[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.

                          ____________________