Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Virginia for his work on the transportation bill today. I have an issue, however, that I would like to bring to his attention. Mr. Chairman, the Rock County Airport which is located in the district that I serve has recently begun to see an increase in air traffic for business deliveries to local employers. In order to accommodate these important deliveries, the Rock County Airport is in desperate need of improvement. Rock County began work on these improvements, but Federal assistance is needed to address this immediate need. These improvements are critical not only to the local businesses in the district I represent but also to the local economy and the livelihood of the employees who work at these businesses. I understand the committee report has included a list of airports which the committee directs the FAA to give priority consideration for grant funding next year. Would the gentleman be willing to communicate to the Federal Aviation Administration that these improvements to the Rock County Airport are to be considered a priority for grant funding as well?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and, as a result, missed roll No. 204. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1400.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have watched the debate over agriculture appropriations for the past two days. Farmers are the backbone of my state. The economy of Wisconsin is based on agriculture--if our farmers suffer, the economy of our entire state suffers. These issues are vital to the people of the district I serve; however, no issue in agriculture is as vital to the farmers of Wisconsin as the reform of the dairy market order system. This country, one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, continues, at the behest of Congress, to force an antiquated system of price-fixing in the dairy industry that violates every free market principle. Congress has been manipulating the dairy industry for far too long. This system had a purpose in the 1930's; it was designed to encourage milk production in regions of this country that were suffering dairy shortages. But this system has outlived its usefulness. Advances in technology and transportation have eliminated the need for this system. The current marketing order is unfair and inefficient for a number of reasons. Not only does it force higher prices for dairy products based on distance from my home state of Wisconsin; it also allows the Northeast Dairy Compact to operate. This is not a free market system; in fact, it is a system that violates most free market principles. It encourages overproduction and inefficient methods of production. The farmers in my district are suffering because they live too close to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. How many members of Congress even know how far their district is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin? Yet the way dairy products are priced is based on that distance. Does that make sense to anyone? It surely doesn't make sense to me or the farmers of Wisconsin--a State where we are losing more family farms each year than many of you have in your entire state. Make no mistake about it--this system hurts Wisconsin and hurts Wisconsin farmers--and this Congress is responsible for that. The USDA reform initiative is a small step to alleviate a situation that has been plaguing dairy farmers in the Midwest for far too long. According to USDA analysis, incorporating the changes in the Federal Milk Marketing Order Class I differential prices lowers average annual revenue in all federal order markets by only $2.8 million and raises farm revenue for the U.S. by $3.2 million. As we all know, these price differentials do not represent the actual market price. This reform is essentially revenue neutral for a $25 billion industry; yet many of my colleagues continue to use scare tactics claiming that these changes will cost hundreds on millions of dollars. The USDA estimates that the reform will result in a loss to farmers in some districts of approximately $.02/per hundredweight. This system needs to be reformed because it unfairly penalizes the Midwest dairy farmers and it hurts consumers and taxpayers. They are being asked to subsidize inefficiencies in the production of dairy products. They are being asked to pay for a program that continues to waste their tax dollars. They are being asked to pay higher prices at the supermarket for food. We are no longer giving farmers in certain areas of the country an incentive to product more milk. We are now giving them an incentive to overproduce milk. This type of system does not provide an incentive for farmers to operate efficiently or to produce items that are natural to their agricultural environment. How can we vote against a system that encourages the market to operate more efficiently? If this House forces its will on the USDA, you will be silencing the voices of millions of farmers around the country who have been heard on this issue by USDA and deserve the right to vote on this reform. This reform must be supported by \2/3\ of the farmers in a region before it can be implemented in that region. The USDA assures us that this reform will only create a more equitable free market system; it will not seriously impact prices paid for dairy products in any region of this country. It will be a win-win for everyone; I urge you to support these minute changes the USDA has made that will mean everything to the farmers in the first district of Wisconsin.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution honoring firefighters throughout our nation that have died in the line of duty. It is appropriate that the Congress pay its respect to these individuals. Just last week, the District of Columbia lost two brave and dedicated public servants. Firefighter Anthony Phillips died while fighting a fire at a DC town house. Firefighter Louis Matthews died days later from burns sustained while fighting the same blaze. There are over 1.1 million firefighters on active duty everyday in the United States, and over the last 10 years, we have lost 1,109 of these courageous individuals to circumstances associated with doing their job. Almost a month ago, the National Fire Protection Agency announced that 91 firefighters died in the line of duty during the year 1998. That is the lowest number of deaths in the last 10 years, and one of the lowest totals on record. While we are pleased to see the number of deaths decrease, clearly all Americans look forward to the day when we don't lose a single firefighter. These brave individuals, many of whom serve as volunteers without compensation, risk their lives daily to insure that we can exit safety from our homes when they catch fire and provide life-saving care when we are injured in an accident. It is for these reasons that we honor these courageous individuals. I trust my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, both in the District I serve, and all across the nation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to introduce legislation that I feel is essential to achieving an accurate count in Census 2000. Military personnel are a unique group because they often pay taxes and vote in a state in which they are stationed; therefore, it is difficult to clearly define their actual residence. Most would not be residing in the place they have been stationed were it not for their military service. Many have family in another state. My bill will provide clarity by ensuring that military personnel are allocated to their ``Home of Record.'' This will ensure that federal funding and redistricting are based on an accurate count of the population. Currently, the Census Bureau plans to use ``Home of Record'' data for counting military personnel who are stationed overseas in Census 2000. This bill requires the Census Bureau to work in partnership with the Department of Defense to count military personnel who have been stationed in the United States as well. This bill is not a radical shift in policy for the Census. In the 1990 Census as well as in the 1970 Census the Department of Commerce utilized ``home of record'' data. In 1992, the Supreme Court stated that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce was acting within the law when he used ``home of record'' data from the personnel files to count military personnel in the 1990 Census. I am not seeking to uproot years of tradition here today; I am merely fighting to ensure that the Census is done in a fair and equitable manner, accounting for all U.S. citizens in their proper home. These men and women have claimed a state to be their ``home''-why shouldn't we honor that claim. There are many states that, merely based on location, have been chosen to house military personnel. Counting military personnel as residents of these states when they are voting and paying taxes elsewhere simply does not make sense. I urge all my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished public servant. H. Gaylon Greenhill, Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, has decided to retire after 37 years of dedicated service to the institution and our region. Chancellor Greenhill has done so much to advance the cause of higher education in Wisconsin, and it is for his service that I salute him today. H. Gaylon Greenhill has served in a variety of capacities at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater throughout his tenure. Before being appointed chancellor in 1991, he served as Chairman of the Political Science department, Dean of Summer School and Extension Services, Acting Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences, Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, and Vice Chancellor and Dean of Faculties. Chancellor Greenhill received his Bachelor's degree in Social Studies at University of Wisconsin-River Falls and earned his Master's and Doctorate degree in Political Science from the University of Illinois. He was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Oslo from 1960-61. During his tenure as chancellor at UW-Whitewater, the university developed and implemented the campus exterior plan, constructed the Irvin L. Young Auditorium, renovated the James R. Connor University Center and Hyer Hall, and made major technological advances such as the construction of a fiber optic computer network, the addition of numerous workstations in computer labs and the complete wiring of the residence halls. Under Chancellor Greenhill's leadership, UW-Whitewater has been ranked in U.S. News & World Report's top tier of midwestern regional universities for five consecutive years. UW-Whitewater has also recently received accreditation from the North Central Association and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Chancellor Greenhill initiated the Excellence for the 21st Century Campaign to raise $10 million for scholarships and university betterment. Not only did UW-Whitewater surpass this goal, it did it two years early and had $2.4 million in excess. Chancellor Greenhill will retire from UW-Whitewater effective June 30, 1999. I know that I speak for everyone in the UW-Whitewater family when I wish him and his family well as they begin this new and exciting stage in their lives together. Thank you for your service to your community, Chancellor, and thank you for what you have done for the university.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have to take issue with my friend and colleague from the great State of Wisconsin. That is simply not the case. The debt we owe to Social Security is also a part of our national debt. What our budget resolution does is take Social Security dollars away from Social Security and put it towards Social Security by buying down debt. What happens when those Social Security IOUs come due is that that debt is converted into national publicly held debt. What our lock box does is pay off the publicly held debt so we can pay the Social Security bills.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the misguided criticisms that we have heard from the previous speaker and from speakers prior to that one. One, they mentioned that we passed the budget resolution that places us in a box. We did pass a budget resolution that places us in a box. We did this intentionally. It placed us in a box because we said we did not want to see one penny of Social Security dollars going to other government programs. We wanted to see every penny of Social Security going into Social Security. We passed a budget resolution that said we would do just that. We are following up now with a lockbox bill, the first step in our lockbox efforts to do just that, to stop the phony accounting here in Congress that hides the budget deficits by masking the size of the budget deficits, by covering it up with the Social Security surpluses. This lockbox bill also says this: We are going to make it tougher for Congress to pass legislation that raids Social Security. Now we think we can go farther, and we in fact want to go farther with this legislation. Unfortunately, the White House and the members of the other body from the other party are against that. We cannot get it passed into law. So we are going as far as we possibly can. Another criticism we have been hearing from the other side of the aisle is that there is a trap door in this lockbox, that there are some keys that magically unlock these funds for use for other purposes. The prior speaker also said we need to reform Social Security and Medicare. We need comprehensive language to reform Social Security. But before we do that, we have got to stop raiding the trust fund, and that is exactly what this legislation does. So there is no trap door. What this legislation does is say, stop raiding the trust fund, put Social Security dollars aside; then we can use those Social Security dollars for a comprehensive plan to save Social Security. That is the intent of this legislation, stop raiding the trust fund, put the money aside. Then after we have stopped that raid, we can use those dollars to save Social Security. That is not a trap door. That is a lockbox. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this ``Lock box'' legislation and congratulate my friend from California for his work on this issue. I am a cosponsor of this bill and am glad to be a part of this effort to protect the Social Security Trust Fund. For years, the Federal government has been raiding Social Security to pay for other government programs and to mask the true size of the federal deficit. Bringing this to an end is one of my highest priorities in Congress. Earlier this year, I introduced similar ``Lock box'' legislation that would establish a point of order against any future budget resolutions which would dip into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for non- Social Security programs. I was pleased that my language was included in the FY 2000 budget resolution. H.R. 1259 expands this point of order to apply to any bill, considered in either House, which would dip into Social Security. In addition, it prohibits reporting federal budget totals that include Social Security surpluses. I am committed to exploring every legislative option available to protect Social Security. I, along with the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Kasich, have introduced additional ``Lock box'' legislation which would establish even more protections for the Social Security Trust Fund by implementing new enforceable limits on the amount of debt held by the public. It is important to note that neither the bill we are considering today, nor the bills I just spoke about, will affect current Social Security benefits. These bills simply protect the money each taxpayer pays into the Social Security Trust Fund. H.R. 1259 has the support of various outside groups including: the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security; the American Conservative Union; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Citizens Against Government Waste. It is my firm conviction that we must take the first step of protecting the Social Security Trust Fund before we can move to make wholesale improvements to the system. For those of my colleagues who oppose this legislation, I ask you, if we cannot protect the trust fund now, how can we expect to make the necessary reforms to the system for future generations? Join me in voting yes for this ``Lock box'' legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to wrap up this issue. We have heard from a lot of Members from both sides of the aisle, from Members on this other side of the aisle that although they have all these criticisms, they are going to end up voting for this bill. We can work together on this. I do believe that this should be a bipartisan issue, not a partisan issue. We have heard a lot of partisan spats back and forth. We have heard a lot of criticisms. At the end of these criticisms just about every speaker has said, ``But I'll be voting for the bill.'' Let us work together on this thing. We all are saying we want to stop the raid on Social Security. We all are saying we believe FICA taxes should go to Social Security, period, end of story. So let us put this partisan talk aside and work on this. This legislation is necessary. If we thought the discipline was there to make sure that all FICA taxes went to Social Security, we would not need this legislation. However, for over 30 years Congress and the White House, Republicans and Democrats, have been raiding Social Security. That is a fact. That is why we are addressing this issue with this lockbox legislation. This legislation gives us the necessary tools to fight in Congress for stopping the raid on Social Security. It empowers us with the ability to, when any piece of legislation comes up which seeks to raid Social Security, it gives us the ability to stop that legislation. That is what this legislation achieves. It also stops the smoke and mirrors accounting by stopping from masking the deficit with Social Security trust funds. Can we go farther? Absolutely. Will we go farther? I hope so. But is this a gimmick? Absolutely not. This is real legislation that helps us stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. This is a bipartisan issue. We should work on this together. We should stop these partisan spats. Because if you are going to go vote for the bill, then applaud the bill.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I agree with much of what the gentleman just said. This money is obligated to Social Security. Money coming from FICA taxes is supposed to go to Social Security. The problem is, we spend it on all of these other government programs. We have got to stop Congress and the President from spending FICA tax surpluses on other government programs. That is precisely why we are trying to pass this lockbox legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, just to make one final point, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) makes good legitimate points. Our budget achieves this; remember, in Washington, we are about to see two budget surpluses, one coming from Social Security, one coming from a large income tax overpayment. What our budget achieves is setting all of the Social Security surplus aside for Social Security and, in the meantime, paying down that publicly held debt that we both seek to pay down. Our budget actually pays down $450 billion more in publicly held debt than the President's budget. On the on-budget surpluses, the income tax overpayment, we think people should get their money back.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for his long-standing leadership on this bill. I am a new Member of the House, and I have been working on this issue since getting here. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for his leadership. This debate is getting out of hand. Here is what our budget resolution does, and I am very happy to have been a part of writing the proposal in the budget resolution that said we are going to set a higher standard in this Congress, that we are not going to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and that we are going to change the rules in Congress to make it tougher to do so. We want to go all the way to stopping the raid on the Trust Fund. That requires the President signing a bill into law, dedicating every penny of Social Security going toward the Social Security Trust Fund, going to Social Security. Sadly, the President is against that legislation, in part because his budget proposal continues to raid Social Security by $341 billion over the next 10 years. What we are trying to achieve in this bill is the first step in locking away Social Security. We are going to stop the phony accounting. No more smoke and mirrors accounting, hiding the deficit with Social Security surpluses. We are going to say, when we measure the budget, we are going to put the Social Security budget, the Social Security surplus aside. Then we are going to say, not only for budgets, but for every bill coming to Congress, if it attempts to dip into Social Security, we are going to put a higher vote threshold against it. We are going to say that in the other body, it requires three-fifths of a majority vote to pass a bill that attempts to raid Social Security. Why are we doing this? Because we are trying to make it tougher for this body and the other body to stop raiding Social Security. We want to make it more difficult for us to pass legislation to raid the Trust Fund. I am the author of the other lockbox bill, the second stage in this process, the bill that simply puts all of the Social Security dollars into Social Security, to pay down debt when we are not doing so, and to make sure that all of our Social Security dollars go to saving this program. The problem is that the President is against that. So what can be accomplished here and now when the White House is opposed to saving all of the Social Security surplus? What we can do is stop the phony accounting. What we can do is make it tougher for people in Congress to pass legislation that raids Social Security, and that is what this legislation accomplishes. Please join us in toughening this legislation. Please join us in making it harder to raid Social Security. This is as much as we can get, we hope, from the White House. We would be happy to entertain additional legislation that would make sure that every penny of Social Security goes to Social Security. The problem is we cannot get it through the Senate. We cannot get it passed by the White House. We want to pass that legislation. We are going as far as possible right now with this legislation. On the last point of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund goes to Social Security. Every penny of the Social Security surplus, including interest, in our budget resolution goes to Social Security. For those taxpayers who overpay their income taxes, that surplus goes back to the taxpayer. So just as a point of clarification, the budget resolution does not raid Social Security. It saves Social Security surplus for Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to delays in air traffic control. I missed rollcall votes 145 and 146. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution, and to express my profound appreciation for the teachers that played such an important role in my life. From my days as a student at Roosevelt, St. Mary's, Marshall and finally graduation from Craig Sr. High, my teachers had a positive impact on my early learning habits as well as my future successes. I'd like to single out for recognition, however, one teacher in particular, Mr. Sam Loizzo. Sam was my high school United States Government teacher. What distinguishes Sam is his ability to involve students in all aspects of learning activities. Students become active participants in the educational process, not casual observers, and they're trained to apply the lessons learned in his classroom. Sam's students don't simply learn about our government, but they gain an appreciation for the structure and framework by which this great country was founded. Sam taught the value of civic responsibility. He encouraged me to research the role of the founding fathers and the Constitution. In fact, Sam was here on Capitol Hill with students from Craig Sr. High just last week impressing upon them the very same values he had shared with me. For over 20 years, Sam has been building friendships with his students, one on one relationships like ours that exist still today. He is a role model and a friend. Sam has a remarkable influence upon the lives of all the students that have an opportunity to sit in his class. Sam is indeed a credit to his profession. Through experience, skill and dedication, teachers like Sam are creating an environment in which every child in his or her class feels important and challenged. The students of today will soon take active roles in business, education, government, and other important positions in society. Today's teachers, in coordination with parents and families, are doing a wonderful job of equipping those students for the tasks they will face after graduation. I want to take this opportunity to not only recognize teachers like Sam, but to thank all of them for their contributions to future generations.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a student from my Congressional District in Wisconsin, Julia Kraschnewski. Julia is senior at Burlington High School, and she is the winner of the VFW's 1999 Voice of Democracy scriptwriting contest for the state of Wisconsin. Julia wrote about an experience she had while volunteering at a local nursing home and the effect that experience had upon her life. Julia is no stranger to civic and student activities. She has been involved in 4-H, Student Council, Girls State and Girls Nation, and she is the current Miss Burlington. Julia is truly an example for students all across the country. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Julia's winning script for the Record. I walked into the nursing home that day, with no idea of what I was getting into. What I would say? How I would act around elderly people? Would I be matched with someone specific? Soon I was paired with a short old man in a plaid shirt. The caretaker told me that this man's name was Roy. I wheeled Roy down to the Activity Room, not sure of what to say. When we get to the room, we both set up our BINGO cards and prepared to play. ``B-5'' said the lady behind the head table. Roy gave me a shy smile as I helped him place a little red chip on the card. It has been said, ``The purpose of life is life with a purpose.'' What better purpose is there than to serve--to help someone else, someone who is perhaps less fortunate than us? The United States of America is committed to safeguarding the rights to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' for all of its citizens, regardless of their financial status or physical abilities. While our country has come a long way since the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, some aspects of our society continue to demand our concern. One such area is the treatment of our elderly. While it was traditional in years past for older relatives to live with younger family members, these days, with both parents working outside the home, this can often become quite impossible. True, the government helps aid the elderly through programs such as our Social Security system and Medicare, but today's alternative for caring for aging members of the family who are unable to care for themselves is a nursing, or retirement home. Such places provide a residence for the elderly and take care of their physical needs. However, even in a ``percent world,'' our government could not possibly be expected to meet the mental or emotional needs of some of our forgotten elderly. But this does not mean that as individuals, we cannot do something. ``N-45!'' the director called in the afternoon's first game. ``BINGO!'' Roy called, his hand shaking slightly. Roy was excited about the bird ornament he won, recalling that ``there were lots of birds like this one'' back on his farm. He told me about the ``special'' birdseed he used to but to attract his wife's favorite orioles. As he stared at the little bird ornament, Roy seemed to be reliving happier days gone by. When we got to his room, my new friend showed me his pictures on the wall, unable to identify everyone in them. He talked about his farm and about his grandchildren. He started crying when he explained that he had not seen them in over a year, and they had forgotten his 100th birthday the month before. While I tried to comfort Roy, I began to understand the loneliness that our forgotten elderly must feel everyday. Our government allows us to excel. It gives us priceless freedoms but we cannot abuse them or fail to cherish them. We must give as well as take. We must serve to strengthen society. ``A life without service to others is a life not worth living.'' These words of President Woodrow Wilson illustrate our country's tradition of helping others. People serve our country in many ways. Some hold political office, some devote themselves to teaching or social work. Some volunteer their time helping others through community service. Some give the ultimate service--placing their lives on the line in times of war. I can still remember Roy's words to me at the end of our visit. ``This is so nice that you young people take the time to come out here and spend with us. We don't have a lot to look forward to here, but we love it when you come and visit us. Thank you.'' I looked at his eyes, old and tired, yet sparkling with something so alive. At that moment my heart glowed with a certain satisfaction to know that I had helped to make someone's day a little bit brighter. My visit had meant a lot to him. I had taken my first step of service to our society. In the 3 years, since my 1st visit to Mount Carmel to see Roy, I have come to know Alex, Sadie, and Henry. I have shared stories, and pushed wheelchairs and I cherish every moment in this experience. Andrew Carnegie once said, ``All good things start out small.'' As Americans, we must challenge ourselves to be the best we can. In our ``one nation under God,'' we must do unto others. On the little league sidelines, in soup kitchens, in nursing home BINGO rooms, with our monetary donations to worthy causes, with our well informed votes, and with our lives on the battlefield, if need be, from sea to shining sea we must unite in our commitment to ``service to America.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the managers of this bill. This a very important step in the process to move educational control back to the local level. After all, a government that governs closest to the people governs best, and this bill promotes this principle. I do, however, want to express my disappointment that language that would have allowed school districts to use class-size reduction funds to cover their special-education budget shortfalls was removed from the H.R. 800 conference report. This was an important piece of the education flexibility bill and it would have been a great benefit to schools struggling to fund their special-education budgets. Mr. Speaker, the state of Wisconsin is experiencing a huge special- education shortfall. In the name of special-education, the federal government has put in place unfunded manages that are crippling schools in Wisconsin and throughout the country. For example, I have spoken with Mr. Tom Everett, the Janesville, Wisconsin school superintendent back in the First District about his special education budget shortfall. Dr. Everett explained that the Janesville School system has a $191,000 special-education budget shortfall. Average class-size in the Janesville School system for grades K-3 is between 18-20 students. Janesville doesn't have a problem with overcrowding. Had the special-education provision been included in the conference report, Dr. Everett would have been able to use the $187,000 allocated to his school system under the President's class- size reduction to cover their special-education shortfall. In fact, it would have covered the shortfall almost completely. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of this legislation because it will promote flexibility at both the state and federal level, and it will provide the opportunity for schools administrators to ``think outside the box'' and design systems that truly focus on improving student performance. This is a very good bill. However, the special-education language would have made it an even better piece of legislation.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the remarkable accomplishments of the Rock Aqua Jays, a water ski show team from my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin. The Rock Aqua Jays have been source of entertainment and pride for the people of Southern Wisconsin for several decades. Their membership includes over 210 people ranging in ages from 1 to 70 years old. The Aqua Jays have won a record 11 U.S. National Show Championships titles, placed first or second in every National Show Tournament from 1979 through 1997, and hold a record of 5 Triple Crown Championships. In view of their accomplishments, the Rock Aqua Jays have been invited to represent the United States at the ``1999 Zheng Chang Cup,'' American Water Ski Star Show & Sino-American Water Ski Competition in Jiangsu Province, China. The members of the team are scheduled to participate in the 6-day program which is scheduled from April 27 through May 2. Show Director Tim Cullen and Event Coordinator Gerry Luiting will also be joining them for this first ever competition. The team will perform a number demanding water ski maneuvers through individual and group competitions. It is a credit to their hard work, training, and the community support the Rock Aqua Jays' have received, that they have been asked to perform at this competition. With attendance estimated between 50,000 to 80,000, this will be the first American ski show team ever to visit and perform in China. The event is sponsored in conjunction with the Chinese Water Ski Association and serves as part of a celebration recognizing the 20th anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and the United States. Considering the Aqua Jays past successes, I believe their Chinese counterparts will have some stiff competition. In the broader scope of things, however, I hope this trip to China will be the first of many for this talented team. It is an honor for anyone to represent their nation abroad and I am confident the Aqua Jays will serve our country well. I wish them the best luck and hope that they develop many lasting friendships from their visit to China. They are a credit to their community and to the United States.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bob Branen and the local newspapers in my district who are helping the refugees of Kosovo. I strongly believe the most effective way to help those in need is through an individual's time and efforts to volunteer at local charities and churches. This works when helping the homeless and hungry in your own community, or when helping the homeless and hungry thousands of miles away in war-torn Kosovo. Southern Lakes Media, Inc. of Burlington and Walworth Newspapers, Inc. of Walworth have launched a nine-city effort to generate support of those fleeing Kosovo. Bob Branen, president of the newspaper chains, is asking, through editorials and advertisements, for Wisconsin citizens to donate to World Relief, an international assistance organization. World Relief is working with Albania's churches to assist the men, women and children who were forced to flee their homes without food, water or clothing. This organization is fighting to give these refugees not only material comforts, but spiritual hope as well. The Kosovars, expelled from their homeland by Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, are finding safety in the open homes and open arms of the people of Tirana. The outpouring of generosity by my neighbors in Wisconsin translates into meaningful action, half a world away, for the victims of the Kosovo conflict. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor their extraordinary example and encourage them to continue their efforts and I commend Mr. Branen for the initiative he took to inform his newspaper readers.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as we know from studies from the Census Bureau themselves, populations of under 100,000 are underserved under sampling. So if someone represents a district that has less than 100,000 inhabitants, every city in the district I represent in Wisconsin, we are going to be hurt under sampling. That is very important to note. I would like to take a look at some of the quotes that we have seen as this census debate has occurred. From a Congressman from New York at that time, Charles Schumer, then Democrat from New York, commenting on post-census local review and I quote, this is a Senator from the other body at this time, ``Certainly post-census local review is not a panacea but we urge the Bureau to treat it with the gravity it deserves and to truly try to cooperate with the localities in the endeavor to help secure an accurate count.'' Right now, post-census local review is simply aimed at missing households. So in New York or Albany or any other locality, housing units have post-census local review. They could say, well, we missed this House or we missed that block or we missed this apartment building. This kind of information should be made available to the Census Bureau in post-census local review and they should be able to incorporate it as they go over things, end of quote by Democrat Member of Congress from New York, Charles Schumer. The point is this: We want to get an accurate count. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is about fulfilling the Constitution, carrying out the Supreme Court ruling and doing the best job we can to count everyone, everyone in every apartment building, in every urban center, and if we do pass the Maloney amendment it is to take away the very rights of local government officials to participate in the census, to catch the glitches that occur after the census is taken. It is not a delaying tactic to stop sampling. We had post-census local review in 1990 and sampling in 1990. The Census Bureau can engage in this. They simply have to go through the work to do it. Mr. Speaker, this is a killer amendment. A vote for the Maloney amendment is to dilute the vote in all those cities that are under 200,000 in population.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of partisanship here on the floor tonight but that is not necessary. This is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is at getting the best possible count we can achieve. We know the Supreme Court has caused this ruling. We know we have to engage in enumeration. That is what we are here talking about. This has nothing to do with sampling, to be quite honest. This has everything to do to make sure we get the best enumeration possible. Rather than quoting Republicans, rather than engaging in a partisan, vitriolic speech, I would like to quote some Members of Congress. I would like to quote the dean of Congress, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I quote, ``The local government officials have labored tirelessly for 2 years that ensure that each home and every person is included in the final census tally. They understand the importance to themselves, the communities they serve and the people.'' Actually, we have been hearing from the Commerce Department that Secretary Daley will be encouraging the President to veto this legislation, but I would like to ask the Secretary of the Commerce to talk to his own brother, the mayor of Chicago, a Democrat mayor of Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley, who said, ``They, the Census Bureau, should come with the inclination to work closely with the mayors. We are the ones who are in the trenches. We are there. We know our cities. There should be an effort of cooperation and partnership.'' That is a Democratic mayor of Chicago. I would like to quote from the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Census in 1990, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), a Democrat. ``Local review presents the last chance for local officials to have an effect on the completeness of the census counts. In some ways, it is the final opportunity to share observations gathered throughout the entire census operation this year.'' Lastly, I would like to talk about one of our fantastically successful mayors, a mayor of Detroit, Michigan, Dennis Archer, who said just this year at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, this is Dennis Archer, mayor of Detroit, Michigan, a Democrat, ``We, as cities, need to have the opportunity, before the census count is in cement, given to the President, for the President's review by the end of the year 2000, so we can evaluate and say, `Here is where you are wrong, and here are the changes we would like for you to consider.' I think that we ought to be given that.'' That is the Democratic mayor of Detroit. In my district, I actually did a survey of all of the elected officials, town board chairmen, mayors, county executives. I have here all of the petitions, all of the surveys from those locally-elected officials in the first Congressional District of Wisconsin, Independents, Democrats, Republicans. Here is what they said. This is the Mayor of Racine, Jim Smith: ``We would anticipate it would be very beneficial to both the Census Bureau and the city of Racine to have an opportunity to review maps and addresses after the count has been completed and prior to the Census Bureau submitting its final account.'' Sheila Siegler, from the town of Wheatland in Wisconsin: ``I believe the very best attempt should be made to get an accurate account, and local review would aid that process.'' Mr. Speaker, our efforts are to get a better number, are to improve the Census. This should not be about Republicans or Democrats. We are going to engage in enumeration, we know that, the Supreme Court has said just that. So let us work together and get the best count we can possibly get. These gentlemen, the Independents, the Democrats, the Republicans from Wisconsin at local units of government, the Democrats in Congress, in the cities across our Nation, they know the benefits of local government involvement. This is not and should not be about politics. We are not advocating a method that will cause a manipulation of the numbers, we are advocating a method to improve the count. Local governments, combined with Federal governments and State governments, can do just that. Lastly, I would like to talk about one issue that has been mentioned by some of the minority today, that this is a delaying tactic, a tactic to try and frustrate the efforts of statistical adjustment. That is simply not the case. They had a statistical adjustment in 1990, and they had a post Census local review. It can be done. It was done in 1990. They did a post Census local review. They did engage in a sampling adjustment. They did not use it, but they did engage in it. This is not a delaying tactic, this is simply embodying the principle that governments can work together at all levels of government, the Federal Government, local government, State government. The mayor of Detroit, the mayor of Chicago, Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle, the Democrats, the Republicans, have over the last 10 years advocated postcensus local review. This is not about politics, it is about doing what the Constitution has asked us to do.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the points made by our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle, specifically my friend from Texas, who I think is a very good man and an honorable person. The point is we want everyone to be counted. We want to make sure that every person in this country is counted, and by voting for the Maloney amendment we will effectively be voting to deprive local government officials from having the ability to take a look at the data, to simply say after the numbers have been counted let us pour over the maps and make sure nothing was missed. Now the last speaker just said that this is delaying, this is obstructing, this is politicizing. It is nothing of those kinds. We have quote after quote after quote of Democratic Members of Congress, Democratic mayors, Democratic Governors, supporting post-census local review. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago; former Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles; the Dean of Congress, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer). We have quotes from so many different Democratic Members of Congress who when they were in the majority were the strongest advocates for post-census local review. Now that has changed. They seem to be opposing it. If this position is the political position of asking local units of government to get involved, to make sure the data is accurate, and the position on the minority side where when we were debating this 10 years ago their position was in favor of post-census local review and now they have reversed their position, reversed their principles, I would suggest that that is a political move.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth). (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I listen to the inflammatory rhetoric we are hearing on the House Floor today, and I think that we are looking at two different budgets. It is very important to note that when you are budgeting, what you are doing is outlining priorities. What was our first priority in putting this budget together? When I travel around the First District of Wisconsin, talking to our Nation's seniors who are currently on social security, talking to workers who are about to go on social security, talking to the baby boom generation who are about to enjoy social security within the next 15 years, they want to know that it is going to be there, that the rug will not be pulled out from underneath them. That is our historic commitment that we are pledging in this budget. Our first, preeminent decision is this: We are going to stop the raid on social security. For the first time in over 30 years, we are not going to take a dime out of Social Security taxes to spend on other government programs. That is our driving reform in this budget, which drives other reforms. If my colleagues take a look at this chart beside me, they will notice that our budget sets aside 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. All the money coming from Social Security taxes will be dedicated towards Social Security. However, the President is only setting aside 62 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. The other 38 percent is going to other spending. We want a lockbox provision that will work. We want a lockbox provision that will set aside all Social Security surpluses now and into the future. The problem is the President does not want this legislation because he is raiding Social Security by $341 billion over the next 10 years. If he is truly interested in saving Social Security, he will say ``no'' to future raids on Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note that, when we are looking at this, this inflammatory language on Medicare, we are actually keeping the Medicare Trust Fund growing. The President proposed a budget that actually cut Medicare. We are dedicating $1.8 trillion, all from taxes dedicated to Medicare and Social Security, for Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think what we are seeing here today is two visions, two visions for our country that we are presenting to the American people, the President's vision as he articulated in the well of the House of Representatives during the State of the Union address and the vision we have embodied in this budget here before us, and I would like to recap what that vision is. First, we lock away the entire Social Security Trust Fund to save, strengthen and preserve Social Security as necessary and Medicare, as well. The other side's budget adds more IOUs in the Trust Fund and that is their answer to Social Security solvency. We could save Social Security to the year 3000 if we just wanted to add more IOUs in the Trust Fund, and that is essentially what they are doing. We need real reform, not IOUs. Second, we set aside more money than the President does for Social Security and Medicare by $100 billion. We create a safety deposit box to make sure that future raids on Social Security do not occur. We pay down more debt with our budget than the President does. By $450 billion, we start paying down our national debt. We maintain the spending discipline of the 1997 budget agreement. We provide additional resources to properly train, equip, and retain the men and women in our uniform, and we enact the historic tax relief for working Americans. What we achieve is this: We stop the raid on Social Security. All Social Security dollars go to Social Security. We pay down our national debt. The President increases it. And if after we accomplish that they still overpay their income tax, we let them have their money back. What this is coming down to is a difference in philosophy. The President embodied the philosophy as he put in his budget very well in Buffalo, New York, 2 months ago when talking about the these surpluses, where he said we could give this money back to them but we would not be sure that they would spend it right. Well, Mr. Speaker, therein lies the difference. How they spend their money is the right way to spend their money as long as they spend their money. But what we have to achieve and the historic reforms we are achieving in this budget is for the first time in a generation we are going to stop Congress and the President from raiding Social Security, we are going to start to pay off our bills by paying down our debt. And then after that, if they still overpay their taxes, they ought to have their money back.