[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4701-H4708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1330
DEBT REDUCTION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4601) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section
213(c) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001
to reduce the public debt and to decrease the statutory limit on the
public debt, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4601
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Debt Reduction
Reconciliation Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) fiscal discipline, resulting from the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997, and strong economic growth have ended decades of
deficit spending and have produced budget surpluses without
using the social security surplus;
(2) fiscal pressures will mount in the future as the aging
of the population increases budget obligations;
(3) until Congress and the President agree to legislation
that strengthens social security, the social security surplus
should be used to reduce the debt held by the public;
(4) strengthening the Government's fiscal position through
public debt reduction increases national savings, promotes
economic growth, reduces interest costs, and is a
constructive way to prepare for the Government's future
budget obligations; and
(5) it is fiscally responsible and in the long-term
national economic interest to use an additional portion of
the nonsocial security surplus to reduce the debt held by the
public.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) reduce the debt held by the public with the goal of
eliminating this debt by 2013; and
(2) decrease the statutory limit on the public debt.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT
ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 31 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3114. Public debt reduction payment account
``(a) There is established in the Treasury of the United
States an account to be known as
[[Page H4702]]
the Public Debt Reduction Payment Account (hereinafter in
this section referred to as the `account').
``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall use amounts in
the account to pay at maturity, or to redeem or buy before
maturity, any obligation of the Government held by the public
and included in the public debt. Any obligation which is
paid, redeemed, or bought with amounts from the account shall
be canceled and retired and may not be reissued. Amounts
deposited in the account are appropriated and may only be
expended to carry out this section.
``(c) If the Congressional Budget Office estimates an on-
budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 in the report submitted
pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 in excess of the amount of the surplus set forth for
that fiscal year in section 101(4) of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 (House
Concurrent Resolution 290, 106th Congress), then there is
hereby appropriated into the account on the later of the date
of enactment of this Act or the date upon which the
Congressional Budget Office submits such report, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, an amount equal to
that excess. The funds appropriated to this account shall
remain available until expended.
``(d) The appropriation made under subsection (c) shall not
be considered direct spending for purposes of section 252 of
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``(e) Establishment of and appropriations to the account
shall not affect trust fund transfers that may be authorized
under any other provision of law.
``(f) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall each take such actions
as may be necessary to promptly carry out this section in
accordance with sound debt management policies.
``(g) Reducing the debt pursuant to this section shall not
interfere with the debt management policies or goals of the
Secretary of the Treasury.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 3113 the following:
``3114. Public debt reduction payment account.''.
SEC. 4. REDUCTION OF STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.
Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``minus the amount appropriated into the Public
Debt Reduction Payment Account pursuant to section 3114(c)''
after ``$5,950,000,000,000''.
SEC. 5. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT
ACCOUNT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts
and disbursements of the Public Debt Reduction Payment
Account established by section 3114 of title 31, United
States Code, shall not be counted as new budget authority,
outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President,
(2) the congressional budget, or
(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.
SEC. 6. REMOVING PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT ACCOUNT FROM
BUDGET PRONOUNCEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any official statement issued by the
Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget
Office, or any other agency or instrumentality of the Federal
Government of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the
United States Government as submitted by the President or of
the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget,
and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any
official publication or material issued by either of such
Offices or any other such agency or instrumentality, shall
exclude the outlays and receipts of the Public Debt Reduction
Payment Account established by section 3114 of title 31,
United States Code.
(b) Separate Public Debt Reduction Payment Account Budget
Documents.--The excluded outlays and receipts of the Public
Debt Reduction Payment Account established by section 3114 of
title 31, United States Code, shall be submitted in separate
budget documents.
SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury.--(1) Within
30 days after the appropriation is deposited into the Public
Debt Reduction Payment Account under section 3114 of title
31, United States Code, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate confirming that such account has been established and
the amount and date of such deposit. Such report shall also
include a description of the Secretary's plan for using such
money to reduce debt held by the public.
(2) Not later than October 31, 2000, and October 31, 2001,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate setting forth the
amount of money deposited into the Public Debt Reduction
Payment Account, the amount of debt held by the public that
was reduced, and a description of the actual debt instruments
that were redeemed with such money.
(b) Report of the Comptroller General of the United
States.--Not later than November 15, 2001, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit a report to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate verifying all of
the information set forth in the reports submitted under
subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Matsui) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
General Leave
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4601.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important moment for the House of
Representatives because with this bill we will be accelerating our
effort to pay down the debt to give relief, badly needed relief to
future generations. I am hopeful that in the end there will be a strong
bipartisan vote for what is truly historic, and, that is, to reduce for
the first time since 1917 the statutory debt limit.
In the past, the debt simply was an afterthought. While we were
deficit spending, we spent and spent and frequently raised taxes,
sometimes cut taxes. What was left over at the end of the year in
deficit increased the debt, and we simply rubber-stamped that. Today in
a time of surplus, we are doing the same thing. Everything that is left
over at the end of the year in the surplus pays down the debt
automatically. The problem is that once you satiate the spending
opportunities during the year, what is left at the end of the year is
much, much smaller to pay down the debt. So we are taking a step here
to lock up the increase in surplus over and above what we anticipated
when we passed our budget earlier in the year, lock that up in a
special account in the Treasury which can be used only to pay down the
debt. That is why we can reduce the debt ceiling.
The Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000 has been designed by
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich) and myself, and it will put us on a path to pay off the
debt by 2013 or sooner.
I have already explained what the bill does and how it works. It
applies only, however, to this year's extra surplus, the year 2000. But
once it is put in place, it will be a model for future years. That is
why the Concord Coalition, one of the best known bipartisan groups that
fights for balanced budgets and fiscal discipline, supports this bill.
They said in a letter that this bill is fiscally responsible. It
recognizes the benefit of using today's prosperity to improve the
Nation's long-term fiscal health.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full letter be inserted in the Record.
The Concord Coalition,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2000.
Chairman Bill Archer,
House Ways and Means Committee, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Archer: The Concord Coalition is pleased to
support ``The Debt Reduction and Reconciliation Act of
2000,'' which seeks to ensure that any increase in the
projected FY 2000 on-budget surplus will be used to pay down
the publicly held debt.
The Concord Coalition has long urged both Congress and the
Administration to resist using projected surpluses as a
treasure trove of money to be spent on any number of spending
or tax cut proposals. ``The Debt Reduction and Reconciliation
Act of 2000'' is a fiscally responsible measure that
recognizes the benefit of using today's prosperity to improve
the nation's long term fiscal health.
We are heartened by the improvement in the federal
government's short-term fiscal position in recent years and
encouraged by the prospect of continued projected surpluses.
Members of both parties deserve a share of the credit for
this dramatic turn around and the resulting projected
surpluses. The Concord Coalition fully supports the
commitment in this bill to use a portion of these surpluses
for debt reduction. We further hope that Congress and the
Administration will muster the political will to make good on
this commitment.
At the same time, it is important to remember that our work
is far from complete. Reducing the publicly held debt is a
positive step, but is one of many steps required to bring
about fiscal policies that are sustainable over the long-
term. Welcome as it is, today's prosperity has not turned
back the coming age wave or the growth in age-related
entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid. Left unchecked, the inevitable growth in spending
[[Page H4703]]
on these programs will put pressure on discretionary
spending, revenues, and public debt.
That said, in the absence of substantive Social Security
and Medicare reform, the next best thing we can do to prepare
for the future is to devote every penny of the surpluses that
come our way to reducing the publicly held debt. Debt
reduction will enhance net national savings, thereby freeing
up resources for investments leading to greater productivity,
which will lead to stronger economic growth in the future. A
larger economy will, in turn, help ease the burden on today's
children who, when they become working age taxpayers, will
face the daunting challenge of financing the retirement and
health care costs of a dramatically older population.
The Concord Coalition commends you for your effort to
reduce the publicly held debt. We are pleased to support your
efforts and look forward to working with you to take future
steps to improve our nation's long term fiscal health.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Bixby,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, when we balanced the budget and the budget surplus
became a reality, Alan Greenspan told the Committee on Ways and Means
that his first preference would be to pay down the debt. He also said
the worst alternative would be more government spending. Today we are
following his wise counsel. Paying down the debt is good for our
country, good for working families, and good for the economy.
I strongly urge a bipartisan vote to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) so that he can further yield it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Iowa
will control the balance of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say this in no disrespect to any of my colleagues on the floor of
the House of Representatives, and certainly I intend to support this
legislation; but I have to say that I think we are going to spend
perhaps up to 40 minutes debating something that is not particularly
relevant and it is probably somewhat a waste of our time.
The reality is that any surplus over and above the current surplus
that we have, and most people predict that for this coming fiscal year
it will be about $15 billion, will go into debt reduction in any event.
The only thing that could change it is if the majority party decides
not to show the kind of fiscal discipline that I think the rhetoric
kind of indicates they intend to. And so we will be doing this, we are
all probably going to vote for it, but again as I said this is more of
a political act than it is an act of substance.
Under current law, if at the end of the fiscal year we do not spend
any of the additional surplus that we have, it will go automatically
for debt reduction. Under this bill, it is appropriated into a fund set
up by the Treasury Department that will go for debt reduction. And so
it will not hurt, but it does not really help either. If for some
reason the Senate or the House or any party should decide through a
majority vote that they want to spend more money, then obviously that
would change the situation. But then that is a judgment to be made by
Members as time goes on.
Again, as I said, we will vote for this; but it really does not do a
lot of good. But it does give me an opportunity actually to bring out
some things, if I may. Governor George W. Bush indicated earlier this
year that he has a tax cut proposal and over the next decade his tax
cuts will be $1.7 trillion. He also suggested individual Social
Security accounts which would take away from the current beneficiaries.
And he suggested somewhere in the range of 2 percent although he has
not really elaborated on it. But assuming it is 2 percent, that
basically then means that you would have to make that up for current
beneficiaries, and that comes as somewhat a little over $1 trillion.
So we are talking about $2.7 trillion of additional debt or money out
of the surplus over the next decade. Right now the projected on-budget
surplus is $877 billion. And so essentially the Governor will spend
over the next decade three times what that surplus will be. Now, we
understand by the end of this month, OMB and CBO will come in with
another $1 trillion worth of surpluses over the next decade, and so
that means that you can actually say that actually he will only then be
overbudgeted, or over the surplus by $1 trillion.
Now, if we were really being honest about this, what we would do is
not just make it for this fiscal year but we would do it for the next
10 fiscal years. But this is only for the next 18 months or so.
So we will save $15 billion, but that money is going to be saved in
any event. Obviously we are going to recommend that our colleagues vote
for this; but the reality is again, it is a political act. It is not a
substantive act. I am just kind of sorry that we are spending our 40
minutes of debate time on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the author of this legislation and somebody
who does concern himself with debt reduction.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, it is really with a great privilege that I
get to stand here and introduce this legislation. I recall back just
after I was first sworn in, we heard the President of the United States
stand up and say he wanted to spend 38 percent of the Social Security.
We met in the Committee on the Budget, and we were able to save 100
percent of the Social Security surplus. We continue to exercise fiscal
discipline. Because of that, we have surpluses now and will have paid
off the publicly held debt by about $300 billion over the last several
years.
This bill is about several things. One, it is about priorities, about
setting our priorities. Are we going to spend money on more and bigger
government? Let me say the minority and the President have offered
continually budgets and amendments that would spend and spend and spend
on more government programs, on larger government, not on paying down
the debt or giving some relief to the American people. So this allows
us to say, Look, we have a priority here, and our priorities are, yes,
let's pay down the publicly held debt.
Some have said it is not significant but, believe me, I had a young
lady, a Girl Scout here last week that came up and we talked about this
bill. She figured her family's debt and how many boxes of Girl Scout
cookies she would have to sell to pay off her family's portion of the
publicly held debt. She would have to sell 19,000 boxes of Girl Scout
cookies for her to pay off her family's publicly held debt. That to me
is significant to folks back home. To somebody who thinks $16 billion
is insignificant and to historically appropriate that to an account in
the Department of Treasury, it is just beyond my belief that anyone
would believe that that is not significant.
Lastly, this is historic. Why is it historic? Because it is the first
time we have said, ``Let's appropriate money.'' We take it off the
table. And if people who have been around Washington too long do not
understand that, then it is clear they need to go back home and visit
with their folks. This takes the money off the table and will allow us
to pay down the debt.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Groucho Marx said that the main
requirement to be a good politician is to appear to be serious. The
Washington Post recently commented on the performance of the majority
in this Congress by calling this ``the pretend Congress.''
This is one of the new acts. This debt reduction bill here pretends
to do something. We are all called here together, we are going to be
serious, we are going to give pompous speeches about how we are going
to reduce the debt, and we are saving America, and all those Girl Scout
cookies and all that stuff will just be fixed by this bill.
Now, the chairman at least was honest, and I really acknowledge the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) honesty. This bill is effective from
now until September 30, 2000. It does not quite make it all the way
through the election. So it is not really a very good pretend item. It
would be better if it
[[Page H4704]]
went at least until November 8. But this is a bill for 4 months.
Now, you ask yourself, why would anybody be doing such a thing? Well,
if you come up to a new reestimate of the revenue estimates here very
shortly, the CBO and the OMB are going to come out with a whole bunch
more money. Clearly the majority is afraid that they are going to spend
it. They cannot save themselves. They have all the votes. This is your
problem. We have the votes, as the majority over there, and they are
going to put more money on the table and if you do not pass this bill,
you will not be able to stop yourself from spending it. That is what
this is about, I guess. Or maybe it is not about that.
The fact is that we have a situation where the Treasury does not need
this bill to pay off more debt. If we get to the end of the fiscal year
and there is some money there, they reduce the debt. They do not have
to borrow. It is real simple. They do not need us to pass H.R. 4601 to
tell them what they have been doing for 200 years. If they have a
surplus, they buy down some of the debt. But this is a symbolic act, as
my colleague from California says. I thought this would be on Friday,
because this is usually the news cycle on Friday, they want to have
something that says the Republicans today have passed a bill to
encourage reduction of the debt.
Now, if you think about it, if you want to reduce the debt, you do
not give big tax breaks, because taxes bring in money. And if you cut
the taxes, there will not be any money to pay off the debt. So when you
come out here and vote for tax cut after tax cut after tax cut and then
say, And we want to reduce the debt, you simply are not making any
sense. There are only two ways to have the money to pay off the debt,
either take the taxes and pay it off or reduce the spending and pay it
off, one or the other.
{time} 1345
I do not see any evidence so far in this appropriations process that
we are actually reducing spending. In fact, we are going up a little
bit, and probably we are going to need some of this money along about
September the 15 to solve the problem to buy off this program or that
program so we can get out of here. All we have to do under this bill,
we do not have to repeal the act, we do not have to do anything, just
pass the supplemental appropriation.
This can be violated by the most simplistic legislative act of all,
just bring out another bill, spend some more money, in spite of the
fact that we have passed H.R. 4601, the debt reduction bill. This bill
will die in the Senate from laughter. There will not be anybody over
there that takes this seriously.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we on the majority side appreciate the very
strong endorsement, bipartisan way of this debt reduction bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson).
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, by the way, lowering taxes
increases the revenue to the Government and, unfortunately, gives us a
surplus, which is what has happened since the Republicans have been in
for 40 years. The Democrats ran the House and the Democrats ran up the
debt by spending your money like it was their own.
The Democrats used deficit spending to fund more and more Washington
programs. The debt ballooned and they raised taxes over and over again.
Paying down the debt was never on the Democrat agenda. Well, times have
changed. In just 5 short years with the Republicans in charge, we have
turned a billion-dollar deficit into trillion-dollar surpluses.
Under our plan, we are going to eliminate publicly held debt by 2013
or sooner; that is because we believe debt relief is a top priority.
That is why this bill mandates that any increase in the surplus must be
used to pay down the debt.
This year we believe that will be close to $40 billion. Paying down
the debt is going to help all Americans. It will lower mortgage costs
and interest rates. More importantly, the American people expect our
books to be balanced and our debts to be paid. We have to do it in our
own homes, and we must do it in the people's House.
The American people are fed up with 40 years of out- of-control
spending by the Democrats, and they want Washington to get its house in
order. Those who oppose this bill or believe it is not necessary are
playing games with the American people and their money.
Today, we are going to tear up the Democrats' big-spending playbook
and get serious about our children's future by eliminating our Nation's
debt once and for all.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear some of the protests from the
left. My good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott),
professionally trained as a psychiatrist, seemed to suggest that
somehow this was pretend.
Mr. Speaker, I believe a common definition of insanity is doing the
same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. And
if we take a look at the history of the late 20th century, when this
House was in different hands, Mr. Speaker, the folks on the left spent
and spent and spent and spent and spent some more and raided Social
Security and took everything not nailed down and added inflation and
did the whole thing, the whole bit, spending money we did not have and
yet would return home, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the importance of
debt relief.
Let no one be mistaken. This is not delusional. This is not pretend.
It is not a political stunt. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1916
we are voting to lower the debt ceiling.
We have heard loud and clear from our constituents that they are
tired of seeing deficit spending; that as we have put our House in
order, by reducing taxes and thereby increasing revenues to the Federal
Government, by actually generating more business in the free market and
more commerce, at the same time we need to get our fiscal House in
order and the gentleman from Kentucky has offered a device to do
exactly that.
It is not symbolic. In fact, it is historic, because we lower the
debt ceiling. We signal our commitment to reduce deficit spending; and
unlike those who have tried different outcomes over and over again
expecting a different result, we make a difference today.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain why this is important: although most
Americans assume that a Federal budget surplus in any year is
automatically used to reduce the national debt or at least the debt
held by the public, this actually is not the case.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury must implement specific financial
accounting procedures if it is to use a cash surplus to pay down the
debt held by the public. If these procedures are not followed or if
they proceed slowly, then the surplus revenue just builds up in the
Treasury-operating cash accounts.
This excess cash could be used in the future, yes, to pay down the
debt, but only if it is protected from other uses in the meantime.
Until the excess cash is formally committed to debt repayment, Congress
could appropriate it for other purposes.
Consequently, the current surplus will not automatically reduce the
publicly held national debt of $3.54 trillion, unless Congress acts now
to make sure these funds are automatically used for debt reduction and
for no other purpose.
That is exactly what this bill H.R. 4601 does; and, frankly, this
offers a first step toward paying down the debt, because it protects
the on-budget surplus for the remainder of this fixed fiscal year, and
it appropriates it directly for debt reduction.
This money will be deposited in a designated public debt reduction
account. Appropriators would be able to reallocate these funds only by
first passing a law to rescind the money from this account.
[[Page H4705]]
Now, the debt is a huge drain on the Federal Treasury at a time when
the impending Social Security crisis looms closer. Our current national
debt problem pales in comparison to the unfunded liabilities already
committed to current and future Social Security recipients. It is
important we pay down this debt.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing today from our colleagues on
the other side that perhaps this measure is more symbolic than
substantive and might not really accomplish that much. I could not more
strongly disagree. The previous speaker, my colleague, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce), made it very clear, and quite rightly,
that absent this measure, there is absolutely nothing to stop Congress
from spending this money. Of course, if one knows anything about the
history of Congress, one knows that that is indeed the proclivity of
this body, as well as the other Chamber to do exactly that.
Let me touch on a specific situation and put this in some context.
Where are we right now in the 2001 appropriations process? We are
trying to pass a series of measures and the President is insisting that
he needs another $20 billion or $25 billion above and beyond that
record high level of spending that we are proposing.
We hear our colleagues from the other side come down here every time
we debate an appropriations bill to tell us we are not spending enough
money. One of the ways that this spending can occur is by a devious
little budget gimmick which involves reaching back into the previous
year, in this case that would be fiscal year 2000, and spending the
money there so that we create the illusion of some modicum of fiscal
restraint, when, in fact, it is not recurring.
One of the things we need to do is take this money off the table so
that it is not available for that kind of gimmickry, so that the
American public gets the budget that they are being told and so that we
pay down this debt, this mountain of debt which we have made some
progress on but need to make much more.
There is one other point that I would like to make on this. Why is it
important that we not just spend this money? Why is it important to
limit the growth and the spending of the Federal Government? It is
important because we need to remember every dollar that is spent by the
Federal Government is the political allocation of other people's money,
and we need to minimize that whenever we can and allow the hard-working
men and women across this country who are producing the wealth in this
country to spend their own hard-earned money as they choose rather than
the way that politicians choose. That is why this measure is so
important.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I call on the next speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I might just point out to the gentleman and previous
speakers on the other side of the aisle that the public debt for the
fiscal year 2000 is $5.628 trillion, $5.628 trillion; and under the
Republican budget in 2005, 5 years from now, the public debt will go to
$5.936 trillion, so it is going to go up under the Republican budget.
I might just point out that instead of all of this talk about
reducing it, it is actually going to increase. I might want to
emphasize that it is going to increase. I just hope that they would
look at the budget document; and perhaps they could clarify it if they
so choose.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) for yielding me the time.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that one of our candidates for
President is running under the theory that it is time to change the old
concept that if it feels good, do it. But the bill that we have before
us today fits into that. Now, I know my colleagues on the other side
have this new-found desire to put their imprimatur on paying down the
debt.
It is interesting, because over the last couple of years, they really
have not been in that position. They wanted to spend the surplus as
fast as they could get their hands on it. In fact, they wanted to spend
it far into the future and not even knowing what it is.
I offered amendments, as my dear friend from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will
remember, when we marked up the budget resolutions over the last couple
of years, just to have hard freezes and pay down the debt as fast as we
could, and I was lectured by the other side that this did not make any
sense, and we really should not do it, we should not shackle the
Congress' future ability to make the investments that it needs.
Today, we have this bill before us; and we are all going to vote for
it, because we all or at least most of us do believe in at least some
form of debt reduction whether we do with the belts and suspender
approach like this or just do it as it works automatically under
current law, but it does not comport as well with the budget resolution
that this House passed not too long ago. Because the budget resolution
we passed not too long ago says that in future years, if the
Congressional Budget Office finds that the surplus projections are
actually higher than what was assumed earlier this year, then we could
spend that money on additional tax cuts or spending programs or
whatever.
Mr. Speaker, now we have decided in this midcourse correction that we
are going to say, no, we are going to set this very static limitation
on what we ought to be doing with this money.
I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very happy to welcome my
Republican colleagues to the party of paying down the public debt. I do
not think this bill is as well written as it could be. I do not think
it comports with the budget resolution that my colleagues passed
earlier this year. Hopefully, this will move them a little closer in
the right direction of continuing what has been the greatest expansion
in the American economy under this administration.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, let me address a few things. First of all,
when it comes to the other side after years and years of running up
deficits over $200 billion a year, I can think of no more amazing
conversion than Paul on the road to Damascus.
We certainly have seen a conversion from the other side now that all
of a sudden they are the party of fiscal responsibility wanting to pay
down the debt. So we certainly appreciate that conversion and hope that
as these appropriation bills come up that we do not see some of their
regular antics.
{time} 1400
As we close out this year, we have set aside this $16 billion, which
is significant, very much different than any time before. The publicly
held debt is not over $5 trillion, the debt limit is, the publicly held
debt is $3.5 trillion. So let me correct that. Obviously, when you add
up the debt we owe ourself and the other trust funds, Social Security,
et cetera, it does exceed $5 trillion.
But the publicly held debt is $3.5 trillion. We pay interest on that,
about 11 cents of every dollar that comes in in revenues. That would
increase our revenue, if we paid that down, which we plan on doing with
the principle of this bill. By the year 2013, we will pay it down. By
2013, that will increase our revenues by about $180 billion a year. So
I wanted to rebut these misstatements.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill because there is no reason to
oppose it. All it does is enact the inevitable. You see, when Treasury
takes in more money than it spends, it simply uses the surplus, the
excess money, to pay off debt. It does not sit on the money. It has
debt coming due at all times. It pays the debt off, retires the debt,
uses the surplus in that manner. So I am
[[Page H4706]]
mystified when I read this bill by what substantively it is supposed to
do.
The majority acts as though if we do not put this money in this debt
reduction payment account and seal it off, we are going to spend it.
But this just begs the question. This is June 20th. The fiscal year
ends on September 30. We will not have the incremental additional
surplus numbers until some time in July. We are out a whole week in
July, we are out for the whole month of August. When are we going to
spend it, and who is going to spend it?
Who controls the appropriations process? The majority does. They
determine what comes to the floor, what is in it and what passes,
because they have the votes. So it is hard to see how this money is
going to be spent between now and September 30, when they control the
process, unless they elect to spend it on a fast track.
That raises the next question. If debt reduction is such a good idea,
and I think it is a good idea, why does this bill just apply to this
fiscal year? Why does the bill present itself in this form applicable
for just 3 months remaining in this fiscal year? Why does it just apply
to the increase in the surplus, for that matter? There is a $24 billion
base surplus already projected. If debt reduction is a good idea, why
do we not set aside some of that surplus, allocate it to debt
reduction?
Why not even go further? Why do we not take a bill and put it on this
floor, a bill that does not just apply to fiscal year 2000, but to the
next 10 fiscal years, until we have retired the total debt, which
simply says out of every surplus we actually realize in the next 10
years we will set aside 50 percent, or make it 33 percent, or 65
percent, some fixed percentage every year allocated by law to debt
reduction, if it is such a good idea?
I think it is, and I think it would be a good idea before we actually
have that money and it is burning a hole in our pocket, some wanting to
use it for tax cuts and others wanting to use it for spending
increases, let us allocate a certain amount of it by black letter law
to debt reduction. We could do that in this bill, but it does not do
that. This bill only applies for 90 days.
If debt reduction is the majority's top priority, I am also
mystified, because I was on the floor here when we presented the budget
resolutions, our competing resolution and their resolution, which
passed and which became the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal
year 2001. It allocates all of the additional surplus, all of the
surplus that CBO finds over and above the baseline surplus they project
now, it takes all of that additional surplus and allocates it to tax
cuts. There is a specific clause in their budget resolution for this
year under which we are now operating which permits and encourages them
to use all of the additional surplus for tax cuts.
If it is such a good idea to use it for debt reduction, why did they
not make the allocation there in the budget resolution, which is the
operative resolution we have got?
As a result of that allocation in their budget resolution, we
presented a budget resolution that would reduce debt over the next 5
years by $48 billion and over the next 10 years by $365 billion. Their
budget resolution, by contrast, reduced debt by only $12 billion,
because it allocated all of the additional surplus not to debt
reduction, as this bill would imply, but to tax reduction.
So, what do we have here? We have a bill that is absolutely minimal
in its impact on the national debt, if it has any at all. The chairman,
whom I respect, the distinguished chairman said this could be a model
for future years. If it is a model, let us take it and apply it to
future years. Let us say a certain amount of the surplus every year is
going to be set aside to debt reduction. Let us not fool ourselves and
the American people by adopting something which will have little if any
impact on the actual reduction in the national debt.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of very interesting discussion here
today. You have the minority party rushing down here to support this
legislation, but, boy it is tough. It is tough. I mean, the speeches we
are hearing today, about, gee, we would really like to reduce the debt,
but there are all these other priorities out here; and, yeah, we will
vote for it, but, gosh, it is really tough.
You know, it is tough. I talked to a financial planner one time about
how he counsels people that find themselves in debt, and the first
thing he says when he counsels people is, when you find yourselves in a
hole, stop digging. That is rule number one. It makes sense. And that
is what we did a few years ago. We found ourselves in deficits, we were
adding to the national debt, we wanted to end that 40-year practice,
and we said stop digging, balance the budget, and that is what we did.
But then the second rule that the financial planner from Manchester,
Iowa, taught me is he said start filling in the hole. Start filling in
the hole that you dug. And you do not do that at the end of the year
after you have bought all of the Girl Scout cookies; you do not do that
at the end of the year after all of the things you want you have
purchased and you have made decisions about. You put debt as a
priority.
That is the difference with this bill. The gentleman from South
Carolina is exactly correct. If we did nothing else this year, the
Treasury at the end of the year will take what is in excess and they
will pay down the debt. There is one problem: We do not know what that
excess is going to be.
The difference with this bill and the difference with this Congress
and the difference with this priority is that we are deciding today
that debt reduction is a priority. Yes, we can wait until the end of
the day, and the gentleman is correct when he said yeah, you are the
majority party, you can decide whether or not you are going to spend it
or not, whether you are going to use it for tax cuts or whether you are
going to reduce the debt. We are deciding today. Let us reduce the
debt.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The gentleman from Iowa said that we
think this is tough to vote for this. I do not think any Member on our
side of the aisle said anything about this being a tough bill. If
anything, this is one of the easiest pieces of legislation in my 22
years in this institution to vote for, because it does not mean
anything, it is irrelevant, and it is, I guess, kind of fun sitting up
here for 40 minutes talking about something that is meaningless, when
we have all these appropriations bills we have to pass by the end of
next week. But, nevertheless, I guess we will do it. There is nothing
else to do here.
But I would like to just reiterate what my colleague said from South
Carolina, that, you know, we should probably make this for 10 years,
because if in fact we have the wrong presidential candidate elected, we
are going to spend two or three times over the surplus here. As I said
in my opening remarks, Mr. Bush intends to reduce the surplus, if there
is a surplus, by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, and right now we
only are projecting $877 billion in surplus. We may get another $1
trillion, according to CBO and OMB. So he will still be twice over the
surplus.
So perhaps we should make this a proposal that will go for the next
decade, because, after all, we saw what happened in the early 1980s
when we let our emotions get ahead of our discipline. We finally got
the budget under control under President Clinton. I would hate to see
us lose control over it when he leaves office, but we very well could.
So perhaps we should use some kind of gimmick like the debt limit to
impose discipline, since it appears the majority party cannot use that
discipline on its own.
I might just conclude by saying what Nancy Reagan said when it came
to drugs: ``Just say no.'' That is leadership.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we are about to just say no to more
spending.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the author of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Kentucky is
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to have
bipartisan support and bipartisan rhetoric on this floor. Let me first
correct a few things though. This does do something different than what
is done. Right now,
[[Page H4707]]
at this point, it is really contrary to popular convention. There is no
Federal law that exists that requires surpluses at the end of the
fiscal years to be used to reduce the debt. It is the stated practice
of the Treasury. In reality, there is some cash the Treasury holds.
Let me give an example. Despite the surplus of $124 billion in fiscal
year 1999, the Treasury reduced publicly held debt by just $87 billion.
Even when accounting for the seasonal variation, the Treasury will have
a cash balance of about $60 billion if this rate continues over the
next 2 years.
What this piece of legislation does and what is historical about it
is it will set a pattern for the next decade. It allows us, like we do
every year when we are appropriating money, to have an account to which
we can appropriate money for debt reduction, and certain instruction is
given to the Department of Treasury to reduce the debt with that money
in that account.
Now, the Treasury has the responsibility to reduce it in a
responsible and efficient way, so that the taxpayer's money is used
most efficiently, so that we buy the most expensive bonds and redeem
those so that we reduce the cost to the taxpayers as much as possible.
This bill also reduces the publicly held debt limit and the total
debt limit of government, the first time it has been done since 1916.
This bill sets us on a pattern to totally eliminate the publicly held
debt by the year 2013.
I think that is a noble goal. That will increase our revenues
tremendously as more money goes back out into the economy to continue
the economy's growth. Yet in this last budget, they have talked about
tax reductions versus this debt reduction bill. Let me remind you, the
President offered a bill that increased spending and programs, that
offered 83 new programs. This money was going to be spent, and if we do
not take it off of the table right now, it will be spent here in
Washington before the end of the year.
This money is appropriated to a new debt reduction account in the
Department of Treasury. That is historical. Every year we have this
pattern by which when we go through appropriations we can set debt
reduction as a priority and set aside that money into this debt
reduction account. If the majority decides that they want to spend more
on government, they have that option, or if they decide they want to
make our taxes fair, which I think is important.
We heard the minority talk about when we tried and did pass out of
this House the marriage penalty tax, how they spoke about it being
unfair and about how it was too much to give back to the American
people, and it really points out the difference in philosophy here.
Let me show you this check. Some have said it is insignificant. $16
billion. Look at the number of zeros on that. That is not an
insignificant number that is going to be deposited in this debt
reduction account to pay down the publicly held debt. Now, maybe some
have been in Washington too long if they think that is an insignificant
amount, and maybe some have been in Washington too long if they think
if they do not take off the money it will be spent. But, believe me, I
have only been here a year and a half, and I understand if you do not
take it off the table, it will be spent.
I am very proud of this legislation, and I want to thank the
leadership, the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich), and others that worked to write this legislation, and I
encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4601,
a bill to pay down our public debt. I urge my colleagues to support
this worthy legislation.
H.R. 4601 requires that at the end of fiscal year 2000, an amount
equal to the non-Social Security surplus be used to pay down the public
debt. These funds will be deposited in an off-budget account within the
U.S. Treasury, referred to as the ``public debt reduction payment
account.''
Moreover, within thirty days after the end of fiscal year 2000, the
Treasury Department must report to Congress the amount of money
deposited into the account, and how those funds were used to pay down
the debt. The amount stipulated in this report must be verified by the
Comptroller General of the United States.
While current law stipulates that surplus money at the end of the
fiscal year must be used to pay down the debt, this legislation ensures
that these excess monies are placed in a fund to prevent their use
during the next fiscal year for any other purpose.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress has made great progress in the last three
years with ending our long-standing pattern of deficit spending. This
bill will further aid the effort to ``live within our means,'' and to
avoid a return to spending more than the revenues raised. As we
continue to make progress in reducing our overall level of public debt,
we will free up billions of dollars that are currently being used to
finance the interest on that debt. Lower interest leads to more
discretionary dollars to use on investing for the future, and an
avoidance of mortgaging the future of our children.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this timely and
appropriate legislation.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4601, the Debt Reduction and Reconciliation Act of 2000. More
importantly, I rise in support of paying down $14 billion of the debt
that will otherwise be left to our children and grandchildren.
The fiscal restraint we can show today by passing this legislation is
critical to avoiding the tax and spend trap that brought us into
deficit in the first place.
Just five years ago, many in Washington, including the President, did
not believe we could balance the budget by the year 2005, let alone
2002 or, as it turned out, 1998. But with the help of the American
people and a strong economy, we did it.
Last year, we made another commitment--to balance the federal budget
without spending one penny of the Social Security surplus in the year
2000. Once again, we were able to accomplish that goal one-year ahead
of schedule.
Now, we have a new challenge--to find a way to pay back the mortgage
of federal debt that we owe rather than leaving it to generations to
come. We want to pay down the publicly held debt by 2013. Looking back
at our track record, I think we can do it--maybe even ahead of
schedule.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join this effort to
eliminate the publicly held debt and pass this bill today with an
overwhelmingly, bi-partisan vote.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 4601, the Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000, and encourage
my colleagues to enthusiastically pursue its enactment as soon as
possible.
Since Republicans took over the majority in Congress in 1995, we have
worked hard to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington. H.R.
4601 is one more step on this long road. This bill will ensure that the
federal government's days of spending beyond our means are really
behind us.
Mr. Speaker, those who claim that this bill is irresponsible or
merely a publicity stunt are way off-base. In fact, the Debt Reduction
Reconciliation Act is an eminently sensible compromise that allows us
to cut taxes for hard working American families and small businesses,
reduce the federal debt, and protect 100 percent of our Social Security
system for our seniors and retirees. At the same time, it also provides
sufficient funding for important government programs--like allowing us
to increase funding for such essential programs as education, national
security, and prescription drug benefits for our seniors.
H.R. 4601 is very straightforward. It will take all of this year's
federal non-Social Security surplus funds over and above the
anticipated $24.4 billion surplus we were told to expect earlier this
year, and lock it away in a new special ``off budget'' account that
will be used exclusively for paying off the national public debt. In
fact, the Congressional Budget Office is expected to announce this
summer that this year's budget surplus will be at least $40 billion.
That's $14.6 billion that, under this legislation, would be dedicated
to debt reduction this year.
In addition, for every dollar locked away into this national debt-
payment account, H.R. 4601 will lower the authorized federal debt
ceiling that the federal government is allowed to borrow up to, dollar
for dollar. This ceiling is like an authorized federal credit line and
it currently allows the government to incur up to $5.95 trillion in
debt. Can you imagine--$5.95 trillion of debt? Not too long ago,
Democratic budgets projected this kind of debt as far as the eye could
see. Now, Mr. Speaker, with enactment of this legislation, Congress for
the first time since 1917, will lower the debt ceiling instead of
increasing it.
Why should we care about reducing our national debt? Beyond the fact
that past irresponsible government borrowing has mortgaged the future
of our children and grandchildren and saddled them with a debt that
they did not create--reducing our multi-trillion national debt will
lower government interest
[[Page H4708]]
payments which currently consume hundreds of millions of taxpayer
dollars each and every year. Anyone who has a credit card knows, as
long as you are only paying for the interest charges, you will never
dig yourself out of the hold and can only find yourself at best
treading water, and at worst sinking in to a quagmire of red ink.
Thanks to decades of Democratically-controlled Congresses, America has
been in the red for far too long. By dedicating these funds to paying
down the debt, we will not only reach our goal to eliminate the public
debt by 2013, we will also be able to continue to cut taxes to further
relieve American workers of the heavy tax burden they bear and even
increase savings. In addition, lowering the federal debt will also
relieve the debt's upward pressure on interest rates, which means
cheaper car loans, school loans, mortgage loans, and even home
improvement loans for hardworking American families.
To be frank, Congress also needs this debt reduction legislation to
remove the temptation to spend any unexpected budget surpluses. Let's
face it folks, Washington is not known for keeping their hands out of
the cookie jar. It's time to get the chain and padlock and secure these
funds out of temptation's way and keep ourselves, and those who follow
us here in Congress and in the White House, on this hard-fought road to
fiscal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this much needed
legislation, and encourage an enthusiastic ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4601.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, deficit spending has run rampant for too
long. The federal debt has ballooned to nearly $6 trillion. With this
legislation for the first time since 1917 we are reversing this trend.
Uncle Sam will actually begin to pay off our $6 trillion credit card
bill. Paying off our huge debt should be a top priority, not an
afterthought.
Under current law, any money left over at the end of the year is used
to reduce the debt. This bill makes debt reduction a priority by
setting aside the money up front.
Reducing the public debt is good for the country. It increases
national saving and makes it more likely that the economy will continue
growing strong. American families benefit through lower interest rates
on mortgages and other loans, more jobs, better wages, and ultimately
higher living standards.
Reducing the public debt strengthens the government's fiscal position
by reducing interest costs and promoting economic growth. This makes it
easier for the government to afford its future budget obligations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4601, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________