an additional $100 million on education but to put those funds in the hand of the people who can make the difference, teachers in the classroom locally. Because while we understand that education is a national priority, it fundamentally remains a local concern. And again the math lesson is quite simple and unequivocal and apparent to all. We are using more resources and more dollars for education but we are using them at the local level. There is no cut. And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I wish the fear and smear and the failure of the Education Secretary to apparently learn his own mathematical lessons, well, I wish he would simply pay attention to this particular lesson: More funds than the President even requested but spent where it counts, in local classrooms, in local school districts, by local teachers and local school boards. Mr. Speaker, I must also confess my surprise and remorse at the statements of General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Shelton, a fellow alumnus of North Carolina State University, Mr. Speaker, was quite simply wrong in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. I find it amazing that the minority leader claims that there would be military layoffs. Again, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. Here are the facts. This common sense conservative majority in Congress has sought time and time and time again to increase our spending for national defense and indeed a check of the budget requests will bear this out. Our majority has devoted $265.1 billion. The President proposed expenditures of $263 billion. Simple mathematics points out that our common sense conservative Congress offers more than 2 billion additional dollars to keep America strong. It is unfortunate that those relied upon to lead our American fighting men and women have somehow descended into the realm of politics. I regret that, but I offer this criticism candidly and publicly to General Henry Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Mr. Speaker, General Shelton is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the administration and the minority on the Hill is engaged in a game of fear and smear. I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States joined us for a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda just a few minutes ago. I appreciate the bipartisan sentiment there, and I would ask the President in a true spirit of bipartisanship to join with us in leading through example. Because, Mr. Speaker, this House is prepared to reduce its salary, the men and women who serve in the Congress of the United States within our common sense conservative majority, have pledged to reduce salaries by 1 percent. Constitutionally, we cannot do that for the executive branch at this juncture, but, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the President, does he share that commitment? Will he voluntarily reduce his salary by 1 percent? Will he ask his Cabinet secretaries and other employees of his administration to reduce their salaries by 1 percent? Indeed, the 1 percent solution while we are intent on wiping out Washington waste, fraud and abuse, there are actions we can take to lead by example. How refreshing it would be, how truly bipartisan it would be if the minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, if our President at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue would in fact join with us. We are happy to hear legitimate criticism. We took the remarks to heart, Mr. Speaker, and we hope the President would join us. While I was meeting the press along with many of my colleagues who will join me here in short order in this special order, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart was meeting with the White House press at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Let me quote from his press briefing today. The question comes on Social Security. The question for Mr. Lockhart is as follows: ``Just to be clear, the third option, you would under no circumstances accept going to the Social Security surplus at this point, is that correct?'' Mr. Speaker, listen to Press Secretary Lockhart's answer: ``We have put forward a better way. We hope they'll consider it. We'll be here. They understand what our ideas are.'' Mr. Speaker, the ideas are encapsulated in the President's budget plan. The ideas have been borne out in a veto of some of our appropriations bills. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have the sad and sorry spectacle of the President of the United States vetoing a foreign aid bill because he says it does not spend enough money. He wants to increase those foreign expenditures by 30 percent, by some $4 billion, and, Mr. Speaker, he offers no plan of where to find that money. Quite the contrary. The implication is clear, Mr. Speaker, for all to see. He has made a choice to take those funds out of Social Security, to take the retirement funds of American taxpayers who have paid into that system for years and years and years and use those funds, not for Americans but for others around the world. Facts are stubborn things. And in this day and age where we have to parse statements, where we fail to see a clear answer to the questions, we have to parse the statements. Again let me repeat the question from a member of the fourth estate from the journalistic fraternity at the White House: ``Just to be clear, the third option, you would under no circumstances accept going to the Social Security surplus at this point, is that correct?'' Lockhart's answer: ``We have put forward a better way. We hope they'll consider it. We'll be here. They understand what our ideas are.'' Mr. Speaker, it would be refreshing if those who seek to offer variations on the definition of what ``is'' is, if those who parse so many different statements could simply offer to the American people what President Ford gave us in his time of healing, what he in his first televised address to the American people called ``A Little Straight Talk Among Friends.'' How refreshing it would be if this White House could say ``yes'' means ``yes'' and ``no'' means ``no'' and ``is'' means ``is.'' The sad fact, Mr. Speaker, is clear. There is a clear and present danger to the Social Security funds of America's retirees because this administration in its budget pronouncements, in its veto messages, is prepared once again to raid the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, ``no'' means ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined on this floor for this hour by three hardworking Members of Congress. I would yield at this point to a gentleman who has served capably as an educator, who understands educational administration, who comes to this Chamber from the great State of Colorado, I yield now to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

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.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, again my colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), to put it charitably, is confused. See, one of the oldest Washington tricks is to send the budgeteers a letter with false assumptions to get a false result. In the real world that is called garbage in, garbage out. Now to the gentlewoman and the rest of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, we do not propose to put wheels on anyone's grandma and take away their Social Security. Now that has been, sadly, standard operating procedure when the free spenders were in charge of this institution; but on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, what we propose is a 1 percent solution. Observe, Mr. Speaker, one penny, one cent, made, no doubt, with fine Arizona copper in part, and what we propose, Mr. Speaker, is to take one penny out of every dollar of discretionary spending. That way we balance the books; that way we preserve the Social Security Trust Fund. No, we do not want to see grandma sold down the river or any American. We will stop the raid. We have done so, and we dare not turn back now. Responsibility, credibility, and the future is the key to success, and we will do it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 208) expressing the sense of Congress that there should be no increase in Federal taxes in order to fund additional Government spending.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 208. I would like to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for introducing this important legislation that forces us to focus on the choices we need to make in order to maintain fiscal discipline. As my colleagues know, House Concurrent Resolution 208 expresses the sense of this Congress that we should not raise taxes in order to fund additional Federal spending. Indeed, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, it is the sentiment of this common-sense, conservative majority in this House through another legislative vehicle later on our Calendar to propose that we work to realize a savings of 13 cents for every $10 of Federal spending, because we need to keep in mind the bigger picture here. Taxes are at their highest peacetime level in the history of our country. The average American family pays more in taxes than in food, shelter, and clothing combined. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to burden working Americans with higher and higher and higher taxes. We must be willing to find savings by reducing wasteful Washington spending so that we can maintain fiscal discipline without asking the American people to hand over more of their hard-earned money to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and that he be permitted to yield further blocks of time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 208.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Texas, because he proves a seminal point in this budget debate: there is no program under the aegis of the left that is worthy of realizing any savings. That is the bottom line. This entire debate is about our friends of the liberal persuasion wanting to spend more and more and more and more of the American people's money. Now, what we are talking about is a fairly generous sum, over $1.7 trillion, in this year's budget. We simply say hands off the Social Security surplus. Do not spend it on non-Americans, as the President wants to do in vetoing our foreign aid bill. Let us put our Nation's interests first. Let us be good stewards of the American people's tax dollar. For every $10 spent, we can realize a savings certainly of 13 cents. But, then again, Mr. Speaker, I understand this is Washington; and, then again, there are those who will defend waste.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 341, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Honorable John H. Chafee.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for spending some time here. I would, Mr. Speaker, call attention to the statement that appeared on the wires of the Associated Press on October 20, less than 1 week ago, of this year, and I would encourage, Mr. Speaker, those who may be viewing these proceedings through other matters perhaps might want to take a look at the easel in the well of the House. I will quote from the document right now: ``Privately, some Democrats say a final budget deal that uses some of the pension program surpluses would be a political victory for them.'' Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I think, if we, in fact, end up, at the insistence of the President of the United States, raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to spend more and more money, while some in this chamber might consider that a political victory, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues that would be a defeat for all the American people. My friends on the left seem to be fixated on a historical argument; and it is simple, Mr. Speaker, to fall into the category of who shot John or who created the program. But I would submit to this chamber, Mr. Speaker, the question before us at this time in this place is not a question of who created Social Security. The question becomes who stands four-square for strengthening and preserving Social Security. I would recall, just a few months ago, 9 months to be exact, the President of the United States came to this chamber, stood at that podium and offered a budget plan that was very curious, because the President in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, said that he wanted to save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I may not be the greatest mathematician, but what is left unsaid or what was not explicitly stated in the President's remarks during that State of the Union message was that he felt perfectly fine spending an additional 38 percent of the Social Security surplus on more government programs. Indeed, in that 70-plus-minute address, he outlined some 80 new initiatives in government spending. That, Mr. Speaker, brings to the floor and brings to the consciousness of the American body politic the fundamental debate. If one believes that one's money is better spent by Washington bureaucrats, if one believes that Washington ought to control more and more of the money one earns, if one believes that Washington and this vast bureaucracy that has grown over the last century is the be-all, end-all to solving one's problems at home, well, then, one perhaps would concur in that analysis. But, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleagues what I have heard time and again is exactly the opposite. Indeed, as Members of the new majority, we came here to change the way Washington works. Once again, facts are stubborn things. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) championed the actions of 1993 and 1994. Need I remind this House, Mr. Speaker, that in the previous majority, there was a one-vote margin to enact the largest tax increase in American history? Again, facts are stubborn things. Included in that tax increase was an increase in taxation on Social Security recipients. So even as our friends tonight come to this floor and say they do not believe in raising taxes, recent history and their own rhetoric tonight suggests otherwise. Indeed, the minority leader and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) appeared yesterday on ABC's This Week. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that a lot of Americans were at church yesterday or enjoying time with their families and may not have seen this public affairs telecast, but let me quote what the House Minority Leader said: ``We really ought to spend as little of it,'' meaning the Social Security surplus. ``We really ought to try to spend as little of it as possible.'' Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) who presumes and boasts that he believes he will become Speaker of the House in the 107th Congress, that is not good enough for the American people. From day one of my service in this institution, in enumerable town hall meetings across the width and breadth of the 6th Congressional District of Arizona, an area in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, now because of massive growth approaching almost 1 million residents, as next year's census will accurately reflect through a legitimate count of each and every citizen, what I have heard time and again from my constituents is that we need to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, we have taken steps in that direction. I do not blame the American people for being skeptical. I can understand, indeed, how sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that skepticism gives way to cynicism. But, again, facts are stubborn things. In the midst of the hue and cry and the sturm und drang and the agenda setting function of our friends in the fourth estate, commonly known as the media, perhaps more accurately reflected as the partisan press, came a story in the last 10 days that was, quite frankly, ignored. I am pleased to have this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in this chamber to commend the collective attention of this House, my colleagues, and the American people to the findings of the Congressional Budget Office. Because again, facts are stubborn things. What the Congressional Budget Office discovered in counting receipts and outlays for fiscal year 1999 is that, for the first time since 1960, when President Eisenhower, that great and good man, was ensconced in the executive mansion at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, for the first time since 1960, this Congress balanced the budget, generated a surplus of $1 billion, and did not touch one red cent of the Social Security funds to go for those expenditures. Having made that progress, amidst the skepticism and the doubt and the cynicism, dare we retreat? The easiest thing for Washington to do is reflected sadly in the remarks of the minority leader yesterday, the man who would be Speaker, to hear, sadly, his political boasts, is again a predilection toward spending. Rather than joining with us, to say, Mr. Speaker, no means no, hands off the Social Security trust funds, our friend from Missouri, the minority leader, says, ``Well, we really ought to try to spend as little of it as possible.'' I thought it ironic to hear my good friend from Arkansas, in extolling the virtue of my other friend from North Dakota, speak of emergency spending on one hand, about the floods that devastated the upper Midwest 2 years ago, and somehow imply that emergency spending for the same type of environmental horrors and acts of nature that have befallen other Americans somehow does not count in the current budgetary scheme of things. There will always be emergencies. And to those who try to muddy the waters with talk of the Census, I would simply remind this House, Mr. Speaker, that it was this Director of the Census and this administration that wanted to willfully ignore a Supreme Court ruling that stipulated that we ought to actually uphold the Constitution, a unique concept, where the Constitution calls for the actual enumeration of American citizens. And, indeed, the designation of so-called emergency spending came from the fact that we had bureaucratic inertia in action and downright hostility to our supreme tribunal's assessment that the Constitution means what it says. But then again, sadly, that is nothing new. I am so pleased to be joined on the floor by two very capable colleagues, my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who joined me here in the 104th Congress in the change in majority status and governing status to our party; and in the well of the House by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who, in her short time here, elected in a special election in the tragedy of the death of our friend and colleague Steve Schiff, has come to this House and proven an effective and capable public servant with an incredible breadth of experience both in the military and in the pursuit of higher education. And I would gladly yield to my good friend from New Mexico.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico who, once again, points out that while there are all sorts of arcane notions and green eyeshades that one can apply to this, there is a very real human equation that comes to balancing the budget. And there is no mystery, because what goes on around the kitchen table for every American family is the basic essence of what we are trying to come to grips with here in Washington, D.C. And if it is good enough for the American family, it should be good enough for the Washington bureaucrats. With that, let me yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, of course, when we reduced the capital gains top rate, we actually saw that far from being in the catchy-chism of the left, a tax cut for the rich, what we did was empowered American citizens to take that money and invest it in new opportunities, in greater job growth, in new homes, and to use more of their hard-earned money the way they see fit instead of having Washington spend it. And the bottom line is this. In that whole method of scoring that the Federal Government utilizes, in stark contrast to the theoreticians who said it would be a drain on government revenue, we saw reaffirmed the basic principle that when the American people hang on to more of their hard-earned money, tax receipts to the Federal Government actually increase. More revenue comes to the government because more economic opportunity is empowered to take place. And that is what we have seen in reducing the top rate on capital gains taxes, because it freed up capital that otherwise would have remained dormant or would have gone into the coffers of the Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the left for their interesting perspective. Perhaps the reason we hear such ferocity and denial is because, as former President Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. I am joined this evening on the floor by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, who represents Savannah and its environs. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HAYWORTH. And that is a lot of money. $1.754 trillion, almost $2 trillion. The amount is astronomical. And the irony is, as my friend from Minnesota knows and, Mr. Speaker, we need to amplify again in this chamber this evening, as we are going through the appropriations process, trying to live within some fairly expansive means, $1.750 trillion, the President of the United States chose to veto a foreign aid bill because he wants to spend an additional $4 billion on non- Americans. Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I find it ironic that the current President and the Vice President campaigned in 1992 on the slogan ``putting people first.'' I thought the slogan implied putting the American people first. But, apparently, given trips to a variety of different continents and promises that really spawned cynicism, such as wiring schools on other continents for the Internet, using American tax dollars, let me just say while I am in the neighborhood on this, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly invite the President to the 6th Congressional District of Arizona. I can take him to any number of rural schools and schools on the reservations for which this administration added not one red penny in terms of impact to aid funds where the Constitution and treaty law stipulates that there is a clear, unequivocal role in the Federal level in educating the Indian children, in educating the children of military dependents, and yet to have those funds cut and still the promise of largess to non-Americans. The bottom line is and the shock is that the President vetoed the foreign aid bill, saying that he wanted to increase that spending by 30 percent, by $4 billion. And the question becomes, Mr. Speaker, where can the President get that money? And under the current parameters, there is only one place he can go. You guessed it, the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I reject that sad and cynical notion that cannot help but breed the skepticism and cynicism. That money belongs to the American people. They paid it into that trust fund. It should not be spent on tin horn dictators or on utopian designs. And then tonight, even as we welcome the news, and let us give credit where credit is due, I am so glad the President of the United States signed the defense appropriations, which contains a long overdue pay raise for America's men and women in uniform, 12,000 of whom had to apply for food stamps for their children in a sorry spectacle to make ends meet. I welcome the fact the President signed that bill. But even as that has happened, there has been a veto or, we understand, the pending veto of the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. Because, again, the President apparently thinks American money should not go to the American people or to programs for them. He would rather spend them on utopian designs that threaten our sovereignty in the United Nations. Let me suggest to this body, Mr. Speaker, and to the President of the United States that America's dues have been paid in full many times over, including in the latest adventure in the Balkans, not paid for when our Commander in Chief put American men and women and pilots in harm's way. Mr. Speaker, someone has to be the adult here. ``No'' means ``no'' to adventurism and overspending. This common sense conservative Congress has held the line in that regard. And we invite the President, who, as we read the pundits and the prognosticators say that he is in search of a legacy, he joined us. It took three times for him to join with us on welfare reform, but we are certainly happy to share credit. Because, after all, in our constitutional Republic, when we pass legislation, we need the President's signature. He joined us on that. How truly ground breaking it would be, Mr. Speaker, if the President were to accept the invitation of the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who stood at that podium leaving the Speaker's rostrum the day he was sworn in as the Speaker in the 106th Congress and said to the American people, Mr. Speaker, we have reserved H.R. 1 for the President's plan to save Social Security. I heard my friends on the left in the preceding hour somehow forget about that, apparently. The invitation is still there. And we heard the President make some statements this weekend. As a member of the Committee on Ways and means, I know my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), with his background on the Committee on the Budget, we would welcome the President at long last putting into legislative language what it is he, in fact, proposes to do. I am sure that the Committee on Ways and Means and the other appropriate committees of jurisdiction will hold hearings and will examine that. But there is just one other thing that happens that adds to the cynicism that we need to point out. Aside from some budget messages that are required by law, the last legislative initiative sent to this chamber from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue came before my friend and I were in the Congress. It was a plan to socialize our health care. That is the last policy initiative that has come from this administration in legislative language. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, we invite the President to put his designs on paper in legislative language in H.R. 1. As our Speaker has said, certainly a man of honor, certainly a man of his word, that proposal will receive all due consideration. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report the outcome of that vote, again something that, sadly, many of our friends in the media chose not to emphasize in their reportage of the events here on Capitol Hill. And I am grateful for the time tonight. In answering the question of my friend, the President's plan to increase taxes, as detailed in his budget message, received no votes. The vote was 419 to 0 to reject the President's plan for revenue, which his economic advisor, Gene Sperling, on many national television shows in many messages to this Congress said was part and parcel of the tough choices needed to solve our budgetary dilemma. And yet not one Member of the minority, even those who spoke so glowingly of the largest tax increase in American history, not one of them voted for that package of new taxes.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his comments. I think he has succinctly and forthrightly expressed the sentiment of the majority in the House. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would implore our chief executive to understand that there are different priorities, but one legacy he dare not be tempted by would be the notion of a political stunt to shut down this Government with all the challenges we face. Because in stark contrast to times gone by, certainly one as adroit and skilled in politics knows that going to the well once too often can result in the wrong type of legacy. I wanted to pick up on a comment my friend made earlier. The gentleman from Minnesota is quite right, what we are proposing and what we will bring to the floor in short order is an effort to trim the waste, fraud, and abuse that has run rampant throughout our system. We have been stunned by the examples. My colleagues are familiar with the $8.5 million in food stamps sent to 26,000 people who had died; 26,000 decedents receiving $8.5 million in food stamps; the $75,000 in Social Security insurance payments that went to death-row inmates. I can recall when I first got here and perhaps my friend in his days and service on the Committee on the Budget, when I first came to Congress in the 104th Congress I was honored to serve on the Committee on Resources. Government always gives a fancy name to different jobs. What we call an accountant in the private sector is called an Inspector General, Washington D.C. So, the Inspector General from the Interior Department had come down and was seated alongside the director at that time of the National Park Service, and, Mr. Speaker, you will be amazed even today to hear this story because time cannot erase or dilute its irony and its shame. The accountant for the Interior Department, the National Park Service, said the Park Service could not account for over $70 million in tax money appropriated and spent by the Park Service. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that had happened in the private sector, some folks would have found themselves with new accommodations based on the fact that they would be in violation of criminal law. As it stood at that point in time and sadly still stands, the director of the Park Service at that time was subject to a tongue lashing that appeared on tape-delay fashion on C-Span, and that was it. Now I tried to work with my colleagues, mindful of the fact that the Committee on Ways and Means has unique interaction with the Committee on the Budget as we look at budget reform to find a way to weed out those culprits administratively wasting and abusing the money of the American people, American tax dollars; and believe me, there is no way that eliminating and reducing by a little over 1 percent can jeopardize programs especially when we make sure, and this is something else that the American people need to hear because of the smear and fear tactics so often we see in this chamber, and sadly elsewhere around this town and in the partisan press, not one penny of those reductions will come from mandatory spending, spending that goes to the truly needy, those who expect it. It will not come out of food stamps, it will not come out of Social Security, it will not come out of veterans' pensions, it will not come out of Medicaid. We will protect those programs for the truly needy. But for the truly greedy, those in this town who fail to account for the people's money, those in this town who would use that money for their own personal comfort and be less than good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, Mr. Speaker, they need to be put on notice that there will be a change. Now, we can expect the hue and cry given the culture of this town and the atmospherics at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, but, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you this. Whether it is a farmer in Minnesota or a rancher in Arizona or an American family around the kitchen table trying to make decisions on its own spending priorities, Americans instinctively know that this bloated bureaucracy can get by on 1 percent less if it means we restore the sanctity and preserve the sanctity proven this fiscal year in keeping our hands off the Social Security Trust Fund. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Minnesota who offers the common sense perspective of the upper Midwest and just puts in everyday terms what is absolutely so practical and so apparent, and he is quite right. What I call the human equation is at stake here, to make sure the truly needy have a safety net, but also to make sure that money masquerading as a safety net does not become a hammock for the greedy and for those who have been wastrels and less than good stewards of tax dollars from the American people. I would note this, Mr. Speaker. In other quarters in this town there are those who are especially sensitive to polling numbers, and indeed there are stories of some folks being out in the field nightly polling to determine how they will lead. I happen to think leadership is leading first and then seeing if the message and the course of action is responded to by the American people, and that is why I bring poll numbers to this floor tonight, that I think many in this town, especially in the administration, knowing how sensitive many of its members are to polling questions and polling numbers might be. This is a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll of 904 registered voters conducted on October 20 and 21. The question is: Who do you trust to make the best decisions on budget issues? Mr. Speaker, 56 percent of the American people say they trust the Congress on budgetary issues. Twenty-one percent say they trust the President. I would simply suggest, Mr. Speaker, knowing that there are those especially sensitive to those types of numbers, the reason I quote them here is to reaffirm what my colleague from Minnesota has said. We understand that reasonable people can disagree, but it is highly unreasonable for those in this town to be tempted by the allure of a political stunt to try and shut down the Government hoping that there will be an amen chorus from the partisan press that would somehow sway the American people. That is a gambit that leads to a legacy even more infamous than what already exists. In a positive vein we congratulate the President for signing the defense appropriations bill that means that a much needed pay raise for our men and women in uniform will at long last be realized. We would ask the President to reconsider his notion of taking $4 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund to spend on non-Americans in terms of increased foreign aid, and we would ask the President to re-evaluate his plan to veto the Commerce State Justice bill because he wants more money going to international organizations that at the very least attempt to muddy our sovereignty and our unique rights as a nation state in the free world. So I would simply say again we have stopped the raid on Social Security. We have crossed, made that incredible stride for the first time since 1960. Though the message has gotten short shrift in the reportage of this town, we dare not retreat. Having stopped the raid, let us not renew it. We would invite the President, Mr. Speaker, and the minority leader who only yesterday on national television said that it was his goal, and let me quote him again; I want to be fair about this. He said, quote: ``We really ought to try to spend as little of it as possible.'' To change that point of view, join with us; stop the raid on Social Security, accurately protect America's priorities, and let us work as men and women of goodwill to make sure the raid has been stopped once and for all. That is the promise of the new day. That is the pledge we make in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the left offer so many inaccuracies and there is so little time to respond. I would agree with one statement from the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mr. Speaker, when she said, do not be fooled. I join her in that sentiment to this degree: Do not be fooled, Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled by the claims now of fealty to Social Security when on this floor just a few nights ago my friends on the left voted against a foreign aid bill, voted to say we ought to send $4 billion more of the Social Security Trust Fund not to save Americans, not to help Americans, but to go to foreign governments. That is wrong. That is a raid on the trust fund. If in fact they are guardians of Social Security, they should join with us to save 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund for Social Security. We did it this fiscal year for the first time since 1960. Join with us. Quit playing games.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago the President of the United States came to this Chamber and delivered his State of the Union message where he proposed a budget that would only save about 60 percent of the Social Security surplus and take the other 40 percent and put it into more spending. And here is where that spending rests in this budget proposed by the President of the United States. Now, there is good news, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the leadership of the House and Senate went to the White House and at long last the President now agrees with the congressional majority. He says he wants to save 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. Now, Mr. Speaker, the real work begins. Mr. Speaker, I would invite the American people to do as one of our leaders did. Senator Lott took a big red pen to the White House as a gift when they sat down to talk over the budget and invited the President to go through his massive spending programs and start using the red pen. Let us cut out wasteful Washington spending, Mr. Speaker. Folks should dial the White House at 202/456-1414 and say, Mr. Speaker, ``Use the big red pen.'' Cut Washington waste.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I am so glad he abstained from the who struck John argument of historical revision. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is, not who is going to drive whom to their knees. The question before us today is this: Are we going to continue to cut the American people off at their knees in terms of asking for more and more of their money, in terms of going back to these old habits of spending, saying that the 1997 agreement was predicated on the notion that surpluses would not be as plentiful so now all bets are off? I listened with interest to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) whom I have a great deal of respect, and while he bemoaned the quality of congressional debate, I must tell him and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the question I hear from my constituents has to do with the sanctity and safety of Social Security. We have made history. As the Congressional Budget Office pointed out, for the first time since 1960, this Congress was able to generate a surplus and not use a dime of the Social Security surplus. Let us continue that. Support the rule. Support the continuing resolution. Let us work together.