Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we hear the plaintive cries about our need to help the poor; our need, our desire to increase the minimum wage. The term ``our'' is used over and over again, ``us'', as if in fact we in this body are actually the people that will be giving the money to the most needy, the people who are going to be benefiting from the increase in the minimum wage. But, of course, it is none of us here who actually are providing this money that we are so freely giving away. We are giving away other people's money as we do so often here, we do so well and so often. To pretend as though it is coming out of our hide, out of our wallets, no, it is not. We are going to pass a law here to force somebody else to pay somebody else the money. Of course, who will actually benefit? Will the ``poor'' actually benefit from an increase in the minimum wage? Economic analysis consistently shows that most of the benefits of mandated higher entry- level wages go to families who are already above the poverty level. In 1997, nearly 60 percent of poor Americans over the age of 15 did not work and would not be helped by such an increase. Fewer than 10 percent of poor Americans over the age of 15 who could benefit from increasing the minimum wage worked an average of 16 hours a week. The neediest families would receive a relatively small portion of the increase wage bill. Most of the benefits would go to families who earn more than twice the poverty threshold. The idea that we are doing all of this for this category of worker, that we will raise them up out of poverty as a result of forcing people to pay an increase in the minimum wage, is absolutely false. The economists that came in and talked to us in our committee could never make that kind of allegation. They tried to. They even tried to explain where they came up with an idea of $1 over a 2-year or 3-year period of time. There is absolutely no economic benefit or no economic model they could point to saying this was the correct amount. Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely not one shred of evidence to show any of us on the committee that $1 was right, and even the economists said, no, we do not know that $1 is right. It has no significance. It is what you will get away with politically. It sounds good. It is a nice, round number, $1, but it has absolutely no relevance to any economic theory. Nobody could ever show us that it was important or that it mattered in the total scheme of things. It was just a nice round number. Do Members know what, that is what this whole idea of increasing the minimum wage is, is just a nice-sounding thing that we can go home with and explain that we have done something so good for the poor. In fact, we have done absolutely nothing. The idea that the government knows best how much money anybody should make for any particular job is idiotic. I will fully admit that I do not know what anyone should make in this economy. I do not know what the smallest minimum wage should be, or the highest. I admit that, because there is something that is in fact important and that does make that decision. It is called the marketplace. I will trust the marketplace.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, today I will introduce a resolution which commends Michael Horowitz for the public statement he made last week by protesting the lack of action that the administration has taken in actively addressing the situation in Sudan. Mr. Horowitz also used this forum in hopes of raising the awareness of the American people to the plight of the Sudanese at the hands of the northern totalitarian regime in Khartoum. Madam Speaker, the civil war in Sudan has been raging now for over 17 years with close to 2 million dead. The United States should be doing all it can to support the intergovernmental authority for development, or IGAD process, in hopes of bringing this horrific chapter in the lives of the Sudanese to a close. Until peace is finally reached, we should also be supporting those in the south who are fighting to keep the iron, long-reaching fist of the northern regime from crushing their beliefs and way of life. Furthermore the administration should address and work in conjunction with others who are leading a campaign against companies such as Talisman Energy and others who are using American capital to support their oil operations in Sudan at the detriment of the southern population. Mr. Horowitz's act of civil disobedience was done in hopes of bringing light to the inaction and bland policies of our government towards Sudan, for it is time we truly addressed this regime and the policies of terrorism and destruction it brings to the table with it.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, seldom in America do we see a more joyous display of hope and heart than we saw on December 5, 1999 by the Columbine High School Football team as they played for their first state football championship. Less than a year after the community of Littleton, Colorado was thrust into the national spotlight by a tragedy unimaginable to any American, this suburban town was united behind a group of young men who battled football history, and the vivid memories of fallen teammates and classmates. The headline in the local paper read, ``This time, the tears of Columbine are tears of joy,'' (The Denver Rocky Mountain News, December 5, 1999) and how special those tears are for the parents, teachers, and students of this courageous high school. The football team nobly dedicated their season to a fallen comrade, Matt Ketcher, who lost his life last April. Matt's younger brother, Adam, stood on the sideline as a sign of inspiration, wearing a Columbine letterman's jacket that was presented to him by the team, as they played for the state's top football prize. What a way to end a special season. Columbine won the game that Saturday by a score of 21-14, giving the school the state football championship, but more importantly, the team helped heal the souls of the school community. I would like to congratulate the entire football team and their coaching staff for a season that meant more than they could ever have imagined. I hope that the entire nation can use them as motivation as we all do our part to ensure the healing of America continues.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I had originally requested only 5 minutes, but a number of things have happened in the last several hours that have forced me to come back and request more time to address the issues that I wanted to bring to the attention of the body today. Certainly, some of the things that have been discussed by previous speakers here lead me to take the floor today and to do so for at least some more time than 5 minutes. When I was in high school, our class used to have the task at the end of the year of coming up with a motto, among other things, to attach to ourselves for the rest of eternity and it would always be placed in the little book, the annual. It would say the class motto was such and such for this. Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion after listening to the discussion for the last hour. I have a suggestion of what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle might use for their class motto this session, and it would be this: ``Issues, not solutions.'' Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest that as the class motto for the Democrats of the 106th Congress. That their real purpose is to have an issue to run on and to avoid the possibility of achieving a solution in this body at all costs. Now, I say that recognizing that it is certainly not a revelation. I bring to the body that this is the strategy that the Democrats are employing. I say that because the minority leader has said that. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has indicated in articles that I have read, and certainly have been brought to the attention on the floor in the past, that it is his purpose to try and present as many obstacles as he possibly can to the accomplishment of the goals established by the majority in the area of education reform, in the area of tax reform, in any area important to the people of the country, there they would be. It is not surprising, therefore, when we look at the majority responsibility of the Congress, that is the passage of 13 appropriations bills, that when we look at how that eventually got done, it got done without the help of our Members on the other side. Without the help of any of them. Maybe three or four at a time would come on board, but almost always it was the Republicans in the Congress that had to carry the load because everybody over there was going to play hard ball because they want issues, not solutions. The last thing they want, in fact, is a solution to the problem. So much rhetoric has been devoted to the Social Security issue. I am so glad to hear that at least there is a concern on the other side with regard to Social Security and, in fact, holding it sacrosanct, because that is a very interesting thing. We, in fact, passed a law, passed a bill out of this House. It went over to the other side and that law was designed to, in fact, codify this idea of holding Social Security sacrosanct. Not using it for the general fund. Something that we even hear the President saying that he agrees to. But what has happened, Mr. Speaker, I ask? Where is that bill? And why is it not now part of the solution to the Social Security issue? Well, of course, it is because the Senate Democrats have had a filibuster. The issue has been brought forward five times at least in the Senate, and each time it has been filibustered by the Democrats and essentially killed. So where is the desire for the solution here? It is not their desire. It is, in fact, to maintain an issue to go into the next campaign with. Beyond that, when the discussion resolves to the next stage, and that is the fix for Social Security, where is the President's plan for that? Has anyone heard of the President's plan? I certainly have not. I recognize fully well that the continuation of the Social Security system is in great, great jeopardy; and we must do something to change that. And I do not even suggest for a moment that not spending Social Security funds for general fund purposes will solve the Social Security problem. It will not. It does, in fact, however, slow the growth of government quite dramatically and makes us a little more honest to our constituents. Those two things are pretty good things in and of themselves. But if, in fact, there is such a desire to fix Social Security, then of course we should hear something out of the White House about how we should go about doing that. That would be nice. That would be good. But we have not. Why have we not heard that, Mr. Speaker? Let me suggest the reason is because it does not fit the motto. The motto is, remember: ``Issues, not solutions.'' Columbine High School and Gun Control

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, let me go on to the purpose of my original request for this time to speak. It is my understanding that today a group of Members of this body held a press conference in which they unveiled a clock of sorts. And this clock, I am told, has recorded the amount of time, minutes and hours and days, since the event at Columbine High School. And it is meant, I suppose, well, I know it is meant as a political gag in order to try and embarrass the Congress for not having, quote, moved ahead on gun legislation. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the desire on the part of a lot of people, especially as we move to the very end of the session, to grasp at straws to do the most outrageous things in order to try to get the attention of the general public and in order to try and score some sort of political advantage. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, as the Representative from Columbine, from that area, the school is half a mile from my home, and my neighbors have children there, and we suffered through this event together. I must tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that to have this kind of political shenanigan pulled at this late date to try and remind us of when Columbine occurred, let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is not a parent in my district, there is not a parent of a single child who was murdered at that school or injured in that school who needs to be reminded of when that happened. There is not a single living soul in my district that needs to be told when that occurred, how long ago, because it is etched indelibly in our memories and in my mind. To suggest that any action taken subsequent to that time by this Congress could possibly have changed the situation there is, of course, both ludicrous and hypocritical. It is especially hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, because of course this Congress did attempt to address the issue of gun safety. There was a bill, Mr. Speaker. There was a bill. It made it to the floor. H.R. 2122. Now, maybe it was not a perfect piece of legislation. There were certainly things about it that I had concerns about. But let me just go it just to remind all of us what exactly it was that we were talking about in that particular piece of legislation. Under current law, background checks are not conducted at gun shows concerning transactions by private vendors but, instead, are only required of Federal licensees. This allows for a loophole of sorts in the acquisition of firearms. There was an amendment proposed as a matter of fact by a Democrat, by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). That amendment I believe was the most accommodating option, both in keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals and in protecting the rights of gun owners across the country. Certainly it was controversial. There were many people in my own district, certainly people in my own constituency that said it still went too far. As a matter of fact, I was the only Member in my delegation to vote for this. It was, in fact, the best possible option of all the options I think we had available to us. By the way, the Dingell amendment would have, in fact, closed that loophole, would have required someone that was a private vendor to do background checks on people purchasing guns. The argument revolved around the length of time that would be allowed for these checks to be completed and that sort of thing, and those were arguable points. I will not say that they were not. It was not, as I say, a perfect bill. But it was a Democrat amendment that achieved about 45 or 50 Democrats in its support originally, and then it became part of the bill. The next amendment dealt with large capacity devices. They prohibited the manufacture of large capacity clips, ammunition clips. Another one prevented juveniles from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons. Another one made it mandatory to provide trigger locks and safety devices when guns were purchased. Another amendment qualified current and former law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon whereby allowing them to continue to serve our communities as safety personnel. In a way, this is something that my friends on the other side have been pushing for all the time, that 100,000 cops. Well, this is a way of putting a lot of police on the beat. These are retired former law enforcement police officers who could be carrying weapons and protecting the community. Another amendment in that particular bill said that, when guns were pawned for more than a year, they would not be returned to their owner until they pass an NIC background check. This amendment makes sure that, during periods when the firearm is under the possession of the pawn shop, that the original owner does not undergo circumstances which would hinder them from possessing the firearm. Likewise, it allows for checks to be done on the pawned weapon so as to make sure it has not been stolen. Then the juvenile Brady part where the amendment would prohibit persons who commit violent acts of juvenile delinquency from possessing firearms as adults. All right. Those are the parts of the bill, the most significant parts of the bill, H.R. 2122, that came to this floor. After a great deal of debate after originally supporting that, my colleagues remember what happened. My colleagues may recall, Mr. Speaker, how that all played out. I often think of that cartoon, the Peanuts cartoon, and that character when Lucy is holding the ball that Charlie is coming to kick. Just as he gets there, she pulls it away, and he falls back. That is in a way what the Democrats did with that bill. They put this bill out there. The Dingell amendment was part of it. We assumed, of course, that we would get some support, although it may not have been perfect, because when was the last perfect piece of legislation that passed this body. Every piece of legislation is made up of compromises on both sides of the issue. Certainly it was not perfect for me. But I also knew that it was going to be the best chance we had of getting this kind of legislation out of this Congress. So did the other side, and that is my point. They also knew that that was the best chance we had. So what happened, Mr. Speaker, after all the rhetoric about gun legislation, and I asked the people across the street holding press conferences and unveiling these clocks, telling us how long it has been, and people holding up replicas of tombstones saying ``rest in peace gun control measures,'' I want to ask them where they were on the day that H.R. 2122 came to the floor. I will tell my colleagues what happened when that bill came to the floor. It failed. It failed with 198 Democrats voting no, 81 Republicans voting no. Let me say that again. The chart depicts this: 198 Democrat no votes, 81 Republican no votes. The final vote, 147 aye, 280 no. The 147 broke down in the following manner: Republicans, 137; Democrats 10. Now, I do not know, I have heard of awards that are given annually, maybe monthly, or something by various members for the pork of the week award. There are all these things that are picked out, and people, individuals get sometimes these awards that are not really all that much appreciated. I am not sure, but perhaps we should come up with a chutzpah award because I cannot think of a better word, a fine Jewish word to explain what we are talking about here when somebody can actually stand up here in this body and tell us that we have prevented the movement of this kind of legislation of gun control legislation when this is the fact of the matter: 198 Democrat noes. 198. Republican noes, 81. Who stopped it? Why did they stop it, Mr. Speaker? The answer I believe is the answer I gave at the beginning. It is the motto of the Democratic class of 1999 in the House of Representatives. The motto is: ``Issues, not solutions. We want problems to carry forward.'' Mr. Speaker, I received just a little bit before I came over here a communication from Mr. William Maloney. Mr. Maloney is the Colorado Commissioner of Education. This is not a political position. He is appointed by an elected board. It was a communication that I did not prompt, I did not request, and it is in response to the events, I hate to even characterize it as a press conference, because a press conference would indicate that there was something newsworthy about it, but it was the event to which I referred earlier, this thing where they unveiled this clock that is supposed to remind us all how long it has been since Columbine. Mr. Maloney puts it very, very clearly and very succinctly and articulately. Remember, Mr. Maloney is the Commissioner of Education in Colorado. It is a nonpartisan position. He says the following about their antics, and I will say antics rather than activities: ``We would deeply regret that anyone would address the Columbine tragedy without any consultation with those who were most deeply involved. To do so in a simplistic fashion is to disrespect the full dimension of this tragedy and the diverse and earnest efforts being made to deal with it.'' Mr. Speaker, I suppose I cannot say much more than that, and perhaps do not need to. I hope the point has been made. Issues, issues, not solutions. Certainly not everything that has been proposed, not just on gun legislation, but anything else, not everything would have completely solved these things, but many would have come close, Mr. Speaker, if there would have truly been that bipartisan desire to get the job done. There is plenty of partisan wrangling that goes on during the course of one session of Congress. Even though I am a freshman, I am certainly well aware of that. To a large extent, I think it is fine, healthy, and appropriate. We have, of course, very legitimate clashes of ideas that are articulated on the floor of this House. We disagree on the size and scope of government. That disagreement, that very basic disagreement that usually separates the two sides plays itself out in many interesting ways. I will never forget the day here on the floor of the House when the final vote was taken on the tax relief measure. I was proud to be a Republican, perhaps more so than any other time since I have been here in the past 11 months, because we were actually doing something that was very, very characteristic, I thought, of Republican principles. So it is absolutely appropriate for us to be divided on those issues, have battles on those issues, fight it out on this floor, go to a vote, everybody doing what they truly believe in their heart of hearts should be done because of their commitment to what is good for the country. Mr. Speaker, sometimes other things happen, other things happen here, and decisions are made and events occur that really are not based on those heartfelt opinions and ideas. It is based on sheer, pure politics. I would say to my colleagues that when we look at the issues as we approach the next election, be very, very, very discerning. Mr. Speaker, be discerning and try to determine whether or not they are being brought to us for purely political reasons or because in fact there is concern about the way they would have affected the outcome of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado Springs, Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

Mr. TANCREDO. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and I certainly and completely understand the degree of emotion that is connected with making them because I assure the gentleman that I empathize in that regard. I do not think, in fact I know, that there has been no more difficult issue with which I have had to try to deal than the issue of Columbine High School, not just from the standpoint of the pure politics of it, the issues of gun control and the rest, but the neighbors that I see when I go home every weekend and the children that I see and the concerns I have, Mr. Speaker. And just perhaps for a moment, if I could be allowed, I would reference those concerns and ask for the prayers of America to be directed to the parents and to the children who are still suffering to this day. We are seeing every time when I go home this subject being brought up, and the papers play it up, and there are some very good things, positive things that are happening in terms of children being healed, children coming out of the hospital who are now walking, these kids that were so terribly wounded in this. Then we will have another setback, and we had one not too long ago, when a mother of one of the students took her own life. And it is so hard for us to understand. We think about how much pain any community, any family can deal with or can endure. How much can we endure? And I look at those students, as I say, those children who are recuperating, and I thank God for their recuperation. The physical signs of healing are there. Their scars are healing and we can see that, and that is good and as it should be. But, Mr. Speaker, what we cannot see are those scars that do not manifest themselves on the outside of the body. They are the scars in the mind and in the heart and on the soul, and they do not heal as quickly as the scars on the outside. We do not see people coming out of the hospital being welcomed home with flowers and friends. We do not see how they live through the agony of this thing and are tormented by the thought of Columbine over and over again. And fear, fear in their hearts, fear of going to school, fear on the part of parents in taking their children to school, because they do not know what is going to happen and because they feel totally helpless. These are the things with which we are still dealing. And I can tell my colleagues, my friends who had this press conference giving us the clock, they do not have to tell me when this happened. I know exactly when it happened, and so do those parents. And what they have done today does not help the healing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one might even suggest that it digs deeper at the wound. And that is why I do have emotion in my voice; and I am filled with emotion about this, because this is not just a typical political debate or fight we are having here. These are about real people whose hearts have been broken, and it disgusts me to think that they are being used as pawns in this political battle. But that is the only way I can see it right now. Because, Mr. Speaker, we could have had at least attempts at solutions. Although I was the only one, as I say, that voted for the bill, I know my colleague did not vote for the bill that I referred to, I was the only one from Colorado to have done so, and I know in my heart that that bill would not have changed anything had it been in place, I understand full well that there is really so little, in fact, we can do. But what little we can do to have somebody then stand up later on and blame us, blame this side for not having moved this process along, when as anyone can see, 191 Democrat noes on the bill to 80 Republican. It was not us. But even had this passed, we would not be safe in our schools, we would not be safe on our streets. Much, much more has to occur. And in a way, my fear with this particular piece of legislation, and all the others that were suggested, I had this great fear in my heart that if we had passed them, that in fact people would have walked away from the table thinking, oh, good, now we have done something to stop violence. And here is another aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, that I failed to bring out. Just the other day, in Decatur, Illinois, when there was an act of violence that, thank God, did not end up with someone being killed, but it was a very, very harsh violent act committed by several students, what did we hear in this House about that? Would Jesse Jackson, who has now involved himself in this whole thing, would he have been there if one of those students had been carrying a gun, even if no one had been hurt? I think not. So is the real issue school violence? Are we really worried about juvenile violence? Are we trying to do something about violence, or are we just trying to look at the political advantage we can get out of the ``gun issue ``? How come there has not been an outrage voiced in this House about Jesse Jackson's involvement in this thing and his attempt to intimidate the school board to put these kids back in school when they did the absolute right thing in throwing those kids out of school. If I had had time, Mr. Speaker, we are at the closing minutes of this session, perhaps days, I do not know how long we have, but I know it is not going to be too long, but if I had had the time, I would have issued a resolution commending the school board for their actions. Because, of course, that is the kind of thing that can help us avoid the next Columbine tragedy, the absolute avoidance, the zero tolerance policy for any sort of violence on a school campus or at a school event. In this case it was at a game. I do not know if my colleagues saw the videotape of this, but I can assure them that this was not just a couple of school bullies roughing up some of their classmates. These were very violent young men. And as I say, I thank God they did not have a gun or some other weapon, and I thank God today that there was not even severe damage done even without the use of a firearm. But the fact is that there should have been just as much outrage expressed in this House at any attempt to quiet that school district or to intimidate that school district into putting those kids back in school. But no, we have not heard a word about that. Well, I would tell my colleagues they did exactly the right thing, and I commend the school board for it and I hope they stick to their guns and do not be bullied by Jesse Jackson. They did what is right. They should keep those kids out of that school. Those are the things that can help us, Mr. Speaker, those and hundreds of people, thousands of people, millions of people around this country changing their own hearts, connecting back with their own families, thinking more about how they raise their own children, and what can be done not just maybe for our children but for our Nation's children and becoming a community again. All these things matter more than this bill would have ever mattered, but it was a stab at it anyway. It was killed by Democrats because they want issues not solutions.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. That is correct.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if I were to tell my colleagues that human bodies were being dissected and that the parts were being methodically catalogued, preserved and sold for profit, they might well recoil at such a picture. They might think I was referring to the grotesque deeds carried out in Communist China, where buyers can place orders for specific organs from bodies of certain blood types. Prisoners matching the specifications are then slaughtered and their organs harvested and sold. Or perhaps, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues might think I was detailing the actions of Nazis, when they found the market in human hair, skin, and bones to be lucrative, so they turned the concentration camps into profit centers. It is, indeed, a tragic commentary on our times, Mr. Speaker, that I must tell my colleagues that it is not Communist China nor is it Nazi Germany to which I refer, it is contemporary America. The specific sites are not prisons or concentration camps, they are abortion clinics. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs appear to have found a profitable niche within the abortion industry and have begun to traffic in the body parts of aborted babies. Now, this practice was outlawed by the passage of the Health Revitalization Act, to which my colleague has referred. However, some unscrupulous individuals have found that by simply calling a charge a fee-for-service, that they could possibly avoid persecution and prosecution and turn a tidy profit on the sale of body parts. Mr. Speaker, on this poster we can see that the price list advertised by Opening Lines, one of the companies doing business in this area, and by the way it is true that one of their outlets has gone to ground since this all came to light, but there are other companies out there doing the same thing, clearly and unabashedly this sets out the specific price for each part. It is not I who stand here talking about baby body parts and offending the sensibilities of my colleagues; it is, of course, the organizations that are involved with selling them. What else would we call the liver, 8 weeks; the spleen, 8 weeks; the pancreas, 8 weeks; intestines; mesentery; kidney without adrenal or kidney with adrenal? You can get either one. What would my colleagues call that if it is not a baby body parts list? This issue is not about fetal research. I knew that was going to be the issue my colleague and others would like to sort of cloud this thing with, fetal tissue research, the many benefits that may accrue from that. Anyone can stand up and say this resolution is about increasing the possibility for nuclear war. Anyone can say anything they want. The fact is, it is very clear it is a resolution simply calling for an investigation. If there are no problems, if in fact everybody is operating within the law, as my colleague suggests and hopes, then there is nothing to fear from investigation, and that is all this asks for. It is not legislation correcting or changing anything, but there is certainly evidence that something out there is wrong. Something is amiss. It is not going according to the way people who wrote the 1993 law wanted it to go. This organization was even more exuberant in their advertising when they said, ``Our goal is to offer you and your staff the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications, delivered in the quantities you need and when you need it.'' Now, this is not my stuff, this is not something I am making up, this is from their brochure. It is important at this point to cite the specific language of the Health Revitalization Act which says it is a Federal felony for any person to knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human body parts, or fetal tissue, however one wants to put it. When I looked at this, it was body parts. Mr. Speaker, how much more clearly could we have said it when we wrote the law? We evidently need to do more to get the point across that the trafficking in human body parts is disgusting, dangerous, and completely unacceptable in a society which presumes to call itself civilized. I, therefore, have introduced this resolution, which calls upon the Congress to hold hearings to determine the extent to which this practice is going on and, if necessary, if necessary and only if necessary, to take appropriate steps to end it. Now, the last thing is this GAO report to which my colleague referred. The GAO study actually did come back and say it was not happening; it was not happening in three places, the Colorado Health Sciences Center, Mount Sinai, and the University of South Florida. And they were only looking at one specific aspect of this, they were not looking at private companies, they were not looking at pharmaceutical companies. So it is disingenuous, at least, to say this study sort of exonerates the industry. It was a very narrow study and in those three places it was not happening. In a lot of other places it is.

Mr. TANCREDO. The answer to the gentlewoman's question is, it is the latter.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 353, I announce the following measure to be taken up under suspension of the rules: H.R. 3075, Medicare Addbacks.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, a short time ago I received a communication from an individual in my district, a gentleman who owns a number of small businesses. He is head of something called The Bailey Company in Golden, Colorado. It is an Arby's franchise. He writes: ``Our company opened its first Arby's restaurant in 1968 at the corner of York and Colfax in Denver. Today we own and operate 63 Arby's restaurants in Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Wyoming, including all of the Arby's in the Metro-Denver area.'' He goes on to explain what happened in his business a short time ago, and this I want to bring to the attention of the House and our colleagues in order to explain the problems we are going to face and we do face in small businesses throughout the United States. And these problems will become exacerbated by the actions of OSHA as they have been many times in the past. I want to refer specifically to an event that occurred in Mr. Eagleton's business. ``As an employer of approximately 1,500 people, we are concerned about the proposed OSHA repetitive motion regulations. An employee, Mary, worked at an Arby's restaurant in Jefferson County, Colorado, in 1998. On her first day of work, after 3 hours of light duty wrapping sandwiches in foil, she complained that her wrists hurt. An employee of the Bailey Company filled out a first report of injury and sent her to our designated treatment facility. Mary was diagnosed with repetitive motion injuries. The ensuing series of treatments evolved in a $100,000 Worker's Compensation claim. ``The medical community is split on the legitimacy and causality of these injuries. For instance, athletes do repetitive exercises to strengthen their muscles; yet repetitive motion does not harm them. How does repetitive motion in other circumstances differ in the view of the courts? ``Our position is that the proposed OSHA repetitive motion regulations should not be funded until definitive scientific studies are concluded.'' ``J. Mark Eagleton, Senior Manager/Director of Training and Personnel for The Bailey Company.'' Mr. Speaker, even though what we have just heard here is replicated, unfortunately, far too many times throughout the country, OSHA is nonetheless pushing ahead with its ergonomic study. Even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that repetitive stress injuries are on a decline and have dropped 17 percent over the last 3 years, should we not at least have as much information as possible when developing Government policy? Should we not require Government agencies to use sound scientific information when reaching decisions that will affect our lives? Obviously, this is not the case. Once again, it is the Government- knows-best attitude, an attitude that many Federal bureaucrats have unfortunately. It is an outrage and it should be stopped. In August, the House passed H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act, which prohibits OSHA from implementing the ergonomics regulation until the academy completes its ongoing study slated to be released mid-2001. This is a common-sense step and one which Members of the House and the other body should support.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, in Colorado, we passed several years ago, I think it was 1994, we passed something referred to as the Tabor amendment. It simply says that the government of the State of Colorado cannot spend more than it takes in, nor can it increase taxes by any more than a percentage equivalent of increase in population growth and inflation. That is it. If we take in more money than that formula allows, it must be returned to the people. Now, first of all, during the course of that debate, we heard the same kind of things from the people opposing it as we heard from the people who are worried about this 1 percent savings that we are proposing here, that it could not happen, that government cannot operate under such constraints, that there would, in fact, be people out in the street, there would be people hungry at night, that essentially it would be the end of civilization as we know it. Well, we passed this in 1994. Every single tax increase above that budget cap that is set now in the Constitution allowing growth only for population and inflation, and inflation has been very low, every budget increase at any level, State of Colorado, local districts, special districts, whatever, has to go to a vote of the people. Now, what has happened, the people in their wisdom have accepted some things, have passed some budget increases, and have rejected many others. It was not as if there was a wholesale disregard. No, people understood very well that some aspects of government needed an increase and some did not. But my point is this, that not only did we avoid the dire consequences that were suggested as a possibility if we were to pass such a draconian measure, but the economy has gone wild. Jobs increased tenfold. Every single good thing that could possibly happen in the economy has happened in the State of Colorado. We are paying the price in a way because, of course, now we have the problems with infrastructure catching up to the economy's growth. But those are good problems to have. They are in the exact opposite of the kinds of things that people said would happen if we were to try to constrain ourselves. I assure the American public tonight that if we took 1 percent off of next year's budget, that there would not be the kind of dire consequences that our friends on the left suggest would occur, that we can live within a 99 percent budget. We can do it. Believe it or not, America, it can happen.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a second, once again, I wanted to reiterate something that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) said earlier, and it is so important to remember, that when we are talking about numbers here, people have a tendency to just sort of glaze over and say, ah, it is just numbers. It does not matter. But it does matter. It matters in people's lives. What we do here, the actions we take here, the votes that we cast every day have an impact on what happens in the lives of Americans all over this land. If we can actually slow the growth of Government down, if we can reduce the amount that the Government would have grown in the next 10 years by $2 trillion, by simply holding Social Security sacrosanct, it is more than just a paper accomplishment. It means lives will change. It means that people will be able to buy homes that would never have been able to buy a home because interest rates will go down. It will mean that people will be able to take vacations they never thought they could take. They will be able to leave to their grandchildren and children an estate that is worth something, worth real dollars, because the Government will not confiscate it all in the process. It actually matters when we talk about reducing the size and the scope of Government. They are not just words. They affect the way people live. I want to say, as a freshman, once again, I am proud to be a Member of this Congress. I am proud to join my colleagues here who have done yeoman's work before I ever got here to get us to the point where we are today. I realize I can take very little credit for what we have accomplished. It is a result of the efforts that the gentlemen here, my colleagues, have put forward over these years to get us where we are. I simply want to tell my colleagues that, I mean this from the bottom of my heart, I thank them all for their patriotism, for their love of America, for what they have done for the country.

Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank the gentleman for being as adamant as he has been and prolific in terms of the information he has provided for the American public on this issue. Certainly I should tell the gentleman that I had no input into the decision made by the mayor of Denver to go on that trip and certainly there have been no positive ramifications of that trip, to the extent that I am aware of it, anyway. I am a freshman and have only been here now for about 10 months. There are a lot of things that seem peculiar to me and a lot of things that when I come here and try to go home and then explain to my constituents about what went on and how this debate proceed on various issues, it is sometimes hard for them to understand it. I find myself often in a situation where I will be listening to the debate on this floor or in the committee and there is something about it that just does not ring true. You say to yourself, now, how would this play, how would this debate play out? What if I had to go home and explain this particular debate to the folks back home? And it really, when you think that to yourself while you are sitting there, it has this great effect on you, because it brings you back to reality. I do not know how many times I have said to myself in the last week or so, how would I go home and explain to folks the fact that I did not think that the Federal Government could afford to reduce expenditures by 1 percent? How could I do that? There is a test I have, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is one you have paraphrased in a different way. I say, how would this play in the Arvada Republican Club? This is a group of gentlemen that have been meeting for years and years and years, gentlemen and ladies now, it used to be a men's club for a long time, it is now co-ed. I have been going to that club for 25 years, meeting on Monday mornings, in the Applewood area at a little restaurant. These are great folks, these are salt-of-the-earth-type people, and I think to myself, how would I stand up in front of them and say, ``In order to avoid the possibility of raiding the Social Security trust fund, we have proposed a plan to reduce spending by 1 percent, all agencies, and I think that that would be terrible. I think that that would somehow or other affect the operation of the government.'' How would they respond? I mean, they would look at you and say, ``Are you kidding? What plane did you just land on? Was it the one from Washington?'' Because no one out there, Mr. Speaker, no one out there in the heartland of America thinks for a moment that there is not 1 percent in waste, fraud and abuse. Most people would say that the figure is quite a bit higher than 1 percent, quite a bit more than 1 percent. They are right. It is far more than 1 percent that we could save if we just put our mind to it.

Mr. TANCREDO. The gentleman is certainly correct in that. And, again, it is one of those peculiar things that you run into as a freshman when you end up here and people argue with great fervor against a 1 percent cut. People suggest that it will be the end of civilization as we know it, that people will be thrown out into the streets, people will go hungry if we in fact were to try to reduce this huge budget expenditure by 1 percent. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I wonder sometimes whether or not people really and truly are concerned about the 1 percent cut, or they are worried about the possibility that this could start a trend. What if you could cut 1 percent and nobody could tell the difference? Did you ever think about that?

Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman will yield further, there is a situation that is analogous to this. I was appointed in 1981 as the regional director for the United States Department of Education, and I resigned my position in the legislature in Colorado to take that responsibility. One of the things we were told we had to do was to try to reduce the size and scope of the Department of Education to more accurately reflect its constitutional role. Well, of course, most of us realize that its constitutional role does not exist. There is not a single word in the Constitution about the Federal Government's role in education. But, anyway, we began the process of reducing the size of the department. This was, as I say, September of 1981 when I took over the responsibility in Denver. Region 8, it is responsible for six States, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and the Dakotas. We interact with all of the State departments of education and with school boards all over those six States. There were 222 people employed in the regional office at that time. In the course of about 4 years, because of budget cuts and transfers and a couple of other things, we were able to actually reduce the number of people in that agency, in that region, by 80 percent. We went from 222 to approximately 65, if memory serves. And, you know what? Here is the important point I want to make. After that I would go to each one of those six States, to the chief State school officer and to the State boards of education, and I would say, By the way, have you noticed any difference in the service you get from our office, in the quality of the workload, the output, the quality of our work? Have you noticed any difference? And never once, not just with the State departments of education, I would give this speech all the time and I would say, Has anybody noticed a difference? We had gone down 80 percent and no one knows. That was my point about the 1 percent reduction. The fear is that you could actually reduce the Federal Government by 1 percent, and nobody would know the difference. What would that tell you? What would that tell people who actually want to see the Government expand constantly? It would say to them that we have got a problem here. People recognize it. That is what I often say, when we, ``shut down the Government,'' this happened several times while I was the regional director of the Department of Education. The President of the United States, President Reagan at that time, and the Congress could not come to closure on the issue. We did shut down the Government at least twice, and it may have been three times. And, you know, I keep asking people, could you tell the difference? Did you know that in fact this happened? So the frightening part of this whole thing is that you could do it, and nobody would know the difference. That is what scares some of my colleagues.

Mr. TANCREDO. No one is even suggesting, not even the most ardent supporters of the President's plan or the ardent opponents of the 1 percent cut, have suggested this would mean a shutdown of government. I am saying if you did, and when it has happened, you wonder to yourself, who knows the difference?

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I want to elaborate on the point he has made on how incredibly important it is that we have accomplished something so significant, and it has to be heralded. That is that we have not only been able to do economically what the gentleman has suggested, balance the budget far before we thought we were ever going to be able to, not raid the social security trust fund, but we have done something more important than that, I would suggest. We have actually changed the way people think and talk about the social security fund, trust fund. Before, as the gentleman knows, since 1965, actually, or 1964, it was an accepted practice around here to spend all of the money that came in as a result of social security, FICA taxes, to spend it on government programs, not put it away for social security but spend it on welfare, and spend it, well, not all that much on the military, because that actually went down in the last few years, but spend it on programs. But now we have the other side fighting on our turf. This is an enormous accomplishment. If we can get the people in this country to concentrate on the fact that social security should be held inviolate, that we should never be able to spend social security dollars on anything but social security-related issues and the trust fund itself, we will have changed the course of history in America, because we will have stopped the government from growing by about $2 trillion over 10 years just because of the way people think. If they hold our feet to the fire, if everybody out there says, next time, next Congress, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, if they say, no, no, what are you talking about, spending social security trust fund money on something else; if all of a sudden that catches hold and they stop the Congress from doing that just because of public pressure, and frankly, there is nothing else that can stop us, we all know that, if they can do that, we will have accomplished an incredible thing for our children, our grandchildren, and for America.

Mr. TANCREDO. It is.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, it is truly heartening to hear the discussion today about Social Security; both sides talking about Social Security, both sides talking about saving Social Security, both sides extolling the virtues of holding Social Security sacrosanct. Madam Speaker, that is the first time those words have been heard for the last 40-some years. When the Democrats had control of this place, all that time they spent every single dime of Social Security on programs and today they are here arguing about who is saving more. Well, I do not care which one is right, the fact is we have the argument now on our terms, in our court. The debate is now on our side. How much and who is going to do more to save the Social Security fund is great. It bodes well for America. Because over the next 10 years it will reduce the rate of growth of government by over $2 trillion, if we can keep the debate focused there. Let us not get away from the debate. Remember, saving Social Security is not just good for Social Security, it is good for America.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. I thank my colleague from Michigan. I wanted to just first of all tell him how much I appreciate his efforts as chairman of the committee, the oversight committee that is entrusted with the responsibility of, just as the name implies, overseeing government operations, specifically in the area of education. He has been diligent in that regard, and I just want to commend him for that. This is another example of where people like my colleague can truly make a difference for all Americans, for Americans all over the Nation. As I listened to my colleague's reference to the Secretary of Education and how he responded to the request to reduce expenditures by 1 percent in the next fiscal year, and he said that that would be impossible, it could not be done, that if it happened, it would come off the backs of children, you have to think to yourself, really and truly what goes through someone's mind when they actually have to say something like that, when they know fully well that anyone listening, anyone, except perhaps other Members of the cabinet who have all been given the same script, they all say the same things, they cannot find the 1 percent savings. But what do they think America thinks when they say that? Does anyone out there believe that no one in the government of the United States can find 1 percent savings without hurting the actual people that they are given charge to take care of? I do not want to say take care of. Does anyone believe that cannot happen? And with this happening at the same day, as I say, this is a script everyone must be getting. All members of the cabinet, I am sure, have been told that they have to say there is no savings. Because if there is, if you say yes, there is a 1 percent savings, someone is going to say, you mean you have been presiding over a department that has had waste, fraud, and abuse? So they say no, it is not there. The other day we were talking about this, and the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, said exactly the same thing almost word for word. That is why I say it seemed like it was scripted. What was amazing about that was that at the same time that he was telling the people of the United States that there were no savings in the Department of the Interior, the deputy secretary was in the Committee on Resources telling the committee that they had lost $7 million, almost simultaneously. One guy is up there saying there is nothing, no fraud and abuse, absolutely not, we cannot find a penny around here, while his undersecretary is telling us in the committee, yes, there is $7 million bucks that is gone. I do not know, it has to be around someplace. I am sure we will find it before too long. This is the bizarre nature of Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker. This is the only place where discussions like this can be actually carried on, where people can say things like that.

Mr. TANCREDO. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. In another life I was the regional director for the U.S. Department of Education in Region VIII. I was appointed to that position in 1981. I was charged with the responsibility of trying to reduce the size of the Department to more accurately reflect its responsibility under the Constitution. As the gentleman knows, we can search the Constitution in vain to find some responsibility for the U.S. Department of Education. It is not there. So we set about a task to, as I say, reduce the size. When I came in in September of 1981, there were 222 people, if memory serves me right; here there were 220-some people employed by the U.S. Department of Education in the regional office, Denver, Colorado, Region VIII. That was astounding to me. I had been a teacher before that. I was in the legislature. I was chairman of the education committee. We did not know there was a regional office of the U.S. Department of Education. They had absolutely no contact with real life, 227 some people. It took us about 4 years, and we went through a series of budget cuts and transfers, and we went from 220-some people down to around the mid sixties, 65, an 80 percent cut. I used to go out and speak to each one of the State Departments of Education in the six States for which we had responsibility which had some interaction with the department, and for every single one I would say to them, we have gone down 80 percent in the regional office. Have you been able to tell the difference? No one, no one ever said, oh, yes, I can tell there has been some change in efficiency. No. No. Do Members want to know what else? If we had gone to zero, they still would not have known the difference. This is in a department that claims there is no waste. We went from 222 to 60-something, and nobody knew the difference.

Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, as I understand their response when they were asked about the auditability of the books, they said, well, we cannot do it because, among other things, all of the auditors over the last couple of years keep pulling out. The most recent has pulled out and said, we cannot do it. Am I correct?

Mr. TANCREDO. That is correct.