Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Baron Rothschild once said, ``I do not know what the seven wonders of the world are, but I do know the eighth: Compound interest.'' Mr. Speaker, Baron Rothschild called compound interest the eighth wonder of the world for a good reason. Modest amounts of money, when invested, and then reinvested, grow over time in a spectacular fashion. Every American deserves the right to save a portion of their FICA tax and control it in a tax-free account that can be invested in an authorized group of funds, just like a 401(k) or a pension plan. This could save Social Security permanently without a tax increase or a benefit cut. It would ensure that the poorest worker would have a savings account within 6 months of starting work. Within a few years, that worker would be a saver and an investor, getting the benefit of investment return, earning compound interest at competitive rates, not just Treasury rates. For younger Americans this could produce retirements at three to six times the wealth they would get from the government system, and it would protect the system from collapsing when baby boomers retire. Mr. Speaker, we need to save and strengthen Social Security, and this is a good way to do it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor some athletes from my district in Pennsylvania, the Octorara High School Boys Varsity Soccer Team. These outstanding young men are the 1999 Boys Double A Pennsylvania Soccer Champions. Winning this State championship is no small feat. Octorara is not a large district, and they went up against some of Pennsylvania's traditional powerhouses. But what they lacked in size, they made up for in heart and determination. Victory by victory, this team built a winning season and made it into a championship year. They were ably lead by their coaches, Chip Smallwood, Ken Baldt, and Paul Wood. The team is in Washington today with their principal, Hank Detering, receiving many well-deserved congratulations. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that those of us from back home who watched this team fight its way to the top are very, very proud of them. So welcome to Washington, Octorara Braves. Let us do it again this year.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Edison once said, there is no substitute for hard work. I think most of us in the chamber could agree with that. There is no substitute for the feeling of satisfaction after a hard day's work. Too often, work is something that many people take for granted. But one group of people who do not take work for granted is our seniors. Because of the Social Security earnings limit, working seniors can literally not afford to take work for granted. Because of the Social Security earnings limit, millions of working seniors are stripped of their Social Security benefits. Their crime is employment. Because they have a job, the government takes away the Social Security benefits that they have spent a lifetime earning. This is wrong. This is not fair. Last week, the House took the first step in giving relief to married couples who pay tax penalties because they are married. Now it is time to give relief to seniors who are penalized because they work. Let us all join together and give seniors relief from the Social Security earnings limit.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the family is the fundamental building block of American society. No school or social worker can replace it. Without the family, a child is deprived. Without parents, a child grows up with a very real disability. If our families are this important, I do not see how we can possibly justify penalizing American couples for being married. Marriage is sacred. It should not be penalized. The marriage penalty tax is unfair. It harms 25 million American families. Charging American families $1,400 a year for being married is unconscionable. Our tax policy should not discourage family formation. It should encourage family formation. It is time for us to strengthen our families in this country. Perhaps we cannot make strong families just by passing laws, but we can remove those laws that tempt families to split apart. We should go on record by saying that we believe our moms and dads should be together, that every child deserves a mom and dad in one house and have time for their kids. A vote for H.R. 6 is a vote for the American family.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I was disappointed to read last week a Roll Call story entitled ``Democrats Feel Cocky After Big Speech.'' It said basically that House Democrats feel it is going to be ``their way or the highway going into November.'' When Mr. Hastert became Speaker a year ago, he gave a speech in the House that reached out to our Democratic colleagues offering to meet them halfway, and that he expected them to meet us halfway. Now the Democrat leadership seems determined that there will be no legislative progress this year, preferring to sit idly by. The Speaker said, ``Stalemate is not an option. Solutions are.'' The American people want us to pay down our debt, they want us to give relief from the marriage tax penalty, to ban the raid on Social Security, to renew inner cities and to provide seniors with affordable prescription drugs. Madam Speaker, I hope the President will reject the foot-dragging tactics of the House Democrats and work with us. I am disappointed they do not want to work, by their own admission, in behalf of a productive agenda.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I direct the Members' attention to this photograph of the little hand of Samuel Armas and the larger hand of his surgeon, Dr. Joseph Bruner. Samuel Armas was still unborn when this was taken. He suffered from spina bifida, a disabling illness that affects one or two of every thousand babies. Look at Samuel as Dr. Bruner finishes this prenatal operation procedure that will help Samuel after he is born. While still in the womb, before the doctor sews up his mother's womb, he sticks out his arm and his little hand grasps the finger of the surgeon, Dr. Bruner. When this picture was taken, Samuel was 21 weeks old. What an example of the humanity of the little unborn child, as if he is saying thank you, I am okay. Samuel was born on December 2, a healthy little baby boy. Thanks to Dr. Bruner, he has a chance to live a full and productive life. Mr. Speaker, life is precious. The man who showed us this picture a couple of years ago, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is coming back tomorrow at noon to speak to the Congressional Life Forum and Cannon Caucus. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the residents of Chester County, PA, for their efforts to preserve the White Clay Creek watershed. The White Clay Creek is an important water resource for people up and down stream. It is used for quality drinking water all the way down to Delaware. In fact, my son and I used to fish for trout there when he was a boy. Visibly, the creek looks much the same today as it did when William Penn first founded Chester County in 1682. This creek is an important resource and an environmental treasure. My personal desire to see this watershed preserved goes back almost 30 years. Eight years ago, the community of southern Chester County got together to help formulate a plan to preserve this watershed. The result of their hard work is a bill I have introduced, H.R. 3520, which adds the watershed to the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This designation will bring the resources that the Federal Government has to offer, without ceding local control. Townships and boroughs, which historically have controlled development, will retain the power they have always had. This designation will give us another tool to make sure that this important natural and historic resource is not lost to future generations. I urge this body to move quickly on H.R. 3520 so that it may become law before the end of the year.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about what is happening to the people of Ambon in Indonesia. Over 2,000 people have been killed in the past few months; hundreds have been severely wounded; dozens of churches have been burned, all as a result of fighting in Ambon and approximately 1,000 extremists having traveled to the area to wage jihad on the inhabitants. Unfortunately, the Indonesian military has played a role in the death and terrorizing of civilians. In one report, a church was being guarded by its congregation when soldiers arrived. The military went into the church, started shooting, killed 24 men, dragged the bodies outside and burned them beyond recognition. The soldiers apparently belonged to the elite strategic reserve command and the paramilitary police. Observers in local hospitals have heard numerous stories of people shot by soldiers of the Indonesian army. Mr. Speaker, I commend President Wahid for his efforts to end this violence and I urge him to take the needed steps to bring the military under control and to bring to justice those responsible for brutally murdering innocent civilians.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the family is the fundamental building block of society. Our Tax Code for too long has punished Americans for getting married. This year, 28 million American couples will be penalized an average of $1,400, simply for committing their lives to each other. It is past time to repeal the marriage tax penalty. In America, our tax policy should encourage family formation, not discourage it. Mr. Speaker, we need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for all married couples, not just some. If the marriage tax penalty is bad policy, it is bad policy for everyone. I urge this body to completely repeal the marriage tax penalty and honor all American marriages, not just some.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, imagine a woman filled with hope accepting a new job in a big city. Promises of freedom from manual labor and better income have lured her away from her family. When she meets her new boss, she is crushed. She is given tight clothes to wear, condoms for her customers, she is beaten, raped, locked in a trailer and forced to have sex with whoever walks in the trailer. Unfortunately, this happens every day in some parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America and, yes, even the United States. Many of us were surprised to learn that the administration's Interagency Council on Women has apparently been supporting a move to alter the U.N. Convention on Transnational Organized Crime to accept so-called ``voluntary'' prostitution. They want to adopt what is called the Netherland's definition of prostitution, which excludes anything that cannot be proven to be coerced. Mr. Speaker, this would make it virtually impossible to prosecute sex traffickers in nations adopting this protocol. We should oppose the forced Europeanization of America by United Nations' bureaucrats using the failed social policies of the Netherlands. I hope it is not true, and I hope this will be stopped.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, although the Democrats claim they are the stand-alone founders and saviors of Social Security and Medicare, their actions of late have proven just the opposite. Our Vice President, Mr. Gore, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our minority leader, have both claimed that no Republicans voted for the establishment of Social Security. False. Here are the facts. When the House passed the 1935 Social Security Act on April 19, 1935, 79 percent of the 97 Republicans voted for it: ``Aye.'' When the Senate acted on June 19, 1935, 75 percent of the 20 Republicans voted ``aye.'' Now, claims like those we are hearing suggesting that Democrats have created everything from Social Security to the Internet are quite amusing. Yet, the debate over the future of our most important social program is no laughing matter. Today's debate should really be about whether or not we are now keeping the Social Security Trust Fund safe from a Democratic raid to pay for new programs, something they have done for over 30 years. We must stop balancing the budgets on the back of our senior citizens.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, our country and even our world economy have experienced unprecedented growth thanks to a new frontier we know as the Internet. It has been a tremendous success. The moratorium that we have established has allowed e-commerce to flourish and grow at tremendous rates. Yet we are already hearing rumblings of a new user fee regime of taxation on electronic commerce that could have serious repercussions for this booming segment of our economy. Mr. Speaker, we have seen, without Internet taxes, State and local governments are collecting record tax revenues, growing at almost twice the rate of inflation. In fact, the rise of untaxed electronic commerce is helping to generate additional tax revenue for every level of government because the Internet has helped create new businesses and new high-paying jobs. By extending the moratorium established under the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, we can keep the Internet free of discriminatory taxes. Let us not ruin a good thing. Let us make the moratorium permanent and see this unprecedented growth continue.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week President Clinton vetoed a bill that called for a 1 percent cut in discretionary spending. He said the loss would place too great a burden on American families. The President's concern would best be served by insisting that his agencies are more responsible. The waste in government far exceeds the proposed 1 percent cut. Here is a partial list of this waste. The Agriculture Department in 1997 erroneously issued $1 billion in food stamps overpayments. In 1999, according to the audit, the Defense Department spent $40 billion on overseas telecommunications systems that cannot be used. The Defense Department inventory contains $11 billion worth of equipment that in 1997 was unneeded. Also in 1997 the government spent $3.3 billion in loan guarantees for defaulted students. By 1996 the Department of Energy spent $10 billion on 31 projects that were terminated before completion. HCFA in 1998 erroneously spent $12.6 billion in overpayments to health care providers. HUD, $857 million in erroneous rent subsidy payments in 1998. On and on we could go. Mr. Speaker, every agency under the President can find fraud, waste and abuse to cut.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 350, a resolution which addresses the horrible practice developing in America of trafficking in baby body parts for monetary reimbursement. Abortion clinics are selling dead, unborn babies, or parts of them, to middlemen. These middlemen, in turn, are selling them to researchers. Mr. Speaker, just look at this blowup of this price list taken from this chilling magazine article from someone in this awful business. A liver, $150, but it can be gotten for $125 if it is from a younger baby, or one can get a 30 percent discount if it is significantly fragmented; a spleen, $75; pancreas, $100; a thymus, $100. Look at this, a brain, $999. Notice they even use marketing techniques in this gruesome business, selling it for $1 less than a thousand dollars to make it, I guess, a more attractive purchase. Again, if it is fragmented, what a terrible way to describe a baby's injured brain from abortion, one can get a 30 percent discount; almost like step right up, ladies and gentlemen. A baby's ear, $75; eyes, $75 for a pair, $40 for one; skin, $100; the spinal cord, $325. Mr. Speaker, I wish this price list were a cruel Halloween hoax, but it is not. It is a price list for human body parts from aborted babies, in America. This is not Nazi, Germany. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution calling for oversight hearings.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of this resolution which says very simply that the House should hold hearings on the commercial trafficking in baby body parts. Here is the issue in a nutshell. Based on reliable reports, abortion clinics are selling parts of babies, and the older the better, to middlemen. Those middlemen, in turn, sell them to researchers. This means more money for the abortion clinic. Instead of the problem of disposing of dead bodies, now abortion clinics have a lucrative means of getting rid of the ``unintended babies.'' This means money for the middlemen. Just look at this price list that is duplicated, blown up from an article obtained from a national business which traffics in unborn baby body parts. Up here we see a liver, $150. But they can get it for $125 if it is from a younger baby, or they can get a 30 percent discount if it is ``significantly fragmented.'' A spleen is $75. Pancreas, $100. This is their document. A thymus, $100. Look at this. A brain, $999. Notice they even use marketing techniques in this gruesome big business, selling it for one dollar less than a thousand dollars to make it, I guess, a more attractive purchase. And again, if it is fragmented, and what a terrible way to describe a baby's injured brain from an abortion, they can get a 30 percent discount. Almost like, step right up, ladies and gentlemen, do you want a baby's ear? Seventy-five dollars, $50 if a baby is less than 8 weeks old. How about eyes? A pair of eyes $75; $40 for one eye. Skin, a baby in a second trimester, $100. Spinal cord, $325. Mr. Speaker, I wish this gruesome price list were a cruel Halloween hoax, but it is not. It is the price list for human body parts from aborted babies. It is almost like the bureaucratization of the Nazi's final solution hammered out in conferences and committed to legal documents, except now it is in the form of capitalistic price lists organized for commerce, sanitized for the grim reality which it is. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the job of one young woman. Let us call her Kelly. Kelly's job at the abortion clinic was one of retrieving body parts from dead bodies for abortion and shipping them for profit to researchers who requested them. Here is her testimony. Kelly said: ``We had a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would have a generated list of tissue that organizations were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. ``We only wanted the most perfect specimens that we could give. We were looking for eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, cardiac blood, cord, blood from liver, even blood from the limbs.'' Kelly quit her job one day when an abortion doctor came in and brought in two babies, two 5\1/2\-month-old twins still moving. She could not take it anymore. It is time the Congress begin oversight hearings on this death- dealing business. We need to begin tracing this money trail. The bill before us today does nothing more than call for hearings. It does not call for the elimination of trafficking. It does not require women to sign a consent form before their babies are sold for parts. It does not even prohibit Planned Parenthood or commercial middlemen from profiting. All it does is call for hearings. Surely, no one could reasonably oppose a hearing. Let me anticipate one line of protest. Some will say that medical progress requires that we turn tragedy into a blessing for the living. Well, they are right. We must do all we reasonably can to erase human suffering. But the key is responsibility. We have a responsibility to the sick, the disabled, the children, the elderly. Who among us does not have a loved one who suffers from some disease or ailment? But do not be fooled between false choices between medical research and no medical research. We have other options other than buying and selling dead children's body parts. I urge Members to support this resolution. And that's the issue we focus on today--not research--but the buying and selling of baby body parts for profit, for financial remuneration. We can, we must, and we will do more to ease human suffering. But not at the ghastly price paid in dissecting babies, pricing their body parts, and distributing marketing lists. The Nazis killed their unwanted children under the guise of the ``Realm's Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heredity and Constitution.'' Transportation of the patients to killing centers was carried out by ``The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick.'' We should not join the Nazi's rationalization of unbounded research on the powerless to build a master race. No, we must not. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this common sense non- binding legislation to call for congressional hearings on this issue.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this week as we get down to the wire on budget negotiations, I rise to speak on behalf of education, our children, and the classroom as the priority in this country. More teachers is a great idea. I applaud it. However, more teachers may not be the immediate or only need in some of our school districts. Some schools may need better teacher quality, they may need teacher training, teacher improvement. Some may need books and equipment, supplies. The list goes on. The funding levels that we have been discussing are not at odds here. This is a question of who knows best, Washington bureaucrats, or local teachers and principals in the local public school classroom. The President's goal may be noble enough, but his means of achieving it are flawed. Who can argue with the fact that local control is the best means by which we can truly support our schools? Let us empower our students, our teachers, with the tools that they need to take our kids to the next step of the learning process. Let us give our local schools more flexibility, more local control when we send this money back to the classroom.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, could the U.N. be operating under a double standard? It is very interesting that the United Nations, while calling for the indictment of Yugoslavia President Milosevic as a war criminal was all too eager to work with Milosevic's health minister to set up the Kosovo program to, quote, stimulate the birth rate of the populations in central and northern Serbia and to limit or forbid the enormous increase of the birth rate in Kosovo. Could the U.N. be a complicit partner in Milosevic's efforts to halt or slow the growth of the ethnic Albanian population? Could we have another one-child policy in the works following in the footsteps of China? Can we blame the Albanian people for believing family planning programs and condom distribution is just another way to reduce their ethnic population? Mr. Speaker, this tension in Kosovo represents the fine line that UNFPA is walking when it, however well-meaning, pushes through its population control programs around the world.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, is there a single American who believes that government waste, fraud and abuse does not really exist? I do not think so. Examples of misuse of the taxpayers' hard-earned money are far too plentiful. Just ask the 26,000 dead people who received food stamps in a single year. Or ask the folks in Russia who got to enjoy Ben & Jerry's ice cream at the expense of the American taxpayer. Or ask the defense contractor who charged the Pentagon $714 for an electric bell that I could have bought at Lowe's hardware for $46. Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but my point is simple. The Republican plan to take one cent, this is one penny, one cent of every dollar of the Federal bureaucracy is not only responsible, it is necessary. I find these misuses of taxpayer money outrageous. What makes them more outrageous is the Federal Government has been raiding Social Security for 30 years to pay for this kind of thing. One penny, 1 percent. Believe me, there is at least that much fat in every bureaucracy that can be eliminated. It is minimal, it is fair, it is the right direction.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand our friends on the other side of the aisle. They come down here with a phony number saying that Republicans are dipping into the Social Security trust fund by $13 billion. That is not true, and they know it. Because if it were true, the Democrats would be down here trying to cut $13 billion from the budget to save Social Security. But they are not. Instead, they are actually criticizing us for not spending more money. So here is the position of our friends on the other side of the aisle in a nutshell. On the one hand, they say we are spending $13 billion more than we should. On the other hand, they are saying we should be spending more. How is that for consistency? Mr. Speaker, when this process is over, it will be clear to all that we Republicans have delivered on our promise to protect Social Security from being raided by our big-spending friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to voice my support for H.R. 1175, which would authorize an investigation into the disappearance of an American citizen, Zachary Baumel. It has been seventeen years since this young man, serving in the Israeli army, was captured along with the four other members of his tank battalion, in a battle with Palestinian and Syrian forces near the Lebanese town of Sultan Yaqub. H.R. 1175 directs the Department of State to investigate the cases of Mr. Baumel, and two other soldiers, Yehuda Katz, and Zvi Feldman. The last known whereabouts of these soldiers was in Syrian-controlled territory, under the care of a Palestinian faction splintered from the PLO. As diplomatic efforts to secure the release of these men have been periodically unsuccessful to date, this legislation directs the State Department to discuss this matter on an urgent basis with officials of Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and other appropriate governments. The bill makes a simple request of the President, that when he is considering whether or not to provide economic assistance to these countries, that he weigh and measure the willingness of these governments and authorities to assist in locating and securing the release of these men. Mr. Speaker, the family of Zachary Baumel has been through incredible pain and uncertainty for these last seventeen years. Their hopes have been lifted in key times of negotiation, such as the Oslo Accords--yet to no avail. It is time that our country take another real and substantive step in requesting action on behalf of these middle eastern governments. These young men and their families deserve no less.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I read an article in World Magazine this week entitled ``Harvest of Shame'' about a new and growing industry in America. This industry trafficks in body parts, parts of babies' bodies, organs and tissues of aborted babies. This business provides fee for services schedules listing the prices they charge for almost any body part you can think of, eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, blood, among other things. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the People's Republic of China. We are talking about the United States of America. Now we know why the partial birth abortion procedure was developed, to give this industry whole body parts. The direction our country is going, the exploitation of innocent and voiceless people, children, babies, for the supposed benefit of the rest of us is shocking. We should be outraged not only because it is a violation of Federal law but because this callous disregard of human life is very real, very grotesque, it is growing steadily and it is done in the name of research. Apparently money talks and many are listening. Mr. Speaker, oversight hearings should be held immediately on this issue.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pain Relief Promotion Act. There is a question currently pending in the country of Holland. It is this: Is the Netherlands ready for the killing of sick children? There is a bill in their parliament that would allow the killing of seriously ill children, as young as between 12 years old, if they are considered terminal. A spokeswoman for the Royal Dutch Medical Association said, ``The doctor will do his utmost to try to reach an agreement between the patient and parents. But if the parents do not want to cooperate, it is the doctor's duty to respect the wishes of her patient.'' So much for the Hippocratic Oath for civilized medical institutions. This situation in the Netherlands gives us all the more reason to pass the Pain Relief Promotion Act. This act will provide doctors with the ability to aggressively treat their patients' pain while prohibiting assisted suicides or euthanasia. We never want to see the day when our young kids or our elderly parents legally and intentionally die at the hands of a so-called doctor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to promote pain management and palliative care and positive alternatives to euthanasia.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment of my good friend, the majority leader, to H.R. 2; and I applaud his efforts to ensure that all children are given the opportunity to attend safe and sound schools. Our children should never be trapped in failing schools. Our children should not fear for their safety when they walk through the halls or into their classrooms. Parents must be given the ability to protect their children and to provide a good education for them. Those who oppose the Armey amendment oppose giving kids and parents a way out of failing schools and a way to educational success. Opponents believe in the status quo and in forcing disadvantaged children to remain in schools that are failing them. When well-to-do students are struggling in school, what do their parents do? Generally, they send them to another school. Why? Because they have the money to do so. Do my colleagues think that low-income parents would not like to have this same option? They certainly want what is best for their children. The most recent example of this came this year when the Children's Scholarship Fund was offering 40,000 scholarships, K through 12, to low-income families. How many people do my colleagues think applied for their children to receive this opportunity? One and a quarter million. 1,250,000 families. Let me repeat. For just 40,000 scholarships, 1.25 million people, many were minorities, many families from 20,000 different communities in all 50 States sought this opportunity to get their children out of failing and unsafe schools. Rich or poor, Americans want the best education possible for their children. The Army amendment puts parents back in the driver's seat for their children's education. Now, I know monopolies do not like competition. Some of the powers that be are threatened by reform. They are afraid that they will lose control of their power. But this is reform that works. So for the sake of our children, for the sake of our Nation's kids, I urge my colleagues to support the Armey amendment.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks Democrats have been attacking our appropriations bills by suggesting that they do not spend enough. They do not like our budget. However, the only thing they have to stand on is the President's budget and the numerous taxes and user fees included in it. This week, we voted on the President's alternative to raise taxes and fees $240 over the next 10 years. What was in it? Just a partial list of his so-called offsets and new taxes, tobacco tax, increase the aviation fees, Superfund taxes, increase the agriculture fees, commerce fees, FDA fees, Coast Guard fees, DOT fees, EPA pesticide registration fees, FCC, and Social Security fees, and the list goes on. Mr. Speaker, we will pass spending bills that fund priorities of the American people. We will not spend the Social Security surplus but we will not do it by heaping on new user fees, gimmicks, and taxes for every turn of an American's life.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in Washington it is important not just to listen to the words people say. It is important to watch what they do. This week, President Clinton vetoed the foreign ops appropriations bill because he said it did not spend enough money. The President wants Congress to give him more money even though any extra spending would have had to come from the Social Security surplus. It is revealing that the President would veto a foreign aid bill that spends $12 billion, billions for ensuring peace in the Middle East, millions for fighting disease throughout the world, millions more for fighting the war on drugs, among other things. How much more money does the President need, Mr. Speaker? Instead of working with Congress to fight the spread of narcotics and to preserve democracy and freedom in the world, the President applied the ink of the veto pen. The President said ``no'' to a reasonable bill and he says he needs more money, higher spending. What else is new?