Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank my friend from Texas. Let me point out that while the American taxpayer, 84 percent, almost 85 percent feel we could be saving a minimum of 5 percent, we have only asked the administration to save a penny, and now I understand it is down to about a half a penny and they are still fighting that. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, each of us are parents here, and I know we are coming to the end of our time, but what it is really all about is our children. Each of us here speaking are parents. Undoubtedly, most people who are listening tonight are parents. Right now there will not be any social security unless we do something about it. We as Republicans are committed to do that. We believe there is a minimum of a penny that any Washington bureaucracy can find to trim out of each of their departments. We are asking that they do it, and maybe do a little more to make sure we save social security. We believe it is there to do. The American public believes we can do it. We are committed to do it.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado. The tragedy is unless the Congress takes action, unless the Congress saves and does not spend on existing programs, for social security coming in, not one of those students will have social security by the time they are ready to retire. This Congress has to act. I am very grateful that back 168 days ago, and I might mention, in a bipartisan manner, 416 to 12, this House voted overwhelmingly to lock up social security and not spend it. But right now what we are asking of the White House right now is a penny, we are down now even to compromise and find some places where we do not spend in other areas and maybe reduce by half a penny, and we cannot even come up with that. It is really almost unbelievable. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HERGER. It is hard to believe, and I hate to put it this way, but were it not for the Federal Government, they would not believe it. If something like this were happening in any business in this Nation, if this were happening to anyone in this Nation, if those individuals responsible could not account for their books, the law would take care of them by incarcerating them. We are not proposing that happen to anyone at the Department of Education, but we are saying that those responsible and setting an example of educating our children should be able to keep books in a proper manner. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend, for his remarks. Again, it is difficult to believe that this administration and those in the minority party here in the House and the Senate are fighting the fact that all we are talking about is one penny out of the dollar that we want to save. And again, as I mentioned earlier, our negotiators are talking right now, are negotiating right at this moment at the White House, trying to come up with one penny of the administration. The administration is fighting that. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues and everyone to call the White House, call our Democrat Members to urge them that if 84 percent, almost 85 percent of the American public, believes we can trim 5 percent out of our budget, out of the Federal budget, surely they can find one penny. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. HERGER. I thank my good friend from Arizona for his profound statements. Earlier the gentleman from Arizona was mentioning how far we have come in just the last 5 years with the new Republican Congress. I remember well, when I was first elected back in 1986, and up until 1994, I wondered whether I would ever see a balanced budget. We were looking at $200 billion and $300 billion budget deficits. Serving as a Member of the Committee on the Budget, they were projected to go and actually increase in the years to come. We have reversed that, since the new Congress was elected, the new Republican Congress. Now we are not only balancing the budget, but we are now, for the first time in 39 years, on the verge of not spending Social Security. It is interesting. We are so close. And I do not know why this issue is so controversial with the White House, with the Clinton-Gore administration. We are talking about one penny. We are that close. But let me just read some comments from different officials in the White House on what their response was to just cutting one penny out of the dollar. By the way, we showed earlier the National Taxpayers' Poll that was done just last week that indicated not only does the American public believe we can consult one penny out of a dollar, 84, almost 85 percent believe that we should be able to cut at least 5 cents out of the dollar. But yet let me read what some of the comments are from some members of the Clinton administration. When the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt was asked on Tuesday, October 27 of this year, if there is no more waste in his department, his response was, ``You have got it exactly right.'' In other words, ``Is there any more waste in your department?'' ``You've got it exactly right.'' Another comment from the Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder on October 26 as well, when he was asked if the administration's position is ``We should not reduce at all the size of the Federal budget.'' His response was, ``That would certainly be the view of the administration.'' In other words, should we not reduce at all? He is saying that would be the view of the Clinton-Gore administration. And then the last one here, the White House spokesman a day later, on October 27, Joe Lockhart, when asked why dipping into Social Security is even listed as a choice, his response was, ``Listen, if you look at the budget that Congress has produced over the last 15 or 20 years, they have every year dipped into that.'' In other words, that was his reason. Just because we did it before, we are going to do it again. We are talking about one penny out of a dollar of fraud, abuse and waste. And this is such an opportune time to be talking about this and for the American public to be aware. Because our negotiators right now, our House negotiators and Senate negotiators, are working with the White House right as we speak this evening and trying to negotiate one penny out of the dollar, and they have been turning us down. So I would like to urge all our listeners, all our taxpayers out in America, all of those who do tighten their belts in their own families, businesses who tighten their belts, please contact House Democrats, Senate Democrats, the President, Vice President Gore and let them know that you think that they can, at least, cut a penny. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I have come here to join several of my colleagues in talking and speaking out on stopping the 39-year raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the President have come upon the historic opportunity to balance the budget without spending one penny of seniors' Social Security Trust Fund. For nearly 4 decades, the raid on Social Security has gone on, taking over $850 billion in Social Security funds and spending them on unrelated government programs. Mr. Speaker, 168 days ago, just over 5 months, this House passed my Social Security lockbox legislation by an overwhelming 416 to 12 vote. The passage of this Social Security lockbox legislation showed that House Republicans and Democrats agree that Social Security dollars should not be spent on programs unrelated to Social Security. Congress made the commitment to stop the raid on Social Security. Shortly later, however, President Clinton joined our bipartisan effort and committed the administration to protecting Social Security. That was over 5 months ago. Unfortunately, I am afraid, today is a different story. While House Republicans are continuing to honor our steadfast commitment to protect seniors' Social Security, I have great concerns about the recent actions of the Clinton-Gore White House and congressional Democrats. The current budget situation requires that every increase in spending be offset. Currently, if spending is not offset, it is drawn directly from seniors' Social Security dollars. Over the past few weeks, President Clinton has vetoed five appropriations bills because he says they do not spend enough. Yet, the President has not offered a single solid proposal to pay for those spending increases. It appears the President may be willing to spend Social Security dollars to pay for his spending projects. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the President are faced with a very clear choice: ask Federal agencies to save one penny, just one penny of a dollar in waste, fraud, or abuse so we can protect Social Security or give in to the big Washington spenders and raid seniors' Social Security dollars. Amazingly enough, there are still people in Washington that do not believe the Federal Government can tighten its belt by just 1 percent. But the American people know the truth. A recent poll conducted by the National Taxpayers Union revealed, let me show my colleagues this poll, revealed that over 84 percent of Americans believe that there is not just 1 percent waste in government, but they felt there was at least 5 percent of waste in unneeded spending in the Federal spending. Surely, if 84 percent of the American people believe that there is at least 5 percent of waste, the President and the Congress can work together to find just 1 percent or one penny of waste in order to protect Social Security dollars so many seniors, so many seniors rely upon. Let me present my colleagues with some examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that we have found in the Federal Government. The National Park Service spent $1 million to build an outhouse at Glacier National Park in Montana. The expense was explained by the outhouse's remote location. The outhouse is located nearly 7 miles from the nearest road, and it took hundreds of horse trips and more than 800 helicopter drops to get the construction materials to the site. Another one, erroneous Medicare payments that waste over $20 billion annually. Another, the Department of Education maintains a $725 million slush fund, which it cannot account for. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, estimated it spent $857 million in 1998 in erroneous rent subsidy payments in fiscal year 1998, about 5 percent of the entire program budget. Let me close with this for a moment, and that is delays in disposing of more than 41,000 HUD properties cost taxpayers more than $1 million per day. These are all examples of how Congress and the President can find one penny, 1 percent out of a dollar in waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, we are all in this together. We want to work with the President and Vice President Gore to find this 1 percent so that we can protect Social Security dollars. We will not, however, under any circumstances, allow the Clinton-Gore administration to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for more government spending. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who serves with me on the Committee on Ways and Means which has jurisdiction over Social Security.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, we have a forest health crisis in this country and the Clinton-Gore administration's current do-nothing policies are utterly failing to address it. A government report released in April states that approximately 39 million acres of our western national forests are at extremely high risk of catastrophic fire. Alarmingly, this same report indicates that the Forest Service has failed to advance a cohesive strategy to treat this 39 million acres at risk, despite the fact that the window of opportunity for taking effective management action is only about 10 to 25 years before catastrophic wild fires become widespread. Last year, Congress passed historic legislation that was intended to provide the Forest Service a tool with which to proactively address and combat this forest health crisis. The bipartisan Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, which passed last Congress by an overwhelming margin of 429-to-1, mandated a project to manage our forests for health and safety, while providing for a responsible, ecologically sound level of harvesting to benefit local economies. The Forest Service was assigned the responsibility of carrying out this specific plan, but made several last minute additions to the environmental analysis that have drastically tilted the bipartisan balance that this Congress struck in the law and the Quincy Group struck in its plan. These changes, based on a combination of bad science and special interest politics, will prevent treatment on almost all of the 2\1/2\ million acres to be protected from catastrophic fire under the original plan. The decision was made behind closed doors, without public input. Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service has taken it upon itself to circumvent a law that this Congress passed almost unanimously. The Quincy plan presented us with an opportunity to proactively prevent the very type of catastrophic forest and wildland fires that have ripped through 5 counties in my district in Northern California in the past 8 weeks, tragically taking two human lives. These fires have also burned more than 250,000 acres of public and private property, destroyed more than 100 homes, eliminated thousands of acres of wildlife habitat and various species of wildlife, and generated tons of smoke. In addition, the American taxpayers have paid close to $100 million to fight these fires. However, the Forest Service has rejected this plan and has scaled it back to the point that it is almost meaningless, perhaps hoping the fire risks will somehow go away, despite the fact that the risk of catastrophic fire across the West is increasing. The agency proposes to lock up our choked, fire-prone forests and allow prescribed fires to achieve its so-called forest management goals, even though this policy causes serious air pollution and poses a very real risk that a burn will get out of control, as it has on a number of occasions. To add to this outrage, Mr. Speaker, the administration recently proposed to lock up an additional 40 to 50 million more acres of national forests, preventing the very management strategies that our fire experts are telling us we absolutely must take. This attempt to shut down access to the public's forest lands is too much about what special interest groups demand and too little of what their own elected government and science recommends. This Clinton-Gore administration has needlessly put our lives and property at risk in a selfish attempt to create an environmental legacy. The reality of our forest health crisis is that more, not less, of our forests must be available for pursuing forest management strategies. We must begin to take proactive steps before catastrophic fires become more widespread. The forest service and this administration have refused to respond and have neglected congressional attempts to address the crisis. They appear ready to serve special interest environmental politics until well after the election. Regrettably, forest fires are not that patient. Mr. Speaker, our forests and our communities are at risk and we intend to do everything possible to hold this administration accountable for its negligence.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, just in brief response to my good friend from California, we have major problems in our forests today. I represent 11 National Forests. Particularly in California, where we have stopped fires since the early 1900s and we have forests that the Forest Service says are 2 and 3 and 4 times denser than they have been historically, we have forests that are burning down, forests that we can use some of that wood to provide the wood product, the paper product that our Nation needs, and at the same time we have extremists within some of the environmental movements that would not allow us to remove one single tree, even if it is dead, from our National Forests, and that really stands at the crux of the problem here today. Madam Chairman, on behalf of the rural school children in my district, I rise in strong opposition to the Udall-Vento amendment which will gut the substance of this bill. The Northern California District I represent contains all or part of 11 National Forests. The citizens of my district have seen firsthand how the Clinton-Gore administration's locking up of our National Forest through their zero-cut forest management policy has virtually crippled educational funding in rural America. Allow me to provide one example of the drastic drop in school funding that we have seen in my district. The Plumas National Forest, which is tied to schools in Plumas, Butte and Sierra Counties, generated $3.1 million in education funding in 1993. In contrast, the Plumas National Forest only generated $1.7 million in 1997. Because of this drastic drop in funding, schools have been forced to drop classes, cut programs and eliminate extracurricular activities. This bill provides the short-term stability in educational funding which these communities desperately need while enabling them to participate with their Federal agencies in a program that will help to begin to restore health to our overgrown National Forest System. The Udall-Vento amendment would take away this local control. Madam Chairman, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act was created in the spirit of the Quincy Library Group, a diverse coalition of local environmentalists, forest-product industry representatives, labor, local officials and concerned citizens that developed a forest health proposal for the forests surrounding the small rural community of Quincy, California, in my northern California district. The Quincy Group developed a forest pilot project that became the basis of Federal legislation, which I sponsored and which passed last Congress overwhelmingly by a margin of 429-to-1. The group crafted a way to manage our forests for health and safety while providing for a responsible ecologically sound level of harvesting to benefit local counties and schools. By passing the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, this Congress recognized that local groups are better able to craft solutions that best benefit their local forests, communities and schools and that we can create win-win solutions when local communities, not Washington, are the source of those solutions. Contrary to this administration's policies, Washington does not know best. Madam Chairman, this bill will create hundreds of Quincy Library Groups across the country, where communities will finally be given a greater voice in the management of their local National Forests and the funding of their schools. The Udall amendment will take away this important voice. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and for the bill.

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on some of his comments. He mentioned that the forests were being over cut back some years ago, and that is true. But as the gentleman knows, we have laws now, Federal laws, and certainly those in California that do not allow this anymore. Our predicament now is just the opposite of what it was 15 and 20 years ago. Today we have forests that are two and three and four times denser than they have ever been. We have fire hazards now where we are having catastrophic wildfires, and we need to go in and actually thin out our forests, of which we are unable to do.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Doolittle) and the members and staff of the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Resources for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I would also like to command and thank the Clear Creek Community Services District for their perseverance, cooperation, and patience in working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the subcommittee. H.R. 862, the Clear Creek Distribution System Conveyance Act is a modest and noncontroversial measure that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey title to the Clear Creek distribution system out of the hands of the United States and into the hands of the Clear Creek Community Service District. The Clear Creek Community Services District is a local agency that provides water services for domestic and agricultural use to a large area of western Shasta County in the Northern California district I represent. Clear Creek entered into a contractual relationship with the United States in 1963 for construction of the distribution system, as well as a long-term water services contract and a commitment to long-term repayment of the construction cost of the system. The district commenced making payments on its repayment obligation starting in 1967. Thereafter, the district took full and complete responsibility for the administration, operation, maintenance, and repair of the system. Legal title to the system, however, remained in the name of the United States. Now that the district's repayment obligation has been satisfied by the terms of its agreement with the Bureau, both the district and Bureau seek to have title to the federally-owned facilities transferred back to the district. The district took advantage of the administration's title transfer program and negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement whereby title to the distribution facilities would be transferred in a manner satisfactory to all concerned parties. This legislation will effectuate that agreement, and will bring title and authority over these facilities back to the 8,000 or so people who are served by them. Although the district already carries out all aspects of the operation and maintenance of the system, transfer of title will allow the customers and water users in the district to be better served by more cost-effective and responsive administration of the facility. Mr. Speaker, the Clear Creek title transfer is uncluttered by any adverse or controversial issues related to environmental impact, water allocation, hazardous waste, Federal power, or endangered species. It has the full support of the Clear Creek Community Services District, the citizens, communities, and businesses served by the district, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Further, it advances the objective of creating a government that works better and costs less by transferring these facilities to State and local units of government where they can be more efficiently managed. I urge the Members to vote in favor of this noncontroversial proposal, which provides a definite win-win situation for all parties involved. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on its behalf.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Halloween, another landmark along the trail of days since the House passed my Social Security lockbox protection bill. Since we passed this important bill on May 26, we have celebrated Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Columbus Day and now Halloween. Veterans Day is only 10 days from now and Thanksgiving, Hanukkah and Christmas are just around the corner. And all this time what has happened to the Social Security lockbox in the other body? Absolutely nothing. On six separate occasions, Democrats in the other body have voted to keep this vital bill from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. Despite the stall on the lockbox bill, we will be successful this year in protecting Social Security and Medicare funds from the congressional big spenders. Stopping the raid was not easy. It will be a tough fight for years into the future unless the fight is made easier with the passage of the Social Security lockbox bill. Mr. Speaker, it is time for seniors to stop counting holidays and to start counting on the money that should be set aside for their retirement needs.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today is Day 154 of the Social Security lockbox held hostage by Senate Democrats. 154 days ago House Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass a bill I authored, H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box of 1999, by an overwhelming 416 to 12 vote. The House of Representatives has made a commitment to not spend one penny of the Social Security Trust Fund on unrelated programs. Senate Republicans have attempted to bring this lockbox to the Senate floor seven times, and on seven occasions the measure was blocked from even being considered by a straight party- line vote. Mr. Speaker, American seniors deserve more from Senate Democrats. They deserve a lockbox for their Social Security dollars.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are continuing to claim that the Republican Congress' spending plan takes from the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem with the Democrat claim is that it is based on spending assumptions that have never materialized. They simply do not exist. Let me share with the House an updated letter, dated September 30, 1999, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It says, ``CBO estimates that the Republicans' spending plan will not use any of the projected Social Security surpluses in fiscal year 2000.'' The facts are clear, this Republican Congress is not and will not spend the Social Security surplus.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for taking this time on this incredibly important issue. I would like just to say what an exciting time this is for me. I am now in my seventh term, my 13th year in the House of Representatives, representing the Second District of northern California. I am also in my seventh year on the Committee on the Budget and also seventh year on the Committee on Ways and Means which is over Social Security. A number of years ago in the Committee on the Budget I became aware that not only prior to 1995 when the new Republican Congress came in, in 1994 and prior to that time that we were running 200 to $300 billion a year budget deficits, spending more than what we were bringing in. But really it was worse than that, because for some 30 years we had actually been spending Social Security and we had been borrowing that and spending it on the budget, on government spending on Federal programs. I began back then to fight, at least on the Committee on the Budget to at least, at minimum, at the first step be honest with the American public. If we are spending this Social Security money dedicated for Social Security out of the trust fund for ongoing Federal programs, then at least let us let the American public be aware of it and let us show them really what our budget deficit really would be. I am so very pleased that at the beginning of this year, 1999, that the Republican Conference, members of the Republican Party within the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Budget made a commitment that beginning this year we were not going to spend Social Security money as we had been for about 30 years. I authored legislation, the Social Security lockbox legislation, that came before this House back in May, and that legislation passed overwhelmingly, 417-12, putting this Congress on record that for the first time in more than 30 years we were not going to spend Social Security. We had another bill that came up. Well, with that let me mention now that in order to have a balanced budget, in order not to spend Social Security, we basically have two choices: Those choices, number one, is that we raise taxes which comes from hardworking Americans, to raise the extra money so as not to spend Social Security. That is choice number one. But there is also another choice. That choice is a tough one. That choice is what Americans do every day in their families, what small businesses do, what every company that stays in the black does, and, that is, there are times when you make difficult decisions, you tighten your belt, you set your spending priorities. If you do not have enough money coming in and you set those priorities and you determine what are some dollars we are not going to spend. Well, that is what this Congress has decided that we are going to do, this Republican Congress that was voted in, took office in 1995. We had a vote here just about a week ago which put out the tax increases that President Clinton had proposed in his budget. Those tax increases were defeated virtually unanimously in this House. I believe there was only one vote in favor of those tax increases. So, therefore, we know what we have to do. We have to tighten our belts. What does that mean? As the gentleman from South Dakota mentioned, we are talking about one penny basically, one penny out of a dollar that we are somehow going to find in fraud or abuse or in priorities that can be set somewhere else in our government programs, that do not include, by the way, Social Security or Medicare but other spending programs that we are going to trim back. One penny out of a dollar. We are not talking about 10 cents out of a dollar or 20 cents out of a dollar. We are talking about basically somewhere between one penny and 1.4 cents out of every dollar. Can we do that? Of course we can do it. I would like to continue, as my good friend from South Dakota was mentioning, some examples. These are some examples that have been pointed out to us in our budget this year. Here is the first one. ``That's a Big Lost and Found.'' The most recent government audit found that Federal agencies were unable to account for over $800 billion in government assets. That is a GAO, General Accounting Office, audit. Another one, erroneous Medicare payments waste over $20 billion annually. $20 billion. We are talking about trimming back about $3.5 billion. There is 20 right there. Another one. One out of every $18 spent in the section 8 housing program is wasted, according to HUD's own Inspector General. Another GAO audit. Another area we can save, delays in disposing of more than 41,000 HUD properties cost taxpayers more than $1 million per day. Let us just get on the ball and do what we are supposed to be doing. $1 million a day. Another one, FAA employees are using a program designed to familiarize air traffic controllers with cockpit operations for personal travel, including extended vacations. One employee took 12 weekend trips in a 15-month period to visit his family in Tampa, Florida. Another DOT IG report. Another one, ``Palaces for Park Rangers?'' The Park Service spent an average of $584,000 per home at Yosemite when comparable houses near the park were being built for between $102,000 and $250,000. A report from the Department of the Interior IG report. And then last but not least, ``Degrees for Deadbeats?'' The government lost over $3.3 billion on students who never paid back their student loans. Madam Speaker, in closing, we are all in this together. If every government agency can find just one penny out of a dollar in waste, fraud or abuse, seniors and future beneficiaries can be assured that the raid will end and their Social Security will be protected. We can do it. And despite the moaning and groaning of some who are supporters of big government, we will do it.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, now even President Clinton is for a Social Security lockbox. Just yesterday, the President said, ``At a minimum, we should agree on a down payment on reform by passing a Social Security lockbox.'' One hundred, fourteen days ago, House Republicans and Democrats passed my legislation, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act 416-12. The House of Representatives is committed to not spending one dime of Social Security Trust Fund on unrelated programs, and now the President is on board there, as well. Mr. Speaker, Senate Republicans have tried seven times to consider the Social Security lockbox, only to be blocked by Senate Democrats. Mr. Speaker, it appears Senate Democrats are now the only obstacle to achieving a lockbox to protect Social Security surpluses.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday congressional leaders and the President agreed not to raid Social Security funds to pay for next year's government spending. I wholeheartedly congratulate them on this agreement. Social Security was created in 1935 for the purpose of protecting senior Americans, not as a pool of cash accessible to those wishing to grow big government. Mr. Speaker, this House approved my Social Security lockbox legislation 145 days ago. Yet, on six separate occasions, the minority party in the other body has voted to stop this Social Security lockbox legislation from even coming to the floor for a vote. Mr. President, please join me in calling for the other body to free our Social Security lockbox bill they have held hostage for 145 days.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Ticket to Work and the Work Incentive Improvement Act. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a provision that I offered, the Criminal Welfare Prevention Act Part Two, which will save taxpayers millions of dollars by bolstering efforts to deny fraudulent Social Security benefits to prisoners. My original Criminal Welfare Prevention Act has enabled the Social Security Administration to establish a system for cutting off these fraudulent government benefits. This new provision included in the legislation before us today will improve this system; thus, saving taxpayers an estimated $123 million over the next 5 years. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for their continued support. I look forward to seeing this worthy legislation enacted into law.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today is day 145 of the Social Security lockbox held hostage by the Senate Democrats and President Clinton. One hundred forty-five days ago, House Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass my legislation, H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, by an overwhelming 416-12 vote. The House of Representatives has made a commitment to not spend one penny of the Social Security trust fund on unrelated programs. Senate Republicans have attempted to bring this bill to the Senate floor seven times and on seven occasions the measure was blocked from even being considered by a straight party line vote. Mr. Speaker, American seniors deserve more from Senate Democrats and President Clinton. They deserve a lockbox for their Social Security.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week President Clinton vetoed the foreign aid appropriations bill because he wanted to spend $4 billion more overseas. The President did not say, however, where that money is to come from. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. Any increase in foreign aid will come directly from the Social Security Trust Fund. 146 days ago House Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass my legislation, H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box of 1999, by an overwhelming 416 to 12 vote. The House of Representatives has made a commitment to not spend one penny of the Social Security Trust Fund on unrelated programs. Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats must again join together and prevent President Clinton from spending Social Security funds on additional foreign aid.