[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1257-H1264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPUBLICAN BUDGET PROPOSAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sherwood). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to be here tonight
to talk to my colleagues as well as people all across America about
what is going to happen in this Chamber tomorrow. This is going to be
another in a series of very important budgets to be presented here
tomorrow that once again we will have the opportunity in this Chamber
to show the American people that we are serious about fiscal
responsibility. Because tomorrow we are once again going to have a
budget that achieves balance. We are not going to spend more money than
we take in.
{time} 2045
In fact, we are going to take in more money than we are going to
spend.
We have heard a lot of conversation here tonight about a surplus.
Well, that surplus means that we have more money on hand than what we
are going to spend, but really, when there is a $5.5 trillion debt that
this country owes we do not really have a real surplus. We only have a
surplus when we finally get to the day when we pay that debt off.
We are going to talk about that tonight and we are going to talk even
more about it tomorrow.
I do want to take just a minute to commend my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who for the last hour have been talking about their
budget. The Blue Dogs are a group of conservatives on that side who do
come forward with a lot of good ideas from time to time. In fact, that
group votes with the conservative majority in this House on a number of
occasions. The problem is that there are only 20 or 25 or 30 of those
folks on that side, somewhere around 10 percent of the total number of
people on the Democratic side of the aisle, and they are simply not
going to carry the day on that side of the aisle.
If they were, if their philosophy were the philosophy that would be
adopted by that side of the aisle, perhaps they would still be in power
over here.
The American public saw through this in 1994, sent a new majority to
Congress who promised to be fiscally conservative and responsible to
the American people and tomorrow we are once again going to be fiscally
responsible.
Their budget is not a totally bad budget because it does several
things that I like. It does address paying down the debt. It does
address providing tax relief to hard-working Americans and at the same
time provides an increase in funding for very valuable programs, some
of which, again, we are going to talk about tonight.
So I look forward to debating with those folks tomorrow and to having
a conversation with them about their ideas and giving us an opportunity
to explain why our ideas are better.
Tomorrow is going to be another very important day in the history of
the House of Representatives because for the last 6 years we have had a
chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from the
great State of Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
[[Page H1258]]
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is not running for reelection.
He is retiring from the House so tomorrow will be the last budget that
he presents on the floor of this House. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) is the author of the balanced budget of 1997. He is the author
of the balanced budget of 1996 and 1995 and each year subsequent to
1997, but 1997 is the critical year because that is the year that we
actually did achieve a balanced budget in this House and we struck an
agreement with the President that has moved this country forward into
this era of having excess cashflow on hand.
Tomorrow we are going to pass another balanced budget in the era of
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), and that balanced budget that we
pass tomorrow is going to provide six critical things to the American
people.
First of all, we are going to protect 100 percent of the Social
Security surplus. Now what that means is that we are going to take
every dime that the American people pay in Social Security taxes and we
are going to put it away to make sure that every single penny of that
money is used for exactly what it is designed to be used for, and that
is for Social Security benefits.
The other side over here talks a lot about, we have to do this and
that with this so-called surplus that they refer to, but the ironic
thing is they were in control of this House prior to 1995 for 42 years.
During that 42 years, we became mired in debt to the tune of almost $5
trillion. During that 42 years, we spent Social Security money year in
and year out to pay our bills. We did not set aside that money for what
it was designed to be used for, and that is to pay Social Security
benefits.
Tomorrow we are once again going to dedicate all of the Social
Security taxes that are sent to Washington for exactly what it is
designed to be used for, and that is to pay Social Security benefits.
This chart that we have up here right now illustrates exactly what I
just said. It starts back in 1985 and shows how much money we used on
an annual basis, and I say we, how much money Congress used to pay our
bills every month that came out of the Social Security trust fund. Here
it is. We reached a high of in excess of $80 billion. It started out in
1985 at somewhere around $10 billion, but look over on the end and look
what happened in 1999, after the new majority came in and put its
balanced budget in place.
What have we done with Social Security taxes? We have started
spending zero of the Social Security tax monies for anything other than
Social Security benefits. 1999 and this year again we will take all of
the Social Security tax money, we will put it into a real Social
Security trust fund and we will use it for nothing other than to pay
Social Security benefits.
The next thing that we are going to do as a part of this budget is
that we are going to strengthen Medicare, including a prescription drug
benefit that is going to be made available to senior citizens. We have
set aside $40 billion in our budget for prescription drugs.
We do not write that prescription drug program. The committees of
jurisdiction will be working on that, and they are going to be able to
draft a prescription drug program that will be of benefit to our senior
citizens for years to come. The $40 billion is going to be provided for
over a 5-year period.
We are going to retire the public debt that has been talked about
here for the last hour by the year 2013.
I have some other colleagues here who are going to talk a little more
specifically about that.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), who is my good friend and I
serve on the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Agriculture
with him, he is a very sincere individual and what he just told us was
that under the Blue Dog budget, which is a much more fiscally
conservative budget than what the Democrats will be proposing tomorrow,
they are going to pay down $85 billion of the public debt over the next
5 years.
Under our budget, over the next 5 years, we are going to pay down $1
trillion of the public debt, $1 trillion.
The next thing we are going to do is we are going to promote tax
fairness for families, farmers and seniors. We have been passing some
tax reduction bills up here over the last month or so that are going to
the heart of what America is all about. We are providing tax relief for
married couples. We are providing tax relief for senior citizens,
encouraging those senior citizens to stay in the workforce, make the
valuable contribution which they are capable of making.
This budget is going to provide money that is going to allow
additional tax fairness opportunities for farmers, families and
seniors.
The next thing we are going to do is we are going to restore
America's defense. Currently, our defense of this country, our national
security, is in a terrible state. It is in a terrible state because we
simply are having to fight every year up here with the White House over
how much money we are going to be able to put into defense.
We are going to be providing tomorrow $17 billion more in defense
spending over what we provided in last year's budget. That money is
going to go into three primary areas. It is going to go in the area of
readiness, going to go in the area of procurement and it is going to go
in the area of quality of life so that we can continue, number one, to
attract the very finest young men and women that this country has to
offer into each branch of our services. We are going to equip them with
the highest technology, from a weapons system perspective, that is
available to mankind. Then again we are going to make sure that they
are the best trained Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy in the
world.
The last thing that we are going to do is we are going to strengthen
the support for education and science. There is no greater asset in
this country than our children, but our children are only able to
contribute based upon the level of education that they have. It is not
as much the amount of money that is put into education. It is where it
is put. Under our budget, we are going to put a little bit more money
in there and we are going to allow flexibility in our education system
to allow more money to go to the State and local level where the rubber
meets the road and the people know what is needed to educate our
children in a better manner than what they are being educated today.
At this time I would like to stop and I would like to recognize my
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for any comments he
might like to make, my fellow Member on the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make a lot of comments because we have
other Members who are going to go into specific detail, but I would
like to make some general comments before that happens to say that when
we started in 1995 to get our country's financial house in order, as
the majority party, we were looking at deficits that were actually
going to increase every year. In 1997, we began to develop a budget
that ultimately turned our deficits into surpluses. We tried earlier
but the President kept vetoing it. We finally had an agreement. We were
moving closer towards eliminating those deficits but by 1998 that
budget, for the first time since 1968, we had more money coming into
the Federal Government than going out. Last year, in 1999, for the
first year since 1960, we were not spending the Social Security
reserves.
In the next 10 years, we estimate there is going to be $4 trillion of
surplus revenues, $4 trillion. Two trillion of those dollars are being
walled off for Social Security because that is what they are. We are
going to set them off, and I know my colleague is going to talk about
that. The exciting thing is that is going to be there for debt
reduction. So we have $2 trillion left.
Basically, the President and too many of our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle want to take that $2 trillion that is left and spend
it.
What we know is we need to do more debt reduction and we know that we
need to have a tax cut. People are going to be saying, well, a tax cut
is only going to the wealthy. No, it is going to the people who pay
taxes. The people who pay taxes are going to benefit from the tax cut.
Two years ago we attempted to have a tax cut that would be
comprehensive and something that we clearly could afford, and it
included a number of items. This year we separated them.
[[Page H1259]]
The first tax cut that we moved forward with was the marriage penalty
tax, and the logic behind the marriage penalty tax was why should a
couple that then gets married pay $1,400 more? That passed this Chamber
by a fairly overwhelming majority, with a number of our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle joining us.
The second tax cut that we moved forward with was the penalty tax on
Social Security. Why should someone who has earned Social Security, who
makes more than $17,000, for every three dollars lose a dollar in
Social Security? Obviously they should not, and we brought forward this
legislation that passed with a wide margin on both sides of the aisle
after our colleagues on the other side of the aisle had criticized this
proposal for years, and it passed by all the members of the Senate just
recently.
So I would just like to conclude by saying over the last 6 years we
have gotten our country's financial house in order. We have balanced
the Federal budget. We are having surpluses. Now we are managing those
surpluses. We are not spending any of the Social Security trust fund
money. We have walled it off. We are paying back debt. We are going to
have significant but meaningful tax cuts, and we are going to set aside
in the next 5 years $200 billion for tax cuts. They will be targeted
tax cuts that deal with fairness, enabling people to buy health
insurance; enabling people to have retirement funds and set aside more
money for their retirement; enabling people to not pay the penalty on
the marriage when they get married; and enabling Social Security
workers to continue to work.
With the details of many of our proposals, I would like to
acknowledge the presence of my colleague from New Hampshire (Mr.
Sununu), who has really been a leader in so much of this and really was
there in the beginning when we started this process.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) would yield, I would say that while I appreciate the
comments of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I cannot say I
was here at the beginning of this process because, as he pointed out,
it really began in 1995 with the change in majority control of this
body.
I think more than any other issue, Democrats lost control of Congress
and Republicans took control of Congress on the fundamental commitment
to change the way we look at this country's finances, to balance the
Federal budget, to balance it in 7 years and to do it while cutting
taxes. Critics at the time, the other side of the aisle at the time,
said that is simply impossible; it cannot be done; it is a political
gimmick; this is just a bunch of rhetoric.
The Republican majority demonstrated over the next 2 years that they
were serious, they were committed to this goal no matter how difficult
at times some of the choices may have appeared. They put forward a
balanced budget. They put forward a balanced budget that even included
tax relief. The President vetoed that program but the American people
spoke loud and clear over the ensuring 2 years, resoundingly supporting
the goal of balancing the budget and in 1996 we had a Democrat
President agree with a Republican-controlled Congress that we should
and could balance the budget, and we should and could do it while
cutting taxes. That was really the beginning of an enormous change in
the way this country does its books.
We passed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997 and we saw the first
unified balanced budget in 1998, and even then the critics said, well,
yes the budget has been balanced but Social Security is still being
borrowed from.
{time} 2100
And it was last year that, again, the Republicans lead on this issue
by stating clearly and unequivocally we are going to balance the budget
without using Social Security. And, again, the President said it cannot
be done.
And here is an outline of exactly where the President was just 1 year
ago; here is his budget. It sets aside 62 percent of the Social
Security surplus, spent almost 40 percent of the Social Security Trust
Fund surplus. The Republican budget, by contrast, said, no, Mr.
President, that is wrong. We should set aside every penny of the Social
Security surplus.
And in point of fact, there was another important turning point when,
again, last year in the budget debate the President quite literally
changed his mind. He agreed with the Republican Congress that we could
and should set aside every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund
surplus, and that lead to really another historic achievement, the
Republican-lead Congress passing legislation that balanced the budget
without using Social Security for the first time in 40 years.
Even during the budget debate last year, though, the critics still
said no, it cannot be done. It will not happen. They said we were using
certain projections; we were using estimates. The simple fact is, of
course, we were and we are. We are putting together a budget that is
trying to look forward 5 years. We are making estimates about revenue
growth, estimates about how we will spend on Medicare and Social
Security. We are trying to make the best possible projections.
We have estimated less than 3 percent economic growth. I think that
is realistic. Obviously, only time will tell. If we continue on the
path that we began, first in 1995, and again with this historic
achievement last year, then the economy will be better, the American
people will be better off, and better off for a few fundamental
reasons.
My colleague from Georgia pointed out that we have begun not just
balancing the budget without Social Security, we actually have begun
paying down debt. This graph gives a very clear picture of how that
process started, when it started, and where we are today. In 1998,
paying back over $50 billion in the public debt; 1999, over $80
billion; and this current fiscal year, 2000, we will top $150 billion
in debt repayment. Finally, with the budget we are working on now, we
will take the 4-year total and a reduction in the public debt to over
$450 billion.
This is what those on the other side of the aisle might call fiscally
irresponsible, but I think it is not just a step in the right
direction, it is the fundamentally correct fiscal policy for the
country at this particular time. Because by paying down this debt, we
are doing an enormous favor to working families all across the country.
We are helping to keep interest rates low. When interest rates are
lower, the cost of a home mortgage is lower, the cost of a college loan
or automobile loan is lower, working capital loan for a small business,
all of those costs are lower. Over the life of a $100,000 home
mortgage, that can mean $20,000 or $30,000 to a family, and that is
money they do not have to send to Washington and hope that we return to
them. It stays in their pocket. They can invest in their family's
quality of life, their children's education or health care, or save it
for a rainy day.
So we have begun the process of paying down debt. And with this
Republican budget that we will be debating on the floor tomorrow, it
will pay down over $170 billion in debt. Now, we could cut spending
further and pay down a little bit more in debt, but that is, obviously,
a difficult task, to a certain extent, when we have such a sharply
divided House of Representatives. We could decide not to return any
money to working families and try to pay down a little more debt, but
at the same time, I think it is important that we remember where that
money came from.
Moreover, I think we should pass tax relief, not because of a
particular number, whether it is $4 billion or $8 billion or $10
billion, we should pass tax relief because it is the right thing to do.
It is the right thing to eliminate the marriage penalty so a couple
does not have to pay more in taxes just because they choose to get
married.
It is the right thing to give individuals health insurance
deductibility. And my colleagues will talk a little more about the tax
relief provisions dealing with education or retirement security,
getting rid of the Social Security earnings limit. It is not a question
of whether or not we have the exact right-on budget surplus, or some
technical lingo to justify giving American taxpayers back their own
money, it is a question of whether or not it is the right thing to do.
And I fundamentally believe it is.
Who would have believed back in 1995 that we would be paying down
this much debt? Who would have believed
[[Page H1260]]
back in 1995 that we would have set in motion a path not just to
continue to retire debt but to pay off the entire national debt in
2013? Over the next 5 years, we are going to pay off over a trillion
dollars in public debt, and, again, pay off the entire $3.6 trillion
public debt by 2013.
Now, someone could say, well, how do we know it will be 2013?
Granted, this is a projection based on the budget we are putting
together that looks forward 5 years, but it is realistic. It is based
on an average level of economic growth that we have seen over the past
5 or 10 years.
It is based on the spending projections that we have tried to put
together over the next 5 years that invest in things like the national
security, increase funding for Veterans health care and the National
Institutes of Health as well.
I think it is realistic, but whether or not we pay off the debt by
2013 or 2012 or 2015, I think what is most important is that we have
the public debt being reduced. It is headed in the right direction. I
view it like a home mortgage. You certainly do not try to pay off your
home mortgage in one fell swoop simply because you might have a
Christmas bonus or get a raise at work, but what you do is make every
effort to achieve a constant payment against that home mortgage so you
are reducing the size of the mortgage, increasing the equity and the
home that you might own and, obviously, keeping your fiscal house in
order so that your family, your children, might feel more and more
secure at home. I think that is fiscally responsible.
This is something we are able to achieve with historic tax relief in
this budget. I think it is something that we can be proud of, which is
exactly why this budget will pass this House and pass the Senate and
set us on the right path for the fiscal year.
I would like to yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman is speaking about
paying down the public debt, the gentleman might just remind the
American people what we have done over the last 3 years, or what we are
doing, including this year, with respect to paying down the public
debt.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, in 1998, when we balanced the unified budget
for the first time, we paid off over $50 billion in debt. In 1999, we
took that to over $80 billion in debt retirement. This year, fiscal
year 2000, over $150 billion. The 4-year total, including the budget we
are going to be debating on the Floor here tomorrow, is over $450
billion in debt relief.
The budget that we will have on the floor, which covers the years
2001 through 2005, will have over $1 trillion in debt relief, even
taking into consideration the $40 billion that we have set aside for
Medicare reforms and prescription drug coverage, even taking into
consideration the elimination of the marriage penalty, the health
insurance deductibility for individuals, the small business tax relief
package that has already passed this House. Taking into consideration
all of those measures, we are going to pay down over a trillion dollars
in debt in the next 5 years.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I appreciate the gentleman's comments on reducing the public
debt. I am a new Member of Congress. When I ran for Congress last year,
I asked people what they wanted to see Congress do above all else? They
said balance the budget, pay off our debt and stop raiding the Social
Security Trust Fund.
For many years, this institution has been taking money out of the
Social Security Trust Fund and spending it on other government
programs. Both parties can be to blame for this. Over the last 30
years, we have taken over $800 billion out of Social Security to spend
in other government programs that have nothing to do with Social
Security.
When you are working hard, paycheck to paycheck, seeing those FICA
taxes coming out of your paycheck, just remember for the last 30 years
a lot of that money has been going to spend on other things other than
Medicare and Social Security. For the first time in 30 years, last
year, this Congress actually stopped the raid on Social Security.
One thing that I want to talk about is the fact that, and as my
colleague from New Hampshire pointed out, Congress has been doing this
for so long. Last year, 1999, that was the first year that Congress
actually passed a budget that did not take any money out of Social
Security and they put that money back into Social Security and into
paying off our national debt.
This year, Congress has stopped the raid on Social Security. It is
putting that money back into the Social Security Trust Fund and paying
off the national debt with that money. What we will be trying to
achieve with this new budget that we are passing are four key
objectives:
First, continue to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund.
Second, pay down our national debt.
Third, modernize our Medicare programs so that Medicare, which is a
law written in 1965, actually corresponds with the year 2000 health
care. Where I come from, in the State of Wisconsin, we can do a lot
better in Medicare. Some States get great Medicare rates, and I am
happy for those States, but not all states, and especially Wisconsin.
So we are going to fix the problems we have with Medicare.
Fourth, if people are still overpaying their taxes, give them their
money back.
What we are going to be hearing tomorrow on the floor as we debate
these budgets is basically a key debate over these priorities. I think
it goes very much to the point of a difference in philosophy that
exists between the two parties and between the budget objectives we are
going to be hearing debated tomorrow.
I think the philosophy was really portrayed quite well by President
Clinton a year ago when he was addressing an audience in Buffalo, New
York. Last year, there was about 35,000 people he was speaking to in
Buffalo, New York. He said, with respect to all of the government
surpluses, which are people overpaying their income taxes and people
overpaying their Social Security taxes, he said, and I quote, ``We
could give you your money back, but we wouldn't be sure that you would
spend it right.''
Well, therein lies the difference in philosophy. Your money is spent
correctly so long as we decide how to spend it. That is the difference
in philosophy we have. The President last year gave us a budget that
said, let us continue raiding Social Security, as this chart next to me
says, let us take 38 percent out of the Social Security Trust Fund to
spend on the creation of 120 brand new Federal government programs.
There is not enough money coming into Washington that we can ever send
money back to the people.
We countered with a different proposal, we said, for once, we have to
stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and put 100 percent of the
Social Security surplus back into Social Security. We have got to get a
handle on paying off our national debt. We have been doing that, $450
billion over the last 4 years under this new majority's leadership. We
have been paying off on the national debt.
If people are still overpaying their taxes, after we have stopped the
raid on Social Security, after we have our debt going down to where, if
our plan is enacted, we will pay off the public debt entirely within 12
years, as fast as we can do it, and if people are still overpaying
their taxes, give them their money back by making the Tax Code simpler,
by making the Tax Code fairer.
How are we trying to accomplish this? After stopping the raid on
Social Security, after paying off our public debt, we are eliminating
the Marriage Tax Penalty; we are eliminating the tax on the earnings
limit for Social Security; we are making the Tax Code fairer. We are
trying to tell working Americans that their work will pay off; that
when they work more and they provide more for their family and they
overpay their taxes, we will want them to keep some of their own money.
We want them to have more of their own paycheck, because there is a
limit to how much Washington will take out of their paycheck. That is a
clear philosophical difference between the President's vision and the
congressional majority's vision. Nowhere can this be more clear than
taking a look at the
[[Page H1261]]
family's budget, taking a look at how much money the government has
been taking out of their paycheck.
For years, we have been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. For
years, we have been piling on the mountain of debt that is facing our
children. Now, we are finally getting a handle on these core
challenges, giving families more of their own money after they overpay
their taxes, paying off our national debt, completely paying off our
public debt in 12 years. And for once, if an individual pays their
Social Security taxes, it is actually going to go to Social Security
and not to other government programs.
There is another issue I want to talk about, and I know the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) is going to be joining us shortly on this,
and that is Medicare.
{time} 2115
The President has proposed some changes to Medicare lately, and I
think those are worth talking about. This budget we are going to be
talking about tomorrow proposes some changes to Medicare as well. There
are big differences between what the President is proposing in Medicare
and what this Congress is proposing in Medicare.
If my colleagues recall, last November we passed a Medicare bill
which put $15 billion back into the Medicare trust fund, back into the
Medicare network, because we noticed, after countless town hall
meetings, after countless tours of the hospitals, of the skilled
nursing facilities, of the home health agencies, we noticed that
Medicare was suffering and we had to fix some problems in the Medicare
network. So we put $15 billion back into the Medicare situation to help
those States that were hit the hardest, States like Kentucky, States
like Georgia, States like Wisconsin.
Well, this year the President, who signed that law in November said,
sorry, let us cut that money back out. Let us actually cut Medicare by
$16 billion this year to the same accounts, to the same people: the
skilled nursing facilities, the home health agencies, the hospitals,
the Medicare patients and the Medicare Plus Choice plan itself; the
same people we just helped in November he wants to cut right now. On
top of that, the President has a prescription drug plan, a prescription
drug plan which does not means test, which pays for Ross Perot's
prescription drugs and a prescription drug plan which puts the
government at the nucleus of the pharmaceutical industries. Basically,
the Federal Government telling doctors what they can and cannot
prescribe to their patients.
Well, I hope that my family, my mother, my stepfather who are on
Medicare right now, if they are in trouble, if they have some health
problems on Medicare, I want to make sure that their doctor has the
freedom to prescribe whatever he or she thinks is best for them, not
what a government bureaucrat says is best for them.
So as we reform Medicare, as we are proposing to do with this budget,
we must reform it by making sure that the doctor has the choice of what
to prescribe to our parents, what to prescribe to our Medicare
patients. We have to make sure that when we add prescription drugs to
Medicare, we do it in a way that makes sure that we do not eliminate
all of the research and development that is currently being invested in
our pharmaceutical industries; make sure that the doctor chooses the
drugs, make sure that the centerpiece of our Medicare universe is the
patient, not the government.
Well, the President has a different vision: cut Medicare further,
raise taxes, raise premiums on beneficiaries, and have a prescription
drug plan which does not take care of catastrophic problems and gives
drugs to everyone, regardless of one's income, whether one is a
multimillionaire or a billionaire.
Now, these are just different principles, different philosophies. But
the budget that we are trying to pass tomorrow is the vision we have
for the country, which is to take care and address the challenges we
have facing us; namely, a national debt that we have to deal with. We
have, for the last 4 years, begun to pay that off; $450 billion, as my
colleague from New Hampshire just mentioned. Tomorrow we are going to
bring a budget to the floor that makes that look like small potatoes.
We are going to bring a budget to the floor that over the next 5 years
pays $1 trillion off of our national debt. Tomorrow, we are going to
bring a budget to the floor that completely stops the raid on Social
Security, that calls for the passage of legislation which I am actually
a coauthor of, Social Security lockbox legislation which says no
longer, never again can the Congress and the President go back to the
days of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
We believe that we have to say that there is an end to the days of
raiding Social Security, so we are going to back it up with a law that
prohibits the Federal Government from going back and dipping into that
Social Security Trust Fund. Then, if one continues to overpay one's
taxes, as people are going to be doing, as we see this money coming
into Washington, because the President wants to create new government
spending programs. Specifically, in this year's budget, he called for
creating over 80 new Federal Government spending programs from income
tax overpayments. We are saying no to that, yes to paying off debt, yes
to stopping the raid on Social Security, and yes to letting people keep
their money if they still overpay their taxes by making our Tax Code
much fairer, much more simpler.
With that, I would like to have a dialogue with my friend, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). I know he has been such a
champion on health care issues. I appreciate the gentleman's
participation in this debate. He has done so much on the Committee on
the Budget for Medicare. I applaud him for the measurements he has
passed, for the leadership and insight he has given us on Medicare. I
know the gentleman wants to talk about the Medicare reforms.
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman has covered a lot
of these areas very well.
It is my understanding, and I would ask the gentleman, but if we took
how much the President spends over the next 5 years really on his
prescription drug plan and Medicare, it is only about $28 million, and
how does that compare to what we are doing in this budget?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, if we look at the President's
budget, he is saying let us spend $28 billion in Medicare for
prescription drugs, but that is only over 2 years. In the year 2003, in
the year 2004 and in the year 2005, he spends zero money on Medicare.
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman means he has no benefits
for anyone over the next several years?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, that is right; $28 billion over
the next 3 years and then zero after that.
What our budget does is spend $40 billion of hard cash, $40 billion
over the next 5 years, for prescription drugs for Medicare and for
reforms for the Medicare system itself.
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I think what the gentleman points out is
very true. The President cut Medicare or proposed to cut Medicare by
$16 billion. What I am seeing as I travel across my district, as I have
held a number of town hall meetings, is that right now we have
hospitals that are operating in the red, rural hospitals that provide
that local care that is needed, to where if there is an emergency, a
stroke, for example, it is very important to get there immediately, yet
we have rural hospitals that possibly will have to close because of the
cuts that this administration has already done through HCFA and these
further cuts that they are talking about.
Then the President is also talking about raising taxes and fees, and
some of those fees are to some of these providers. I read recently and
what we hear is that now some of the providers and physicians are
beginning to drop out of Medicare and they are beginning to drop out of
Medicare because of the cuts, as well as the administrative
difficulties of dealing with this administration have become so complex
that they are saying we can no longer provide the care. What is this
going to do for our senior citizens? When we start operating a hospital
or nursing home, a long-term care facility and we really have to cut
back on the number of nurses that we have that are caring for those
patients, it is going to have a tremendous impact on the health care
[[Page H1262]]
and the quality of health care that we can provide for our senior
citizens.
I think it is very important to point out that as I was out traveling
across the district, we compared the President's prescription drug
plans with a plan that focuses on those that are the most needy. Now,
this $40 billion that we have set aside would really allow us to focus
on a prescription drug plan that really addresses those that are in
need without, as the gentleman has said, providing benefits for the
Ross Perots of the world that really do not need this benefit.
Madam Speaker, can my colleagues imagine having a school teacher or a
brick layer paying taxes so that they can buy drug benefits for Ross
Perot. That makes no sense at all. Yet, I have had patients that have
come into my office and they have not been able to afford their
prescription drugs because they are living on maybe just Social
Security, maybe $600 or $700 a month, and they have a $30 to $100
prescription drug bill a month, and how are they going to pay for that.
It is a difference between am I going to buy food and clothing or am I
going to buy this prescription drug. Oftentimes they do not buy the
prescription drug. Their hypertension goes untreated or their heart
disease goes untreated and they have complications that they really did
not have to have, so that our families and our senior citizens suffer
because of that.
So we have proposed, let us set aside this $40 billion, and this
money starts immediately. It does not start down the road. Also, as we
look at the President's plan, the cost escalates tremendously. He
projects it as only $28 billion over the next 5 years and the reason is
because he does not give any benefit for the last couple of years. But
then, if we look at the projections to his costs, they rise
tremendously because he is covering those very wealthy or those folks
that do not need it.
Yet, if we target it toward those in need and then we look at those
that have high costs, those that have very high-cost medications that
cannot afford it and if we have it targeted toward those truly in need,
then I think we have a benefit that does not wreck Medicare and it is
something that is fiscally responsible, and it also targets the people
that need it the most.
I am very encouraged by what we have done, and I think that it really
has taken the Republican Congress to focus, and to first get our House
in order to make sure that we balance the budget, that we have this
surplus that we can pay down the debt so that we eliminate the debt,
the publicly-held debt that we are leaving to our children, and now we
can start working and providing the kind of health care benefits that
are needed in this country.
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit too about when we
are talking about health care and what we have done, we have to get
back to basic research, because I think it is very important to look,
and we can see here on this chart that deals with NIH funding. If we
look at this, actually, over the last 5 years, there was a real effort
made when the Republicans took control of this Congress to say, we are
going to try to double the funding on basic research, National
Institutes of Health research. What we see is that we have continually
funded NIH, science, basic research, well above what this
administration and the Clinton-Gore and Democrats have proposed.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, did the gentleman just say that
the Republican Congress has actually put more of a commitment toward
basic health research than the President's administration has?
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, there is no question. This chart I think
really shows that clearly. This blue line represents what the
Republicans have put in compared to what the administration, the
Democrats want to, and we can see that every year it is more. Now, this
year, finally, we have convinced the administration to come up with the
same level, but we have increased the funding this year by $1 billion
to basic research.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman is a
physician. Could the gentleman just explain what kind of things we are
funding with this kind of basic research? What kinds of diseases are we
attempting to cure? What kinds of institutions is this money going
toward?
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman asked that,
because when we look at the quality health care we have in this
country, it really derives from our basic research. A number of years
ago, and the gentleman may remember back when JFK said he wanted to put
a man on the moon and had a goal of doing that. Well, we have many
diseases that NIH is funding and diseases like the gentleman has
mentioned, like cancer. There are several cancers that we really have
cures for now, but there are many that we do not, and this increased
funding will go toward finding cures for the different types of cancer
that we have. If anyone has been affected by that in the family, they
know what a tragedy it is to have someone struck down in the prime of
their life or even in their later years with cancer and how devastating
that disease can be. I will tell the gentleman, there is probably not
any greater impact that we could have in this country than to find a
cure for those diseases. This is exactly where it will come from, as we
begin to fund more basic research to find the causes of cancer and the
cures.
There are other things like disease which is obviously very
important. Madam Speaker, 24 percent of our Medicare budget goes toward
treating diabetes and the complications of diabetes. It is one of the
largest reasons for kidney failure in the country. It is one of the
largest reasons that we have in blindness. I think we are close. I do
not know how far away, but we are close because of the funding we have
of being able to find some real breakthroughs in diabetes. But we
continue to raise the funding for diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. How
many people have seen the tragedy of that. We think of even Ronald
Reagan and the tragedy that Alzheimer's has caused in our country.
So these are the kinds of programs that it funds. When we look at the
consequence and the benefits, how much we will get a return on this
investment, how much more we have put in than the Democrats, then we
really understand the difference in priorities that we have.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I
think he just hit the nail right on the head, and that is priorities.
It is very important that people who look at these budgets see that
it is a series of priorities, what we are trying to achieve in this
budget. We hear all the time: I did not think the Republicans ever
wanted to put more money into government programs than the Democrats.
We hear that kind of thing all the time. It is all about priorities.
The priorities we believe so fundamentally in is the proper role of the
Federal Government, and one of the most important and proper roles of
the Federal Government is in the funding of basic research, basic
research to improve the health and welfare of our people.
One of the things that we have to tackle is all of these diseases
that are plaguing our society. Heart disease is something that affects
my own family. My father passed away by a heart attack, so did my
grandfather. Personally I very much would like to see a breakthrough in
heart disease research. Cancer is something that has hit our families.
I know it has for so many people. We are getting close to breakthroughs
in cancer research. These are important things the Federal Government
can do to improve the lives of millions of Americans. Alzheimer's, all
of these things are hard commitments that the Republican Party has
made. More importantly, it is not about Republicans or Democrats, it is
about doing what is right.
The budget that we are bringing to the floor tomorrow is a
continuation on the priorities that we have established here in
Congress with these budgets: funding basic research to try and find
breakthrough cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes,
stopping the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund so that when one
pays their Social Security taxes, it actually goes back to Social
Security.
{time} 2130
We have priorities such as fixing our Medicare program, making sure
that Medicare is corresponding with the year 2000 medicine, paying off
our national debt, paying off our public debt
[[Page H1263]]
in 12 years' time, a trillion dollars over the next 5 years.
If people still overpay their taxes after we reach these priorities,
we are going to give them their money back by making the Tax Code
fairer and simpler. That is basically the priorities that we are
seeking to establish with this budget.
The President has vastly different priorities: raiding Social
Security, increasing debt, less of a commitment to health research, and
new Federal Government programs, 80 new programs this year alone that
he is calling for.
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia will
yield, let me say in conclusion that this increase in funding that is
going to have a tremendous impact on finding breakthroughs and cures,
as the gentleman said, only came about because we looked back a number
of years; and we had deficits in the $200 billion range. Now we are
going to be paying off $170 billion of the publicly held debt this next
year.
But the only reason we can put and continue to put money in basic
research is because of the fact that we have not started all the new
programs that the President asked for, that he wanted to spend more
money on more programs and bigger government.
We have restrained the growth of government. But we have emphasized
those priorities that are very important. We are doing a better job of
doing what government is supposed to do and not spending money and
wasting it on a lot of programs that have been proven to be
ineffective.
So I am very encouraged that we are spending it in Medicare and
targeted prescription drugs where it is needed, basic research, and
that we are still able to pay down the debt, provide some tax fairness
and relief.
I think we have got an outstanding budget. I do hope my colleagues on
the other side will find their way to support this budget.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam Speaker, as we wind down on our time here, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Fletcher) is like me, they come from an area that is rich in
agriculture.
There is one thing in this budget that I want to make sure we point
out to all our friends in ag country. Ever since I have been here, for
the last 6 years, one of my passions has been to try to reform our crop
insurance program. We know, coming from ag country, that the current
crop insurance program we have is a disaster.
Well, last year in this House, we passed a historic crop insurance
reform package. I am told that tomorrow the Senate takes up their crop
insurance reform package, and we are going to be going to conference
very quickly.
The really good thing about this budget is that last year we put some
$6 billion into our budget for crop insurance reform. This year, over
the next 5 years, we plussed that up to $7.4 billion.
So we are going to be able to provide our farmers with a real risk
management tool that is going to take the decision out of the hands of
the government when it comes to crop insurance and put that decision
into our farmers' hands finally and will allow our folks to manage
their own crop insurance and give them the flexibility of deciding what
they are going to insure and how they are going to insure it, the same
way they insure their car and their home. There is going to be one more
tremendous asset that we are going to be able to deliver to our
farmers.
I am excited about this budget. It does any number of things that are
going to benefit every single American. We are going to provide real
meaningful tax relief. We are going to continue to save and protect
Social Security and Medicare. We are going to continue to provide
research dollars to improve the health care of every single American.
We are going to improve the national security of this country.
This is the commitment that Republicans have made to the American
people. Once again, we are going to live up to the commitment that we
have continued to make.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has joined
us here. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss)
shares the same concerns I have and is very instrumental in trying to
achieve some meaningful reform in the area of crop insurance.
I just want to say, too, and echo some of the things my colleagues
have said here this evening in terms of this budget and what it
accomplishes and the statements that it makes as far as what our
priorities are and the people that we want to try and help.
I think, again, this makes a strong statement that we are going to
support our producers in this country. The dollars that have been put
in here for crop insurance, the dollars that are set aside for
emergency assistance again this year is an important statement I think
to our farmers and ranchers across this country and many of whom were
in town here earlier this week to talk about the plight of rural
America.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the good doctor, also
well acquainted with the health care and the issues that affect a lot
of our rural hospitals and the changes that are being proposed in the
area of Medicare reform have been significant in terms of the last few
years and what we have been able to accomplish and what we did last
year in assisting rural hospitals and home health care agencies and
skilled nursing facilities and others, trying to restore some of the
savings that have been achieved as a result of the balanced budget
agreement of a couple of years ago.
But in my area of the country, in rural areas of the country, we have
not participated to the same extent in this great economy that we have
had the last few years. Rural areas are suffering, our farmers and our
ranchers, our seniors, the populations that predominate where I come
from, the State of South Dakota.
This is a budget which recognizes those needs which attempts to
address the concerns that our constituents have in the area of
prescription drugs, which is a pocketbook issue. It strikes very hard.
We want to make sure that those low-income seniors who do not have some
form of coverage, that we craft something as a percent of this budget
process that will address that need that is out there.
Paying down the debt. What is more important to the future of our
children? Also, the commitment that we make in the area of education.
If we look at this budget and what it accomplishes, the priorities
that it sets, farmers, seniors, our children, our military, restoring
and strengthening America's defenses, paying down public debt, dealing
with the issue of prescription drugs, locking up the Social Security
surplus, there are so many positives in this budget.
This is going to be a tough vote tomorrow because our friends on the
other side who are more interested in adopting the President's budget,
which included higher taxes, more government programs, 84 new programs,
and 200 billion plus in new fees and taxes, is a very different
approach. It is a statement of their priorities.
This budget that we vote on tomorrow and hopefully adopt is a
statement of our priorities. It talks about the things that we think
are important. We do believe in America's families. We have got to do
better by our children in the area of education as well as ensuring
that they are not saddled with a burden of debt that has been piled on
by generations of poor spending habits here in Washington.
So I appreciate the work that has been done in the Committee on
Budget, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the hard work that
has been done in the area of crop insurance to ensure that we have
funding in there for our farmers and our ranchers for obviously the
very difficult times they have had in the last several years with low
prices and weather-related disasters. I certainly, in my part of the
country, know firsthand what that is like.
This is a budget which addresses those needs, which I think is a
statement, a reflection, frankly, of our priorities and where we think
we ought to be moving and from a public policy standpoint in the
future.
So I appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Fletcher) as well and the expertise that he brings in the area of
health care in helping us craft policies that make sense for a Medicare
program that serves the populations that need it, and that is
responsible to taxpayers,
[[Page H1264]]
that makes those needed reforms to make it viable into the future, and
addresses that much needed concern out there, an issue, again, which is
very important in South Dakota and I am sure in the gentlemen's
districts as well, dealing with prescription drugs and what we might be
able to do.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota
(Mr. Thune) for his comments and his strong leadership, particularly in
the area of agriculture where we work so closely together.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher)
to wrap it up. I know he has a couple points he wants to close with.
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, this budget, as we have heard and been
able to speak about tonight I think is really the work, and I have to
give the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) certainly a lot of
credit for all the work he has done to work and even get an agreement
with the Senate. We begin to work with an agreement with them. It is
the culmination of that to making sure we save 100 percent of the
Social Security, that we strengthen Medicare, that we set aside $40
billion.
Because we believe that, now that we have saved the money, the
taxpayers' money, that we have actually the revenue now to strengthen
Medicare and to improve it with the Medicare prescription drugs we
talked about, pay down the debt by 2013, promote taxes that are fair,
and restore American defense and education.
We have passed several bills that have given back more local control,
give 95 percent of the dollars back in the classroom, increase our
funding for IDEA, those individuals with disability, continue to
provide more resources back to the classroom with local flexibility and
control.
Lastly, and I appreciate the opportunity to close, is that I sat here
2 years ago and listened to the President's speech, and he talked about
family farms. He talked about wanting to support the family farms. I
tell my colleagues our farmers are really hurting back in Kentucky. I
know that the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) mentioned that.
We have got a problem. We have had it. The administration, the
Clinton-Gore administration has certainly come after our burly growers.
I understand why they have done that. We all are concerned about
smoking and the health care interest of our youth. But they have
provided absolutely no relief for our farmers back home. We have seen a
65 percent reduction in their incomes.
I am glad, with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) here, that
we were able to put the $7 billion or so, $6 billion last year, that we
can certainly increase crop insurance, that we have been able to, even
with some supplemental payments, we were able to bring back $125
million this year back to Kentucky alone to help our farmers.
As we look at this budget, I think it covers the full gamut. I think
we have got an outstanding budget. I am just very happy and pleased to
join my colleagues to say that this can strengthen our family farms,
our education, for our senior citizens, and really provide a brighter
future for our children. So I am very pleased to be here tonight to
participate in this discussion on our budget.
____________________