Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ridgewood, New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Consumer Credit.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, the legislation before us is the rule providing for consideration of the conference report S. 900, the Financial Services Act of 1999. S. 900 is better known to Members of the House as H.R. 10, which was passed on July 1 of this year by a margin of 343 to 86. Should the House pass this rule, it would hold its place in history as being one of the final steps in the long and hard-fought effort to repeal Depression era rules that govern our Nation's modern financial services industry. The rule before us waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Madam Speaker, this rule deserves strong bipartisan support. The House passed the underlying legislation with broad support from both parties. The Financial Services Act was only made better in the conference to reconcile differences between the Senate and the House versions. Madam Speaker, 65 years ago, on the heels of the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed prohibiting affiliation between commercial banking, insurance and securities. However, merely 2 years after the passage, the first attempt at repealing Glass-Steagall was instituted by Senator Carter Glass, one of the original sponsors of the legislation. He recognized then that changes in the world and in the marketplace called for more effective legislation. Two generations later the need to modernize our financial laws is more apparent than ever. There is no doubt about it. Reexamination of regulations in the financial services industry in America is a complicated matter. Congress recognizes that busy American families have little time to consider complicated banking laws, but Congress is working to repeal Glass-Steagall with exactly these hard-working Americans in mind. This legislation is designed to give all Americans the benefit of one-stop shopping for all of their financial services needs. New companies will offer a broad array of financial services products under one roof, providing convenience and encouraging competition. More products will be offered to more people at a lower price. As a result of this legislation, Americans will have more time to spend with their families and more money to spend on their children or to save safely for their future. In fact, as it was pointed out yesterday by Treasury Secretary Summers, Americans spend more than $350 billion per year on fees and commissions for brokerage, insurance, and banking services. If increased competition yielded savings to consumers of just 5 percent, consumers would save over $18 billion a year. Americans deserve the most efficient borrowing and investment choices. Americans deserve the freedom to pursue financial options without being charged three different commissions by three different agents. This legislation is designed to increase market forces in an already very competitive marketplace to drive down costs and broaden the number of potential customers for securities and other products for savings and investment. Madam Speaker, this legislation also contains the strongest pro- consumer privacy language ever considered by the Congress. Many of my constituents have contacted me with their concerns regarding the dissemination of their private financial information. I am pleased that this legislation provides increased privacy protections for all Americans and imposes civil penalties on those who would violate our financial privacy. Madam Speaker, Congress must not permit America's financial services industry to enter the new millennium operating under laws that were out of date shortly after they were passed in the 1930s. This legislation before us represents a carefully balanced approach to reform. After years, in fact, even decades of work, Congress has only now successfully drafted a bill that is supported by most of the affected industries, banking, insurance and securities, as well as a broad bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress. It was passed by the Senate just hours ago with 90 votes. Madam Speaker, the rule before us is the standard rule under which conference reports are considered. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and thereby enable the House to take the historic step of modernizing the 66-year-old laws that govern the financial services industry. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, a dear colleague letter will be delivered to each Member's office today notifying them of the Committee on Rules plan to meet the week of November 8 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 3073, the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999.'' Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by 3 p.m., on Monday, November 8, to the Committee on Rules, in room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) which will be printed in today's Congressional Record and numbered 1. The text of the amendment will also be available on the website of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, as well as the website of the Committee on Ways and Means. This amendment in the nature of a substitute combines the Welfare to Work provisions reported by the Education and Workforce Committee with H.R. 3073. It is the intention of the Committee on Rules to make in order the amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) as the base text for the purpose of further amendment. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Is it not interesting that as we go about telling the American public that it is their retirement, it is a savings that is for their future, and as we play this scenario out, that all of a sudden we are at zero, and now what we are trying to do is to fight the President, who says we should not spend any Social Security. He wants us to spend more and more and more. And even though this government is at $1.8 trillion, that he cannot find one penny. He will not even accept the challenge. He will not even accept the challenge to find one penny out of a dollar. And yet routinely in our family, and I am sure my colleagues, that happens every day. It happens in small businesses. It happens all across this country, where families and small businesses and even large businesses have to do this. Exxon. Exxon is one-eighteenth the size of this government, and yet every single year they make tough decisions where they reinvigorate themselves. I would suggest to you, and I have done this, that when I lost weight, I not only became healthier, but more efficient and things worked better. If this government looked inwardly to itself to take off the bloated fat that is in the bureaucracy, to exercise a little bit, to have to go and do something that it has never done, then I would suggest to you that we would have better employees also. Can you imagine an employee who may have been with the government for 30 years, never being challenged to have to look for a better way to do his job or her job? Can you imagine the employees that still do have a sense of financial integrity with them, now, for the first time, being able to come to their bosses in the government and say, ``I think we should accept this challenge. I think I have found a way,'' we called it in my company an idea forum, ``a good idea. Here is what I think we can do to run ourself more efficiently and to be prepared to meet whatever our mission statement is.'' For the first time, Republicans challenged the administration openly, put our paycheck on the line to take a 1 percent pay cut, challenged the government to simply find what it could to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse to find the savings, and the President, our leader, was unwilling to accept this from the get-go. Unilaterally he said, it is not something I wanted to engage in. Bruce Babbitt, there is no waste, fraud and abuse here. Can you imagine the disappointment on the faces of Federal employees when they came to work and found out that those good ideas that they could be presenting, those good ideas maybe that they had been trying to get up the ladder for a long time, can you imagine now that they were rejected by the President?

Mr. SESSIONS. If the gentleman would yield, what we are talking about tonight is waste, fraud and abuse. We are challenging the President to find a way within this administration to find one penny's worth of saving, without spending Social Security, and balancing the budget, and that is what we are asking the President to do. I would like to go back and give a history of what 30 years of Congressional overspending does. What it does is very clearly seen on this chart. For those of you who might be a few feet away, the lower part here is deficits. This is spending too much money. This part that is on the right is the surplus. For 30 years, from 1970, when we first put a man on the moon was when we began ending surpluses in this government. For 30 years we have run deficits, and, for the first time, now, we have had 3 years worth of surpluses. But we Republicans recognize that we should not with a straight face say that the work is done, because we recognize that what has happened is we are operating under rules that even today allow Social Security to be raided and to be used for regular government spending. Since 1984, $638 billion that was given by people for their retirement, taken by this government, has been spent. So what we are trying to do is to say now that we are at zero in 1999. For the first time in 39 years, Republicans did not spend a penny of Social Security. We are trying to challenge the President now to say Mr. President, let us put it in writing. Let us have an agreement that we will not spend the Social Security. We provided the President millions of dollars more in many areas as a result of us making tough decisions, but we have had to prioritize. We are going to keep challenging this President and keep showing ways, which there is plenty ways.

Mr. SESSIONS. We were talking about Bruce Babbitt, saying that there was not a penny that he could find in his department. Yet we go back just 4 months to August 11, 1999, and here is the headline out of the Washington Times. Junkets Found in Wildlife Service. Trips to Brazil and Japan to promote a logo cost $26,000. This is very similar to the number of people that this President takes when he travels around the world. We are not saying you cannot travel. We are saying reduce what you are doing. This is $26,000. Here is what it says: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's employee spent $17,600 to travel from Brazil and Japan, including two junkets to promote the use of the sport fish logo, according to documents found by the Washington Times. What we found out is that a gentleman made four trips to Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil in 13 months at a cost of $9,084, according to the travel vouchers. And the director of the institute where they went said there is absolutely no reasonable justification for using the money to travel to these places. Here is what he said. His voucher stated that it was for the purpose of encouraging these manufacturers that he was going to meet with to use the sport fish logo on sport fishing equipment imported into the United States. In other words, he spent $26,000 to travel outside the country so that we could provide information so that our consumers in this country would want to see that sport fish logo. And yet the Secretary says he cannot find a penny. What really happened here after the Government Accounting Office did this investigation? Mr. Gordon said his organization requested vouchers from other employees after receiving information from agency workers of financial irregularities. ``This doesn't surprise me. I find that this is consistent with what we found in our organization.'' The GAO finds this every single day. Yet the administration refuses to find just one penny on their own and take action about it.

Mr. SESSIONS. We are talking about the things that happen back home. We are talking about decisions that families have to make. Sometimes you sacrifice, perhaps for a child. Sometimes you might sacrifice for a parent. But I would like to give some examples about how Washington, D.C. can make some tough decisions. It started with taking control of the House of Representatives that Republicans did in 1995. I would like to give some information about that. Since 1995, the legislative branch funding has produced a savings of $1.2 billion below the trend line. In other words, if you had put the trend line of where it was headed from 30 years' worth of Democrat control, we have now reduced that $1.2 billion. This year, for the year 2000, legislative appropriations is $124 million below the current year. That is a 4.8 percent reduction. That means from 1999 to year 2000, the legislative branch, which is run by Republicans, has reduced their budget 4.8 percent. The legislative branch has downsized by 4,380 employees since 1995. That is a 16 percent reduction. We have cut the number of printed daily congressional books by 8,200 copies. We have cut the number of House committee staffs by one-third. We have privatized the House barber shop and beauty shops and custodial care and the parking lot and transferred the House post office to the U.S. Postal Service. We have done things that made sense in Washington, D.C. But those were things that were underneath our own control. That was because we were able to make the hard decisions. That is what we are doing now. That is why Members of Congress, at least Republicans, said we believe that it is so important not to spend Social Security that Members of Congress should take a 1 percent cut in pay next year. Lo and behold, what happens? It gets to the President, wholly unacceptable. So the things that take place every single day back home, somehow is just not acceptable, will not cut it up here.

Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman from Georgia is suggesting that the money that has been appropriated is more than what the President asked for in this bill that he vetoed. We have wisely provided it for not only the National Institutes of Health but $88 million more for education, and yet the President and the administration refuses to find one penny of taking out waste, fraud and abuse which we know is rampant, and the administration is even unwilling to look at the $30 million. Yet I know at Glacier National Park this year, the administration put a million- dollar toilet that took 800 trips from a helicopter to place this outhouse at 7,000 feet. It is incredible. One would think that they could utilize some common sense just like what is done at my table, I am sure at your tables, where you have to make decisions just on one penny out of a dollar.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it sounds like to me that it is another example where the truth is held hostage in Washington, D.C., where we have gotten so much into spinning the message that we have forgotten what the truth is. I would like to go back to the President's letter to the House today upon why he vetoed the bill and then, perhaps, to give the facts of the case. The President, on page 8 of the veto, says, ``This across-the-board cut would result in indiscriminate reductions in important areas such as education, the environment, and law enforcement.'' In addition, this cut would have an adverse impact on certain national security programs. The indiscriminate nature of the cut would require a reduction of over $700 million for military personnel, which would require the military services to make cuts in recruiting and lose up to 48,000 military personnel. Let us now do a fact check. A fact check says, despite the 1 percent that we are asking this administration to look internally for efficiency for them to save the money, Congress has appropriated, that is, the Republican Congress has appropriated more money to critical areas of the Government than President Clinton ever even requested. For example, in defense the President requested $263.3 billion. After the 1 percent savings that we are after, we appropriated $265.1 billion. That is $1.8 billion above what the President even requested. For education, the President requested $34.71 billion. After the 1 percent savings, we appropriated $34.8 billion. That is $90 million above what the President's request was. For crime, the President requested $2.854 billion for State and local law enforcement assistance, which includes his COPS programs. After the 1 percent savings that we are after, we appropriated more than $397 million more than the President requested. And yet, if we look at what the President is saying is that, if he has to make this 1 percent savings within the administration, they will have to take the loss of up to 48,000 military personnel. We are talking about we fully funded above what the President ever even asked for, and he is still going to have to cut. So it makes us wonder what is the truth and why should it be held hostage in Washington.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, could it not really be that what has happened is that the priorities that we have had to establish, in other words, ``no'' means no, no, we are not going to keep spending more and more and more; and, no, we are not going to spend one penny of Social Security, we mean we have to make tough decisions here in Washington, D.C., set priorities, determine what money will be spent on, is it not probably that it is too tough a decision for evidently some people to make? Let me give my colleagues an example. When asked if there was absolutely no waste in his department, Is there no waste in your department, Bruce Babbitt responded, You got it exactly right, no waste in my department. The Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, when asked about the administration's position on, we should not reduce at all the size of the Federal budget, Eric Holder said, That would be my view. When Joe Lockhart, the President's spokesman, has talked about whether it is okay to spend Social Security, is it dipping into Social Security, should that not be a choice, he said, 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. And there is more. The more is, when Secretary of Education Riley was asked about how much money would be given to his department he said, The Republican plan slashes critical resources and schools well below the President's request. And yet, we gave them our education budget, the Republican budget, $88 million more than what the President was allowing for or asking. So, in fact, what we are doing is we are making tough decisions. And they want more and more and more. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is a huge increase in some of the most fundamental things that are important for biomedical research and things that we are doing, funding in Washington, D.C., to solve medical problems of Americans that would be open then for the world. What we did is we increased it $2 billion. Yet the President has said it is misguided. When we asked, after fully funding and more than funding this, the President said it is misguided to ask for a .97 percent of the budget to be looked at internally.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, just to prove the gentleman's point, the President just today has vetoed the bill that was known as H.R. 3064 for Labor, Health and Human Services and the District of Columbia. Today, and I will quote from what the President has sent to the House of Representatives, ``I am vetoing H.R. 3064 because the bill, including the offset section, is deeply flawed. It includes a misguided .97 percent across-the-board reduction that will hurt everything from national defense to education and environmental programs. The legislation also contains crippling cuts.'' Well, what we have done in the Congress is we have tried to make sure that government was fully funded. An example of this in this bill, since the time that I have been a Member of Congress, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said it should be a national priority that this Republican Congress would double biomedical research over 5 years. We are now in the very midst of that. In fact, the Republican bill increased funding for the National Institutes of Health by 15 percent, that was in 1999, and 14 percent for the new year's budget. The President asked for $15.9 billion, and we gave him $17.9 billion. That is $2 billion more.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, tonight what we would like to talk about is an updating for the American public about, not only what is happening currently in Washington, D.C., but to give people an understanding about why Republicans are standing up essentially on several themes. One is Social Security, people's retirement. The future of people's retirement should not be taken to fund the government. Social Security should be used for that which it was intended, and that is to be put aside for people's future retirement like myself. I have paid in 27 years into Social Security, 27 years, both my wife and I, and we want to make sure Social Security is there. Second thought process, we must continue to balance the budget. By balancing the budget in Washington, D.C., and not spending Social Security, we will make sure that government has to look internally for its needs to prioritize, to provide those things that the government has to do. It has given lots of money, and it needs to set priorities and make tough decisions just like people out in the States do, people who have families, people who run small businesses, people who work for corporations. The last thing is no means no. Mr. President, we are not going to spend Social Security. One hundred percent is larger than 60 percent. Lastly, that we want the government to do those things that the American public has done for many years, and that is look internally, set priorities, and try and meet those obligations and needs that one has. Today, also, I am joined by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), one of my fellow members of the Republican conference, and I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues tonight who have joined me, the gentleman from Georgia, the gentleman from Arizona, the gentleman from South Carolina, for having what I think is a very interesting talk about a way that we can ask this president and challenge this president to save one penny. We know what happened, today the President vetoed the bill because he wants more and more and more and more spending. He wants less accountability, and the worst part is that what it means is it would be spending our Nation's future social security. Republicans will not allow this to happen. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) will not allow a bill that places social security in danger. I thank the gentlemen.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters honoring Zack Fisher, written by political and military leaders, as follows: June 7, 1999. Mrs. Elizabeth Fisher, Intrepid Museum Foundation, New York, NY. Dear Elizabeth: It was with an extremely heavy heart that I heard of Zachary's passing. Please know that Zandi and I are praying for you and your entire family as you struggle to cope with this tragedy. I have no illusion that my personal pain is in any way comparable to your own. I do, however, want you to know that Zandi and I, and your entire Marine Corps family, are grieving with you and want to help in any way we can. We are here for you. If you need anything-- anything at all--do not hesitate to ask. Zachary was one of the greatest patriots this country has ever known. He did so much for our service men and women; it is difficult to put into words what his life meant to us. He was the quintessential ``good man'' and a fine American. We shall--all of us--miss him very much. I am so very sorry for your loss. May God bless you and hold you in the palms of His hands. Sincerely, C.C. Krulak, General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. This one percent that the gentleman is talking about equals about $3.5 billion, and what we are talking about is $3.5 billion that it will take to where we ask the Government if they will find the 1 percent savings; once again, 1 cent out of a dollar. It would be in what we call discretionary funds. It would not come from Social Security, would not come from Medicare, would not come from Medicaid, but directly from the things that we know of, Mr. Speaker, government programs. This 1 percent that we are after, one penny, has a very auspicious background and history, because what we are talking about in Washington now is not hundreds of billions, which is our past history from when Republicans took control of this Congress, but rather now down to $3.5 billion. What I would like to do is go through what is 30 years of Congressional overspending, 30 years worth of Democrat control, going back to when we first put a man on the Moon back in 1969. That is when it started. This chart here represents deficits that the government has overspent. In other words, the money that was coming in was overspent. We spent more money than what the Treasury brought in. Back in 1994, when Ross Perot and other people who stood up and talked about it, whether they be Independents in this country or whether they be Republicans, they talked about that at some point this was going to become so large that we could never turn it around; that the critical mass would be so large, and we needed to place an emphasis on doing something about this, that is when I signed the Contract with America. The Contract with America directly addressed what we were talking about. It said if Republicans were given an opportunity, we would quit what was ahead in our future of having $300 billion deficits, of spending 100 percent of every Social Security dollar, that we would stop that and within 7 years balance the budget, and the American public heard us and they believed us. So we got elected, and we came into control of the House and the Senate at that time. And what has happened? Our track record is nothing less than marvelous. We have gone from $300 billion a year deficits, to now we have celebrated, as you see here on this chart, we have gone to surpluses. We went to surpluses because we cut taxes and we were able to say no to spending. We were able to have some fiscal responsibility, some restraint, the opportunity to make wise and prudent decisions on behalf of ourself and the American public.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the speaker for the comments from the gentleman from South Dakota, his enunciation of what a great day and a great week this has been in Washington, D.C., a day when we can look the American public right in the eye and we can say that not only do we have a balanced budget, but the straight face comes when we say: and we did not spend your Social Security, your retirement future, in order to take claim for this balanced budget. And it is a proud day for me. I came to Congress in 1996. I ran on a pledge that I felt like we not only should, could, but must, balance the budget, and that if we did not balance the budget that I promised that I would not accept a paycheck if we did not balance the budget. So we balanced the budget, we stick to what we said we would do, but now with a straight face we can say: And, America, we are no longer taking from your retirement future. What is interesting, as we approach this time, is that we have heard the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) talk about ideas which we have as Republicans about how the President, and this administration and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can view this as an opportunity and a challenge, a challenge not only for America, but we have taken on the challenge ourselves as Members of Congress. We have stated that we will as management of the country, we will accept a 1 percent reduction this next year in our paychecks. We had a vote on it this evening. Most Members voted for it. Of course it passed. But this 1 percent reduction in our paychecks, that would go to something as important as not only securing America's future with saving Social Security, but by making sure we do it immediately and keep the trend that we just started for the first time of not spending Social Security dollars in 39 years. So, it is a historic day, it is an opportunity; but I know that you have many things on your plate that you would like to talk about that are great opportunities, good ideas for this administration and the American public to hear from us about great ideas to find this 1 percent in savings that we are going to challenge the government to do.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire. I am also joined tonight, Mr. Speaker, by one of the brightest members of the House of Representatives. He is a young man who is in my class, he is from South Dakota, his name is John Thune. The gentleman from South Dakota and I recognize that what we are talking about is saving one penny, one penny, and it is very important. I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes with us and talk to us.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are through with legislative business for the week. It has been a very energetic week for the House of Representatives. We have discussed and debated a lot of issues. As we see just a few minutes ago, the charade continues about the discussion and the debate about where this country is on Social Security. What I would like to do is for the next hour or so to take some time to explain to the American public what the truth is about Social Security, where we are, what this Congress is doing, because I believe that there is a more responsible answer that we should give to the American public. We should not scare the American public, but most of all that the truth should not be held hostage. We should not have to hear politician after politician come and to spout out what I think are their wishes for doom and gloom of this Social Security system when in fact a lot of focus has been placed upon it and the American public have written their Congressmen and Members of Congress have gotten engaged in this issue. And so I would like to use this remaining time of this hour to talk directly with the American public, to provide them information not only about how Social Security is doing but the difference between the gross and the net, the gross being the top side that they hear about and the net being the bottom. I am joined, Mr. Speaker, tonight by several of my Republican colleagues who are going to engage in this debate with me. It has been a marvelous week here in Washington. We believe we are at the point now where we can look the American public right in the eye and tell them the truth about where we are in Washington, whether we are going to spend Social Security, that we are going to balance the budget and that we can make a deal because responsible people in Washington, D.C. can make responsible decisions. Tonight, I would first like to call on the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the Budget, Transportation and Intelligence committees. I would like to have the gentleman from New Hampshire join in with me in this debate.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire, who is a very proud part of the things that we are doing in Washington. As I go to close here tonight, I want to summarize that this has been an invigorating week, 2 weeks that we have had in Washington, where we have learned officially that for the first time in 39 years, the budget of the United States did not use social security by which to fund government operations, and that in fact it has been a good thing not only for taxpayers and people on social security, but it has reinvigorated us here in Washington to recognize that this should not be a battle between Republicans and Democrats, but what it has done is opened up a new door, a new opportunity, a new challenge for Members of Congress to recognize that if we work together, that not only can we continue to ensure that we do not spend social security, but that we do those things that are good for the fiscal soundness of our country. I would like to end today with a challenge, not only to my Republican colleagues but also to my friends on the other side, to come join me in what we call the Results Caucus. It is a bipartisan group of Members who work together to make sure that we can find and weed out those areas of government spending, those areas of government spending that fall under waste, fraud, and abuse. I would like to read to not only my colleagues on the Democrat side but also have the opportunity for those who are listening tonight to hear what the Results Caucus is. Here is my basic philosophy: The Federal Government has many good intentions. Intent is not the issue, effectiveness is the issue. Washington spends billions of dollars every day trying to help in people's lives, but no one knows whether or not these programs actually work. Americans work hard for their income. They pay a lot, in fact, too much, in taxes. I say it is immoral for the national government to spend one dollar, one tax dollar, on a program that does not work and does not help achieve its stated objective. If a program is not working, then it should be reformed or cut, with the savings returned directly to the taxpayer. That is what the Results Caucus is all about. We are trying to work to find these savings. I think that this opportunity that we have had to speak tonight is not only invigorating to Republicans, but it is an opportunity, a fair way to give this administration and all Federal workers an understanding and a challenge that we need them to work carefully as a challenge to reduce, for every dollar that they will be given to spend, to reduce by 1 cent. The Results Caucus has a wonderful saying. It is this, that every single dollar that this government needs it should get, but not a penny more. I thank the Speaker for staying late this evening. I want to thank the Speaker and my colleagues who have been part of what we have done tonight.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman. I have a new board up here which really says exactly the good news that we have just received two weeks ago. What that says is that the Congressional Budget Office certifies that the Republican budget stopped the 39-year raid on Social Security and that the projected on budget surplus under Congressional scoring is $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is say that everybody gets credit for this. We want the American public not to have their Social Security spent. And what has been the response back has been, oh, my gosh, it has almost been an accusation. ``The Republicans' key goal is not to spend the Social Security surplus. Those mean Republicans, they do not want to spend the Social Security surplus.'' Thank you, Mr. Podesta. You are right. You have got it. Give us credit. Give us credit for that which we are doing. And you have done that. But, Mr. Speaker, there is more. And the more to that is this: It is what we must do now is to make wise and prudent decisions about how we are going to repeat this task that we have started. We want to repeat it so that we make sure that on a going-forward basis, that we understand on an up-front basis that we are not ever, ever, never, going to spend the Social Security surplus to fund this government. It is the retirement of millions of Americans who gave that money, gave the money to the government with the understanding that they would have a secure Social Security retirement system in place and available to them. So here is what we are doing in Washington right now. We are trying to devise a budget and finalize that budget and have the President sign that budget with some very important components. First of all, it will be a balanced budget. Second of all, it will mean that we want to lock away, not use, Social Security. After passing 13 bills, which we have done today, we recognize that we are now down to about $3.5 billion over what we would have wanted. But after these months of work it is hard to add up where it will all be. Now that we see what the final answer is, we realize we are $3.5 billion over. But a bill to spend Social Security we were advised two weeks ago by Majority Leader Dick Armey would not be allowed to be on the floor of the House of Representatives. So recognizing that, it was important for Republicans to put forth a plan that we made sure would deal correctly and fairly and honestly with the American public, and that is where we came up with what is known as the 1 percent savings solution. What we are trying to do is we are trying to say that in the future, next year, we are going to ask out of every dollar that is given to this administration for discretionary funds, that out of every dollar that would be given to the administration, that we would like them to find a savings of one penny. This is exactly what Americans do at home. This is exactly what Americans do when they sit around their table and they talk about their budget every month. To assume that government would be immune from the same type of problem that Americans run into, because it is all Americans together that could have this problem, to assume that we could not forthrightly come up with an answer, that we could not honestly look government right in the eye and say, ``What will you do to participate?'' I consider it a challenge. If I worked in the administration, I would say, ``I think this is a great opportunity for us to look inward.'' If I were a government employee working for this administration, or a career employee, I wonder how many of them, how many times these employees have come up with great ideas about how to make their government programs or their job to work more effectively or more efficiently, and I wonder how many times they floated ideas up the chain of command that would say how can we save money? Where is a good idea? What can we do to help out? Well, today this Republican Congress is challenging those millions of government workers, we are challenging the administrators, we are challenging the cabinet officers, and, yes, we are challenging this administration and our President. For, you see, we believe that saving Social Security and not spending one penny is the most important thing that we can do for our people this year. So, we are challenging government. We are challenging its employees. We are challenging this administration. Please go look inwardly. Look at your own budgets. Look at what you are going to do starting with this new budget that starts in about 3 or 4 days. Go find those things where you can save one penny out of a dollar. Put those things in place, implement them, and then we will make sure that we are not stealing from the retirement for our future. This is what this gets down to. This is what it is all about. And the gentleman from New Hampshire I am sure has lots of more ideas about how we can challenge this government to provide them information.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased to show the gentleman. As a matter of fact, that is the deciding point that you will see that is right here. That is where the lowest point, the highest deficits took place, right here. Since that time the Congress, year after year after year, has had a debate, a discussion, that has been very lively, and I will tell you it has gotten hot and very heated here on this floor. And repeatedly people stood up and said we are trying to do things that we are being asked by people at home to do. We are trying to do things that pass the smell test, to where we can look at the American public and say we have something in mind. And what in mind we had was that we should not put further debt upon ourself or our children and their future generations. This proves then we now have a surplus. What we had to do is get to the point where we could wean ourself away from Social Security. We have discussed it, the American people have discussed it, the President has discussed it. What happened that we received information on about 2 weeks ago was that for the first time in 39 years we have found out that not one penny of Social Security went to fund the government. For the first time in 39 years. So I would like to go from this chart of spending to this chart of the history of the Social Security raid. As you see here, back in 1983 it really began. We began on a yearly basis of taking 80, 90 billion dollars, and taking what was the surplus in Social Security, what was given because people had to give the government their money, with the understanding that government had some fiduciary responsibility to take care of this. In fact, what has happened is all this money has gone into what was called a Social Security trust fund. Well, I would submit to you that this trust fund is smoke and mirrors, because in fact all of the money has been spent, it is all gone, and the American public knows this, $638 billion. So the 27 years worth of Social Security that I have paid in and the 27 years worth of Social Security that my wife has paid in, and gosh knows how many years that my parents worked, probably 50 years, they are now counting on a system that essentially is counting on us today to pay for their retirement, rather than putting the money in where it is supposed to be, allowing it to grow with interest, not spending it today, but doing what is prudent and wise, and that is waiting for a rainy day. This is what we have ended. Now, after 39 years, Republicans have had the guts to stand up and say we are not only going to balance the budget, we are going to make sure that your future retirement is not spent in the process. That is exactly what we have done this week again.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for bringing this information to the American public tonight. Obviously, what we are talking about here is the budget process where we are attempting to make tough decisions in Washington, D.C., to ensure that we balance the budget, that we do not spend Social Security, and that we ensure that the Government is fully funded, as we say in the Results Caucus, every single dollar that the Government needs but not a penny more. Tonight what I would like to do is run through with the American public what we are trying to do now that we have gotten to the very end of this process. And we recognize that we are probably going to perhaps end up being slightly over when we aggregate all the bills together what we would spend. So we are trying to make sure that there will be provisions by which the President and the Congress will act. What we are talking about here is, if we exceed with all of our 13 budgets, if we go over that amount of money, which we really do not want to do, but if we end up at that, that we will have a provision that says any amount that is over this budget amount, so that we do not spend Social Security, will then come as an across-the-board budget cut. We are estimating tonight that it will be anywhere from 1 to 1.4 percent. Where does this come from and how much money does that equal? Well, it is about $3.5 billion in outlays. All the money will come directly from discretionary funds, with the knowledge that here in Washington we work off a mandatory budget. A mandatory budget is those things that are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They will be exempted from this 1- to 1.4- percent budget cut, which means we will not deal with any mandatory spending on that side that we will cut but, rather, it will be in discretionary. It will equal about one penny of a dollar that the Government gets. One penny we are asking the Government to give back across-the-board. Now, what is interesting about this is that when we look at this we are saying that this budget savings will be done to ensure that Social Security is taken care of. What I would like to now get into a debate and a discussion about with the American public is to talk about those things that today and have been happening in Government that we think fall under the auspices of waste, fraud, abuse, or waste fraud and error; and that is the large Government programs that we know could be run better, that we know that if we will say to the bureaucrats, that if we will say to the people in the agencies, we want you and expect you to prioritize in a better sense the opportunity to manage your budget, that you would then have a 1-percent savings across the board. That is what we want to spend the remaining part of this hour to talk about, those opportunities that the Government Accounting Office, GAO, has documented for year after year, good ideas for people to know why this can be done without harming anyone or the essential services of Government.