[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7679-H7687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEBT RELIEF LOCK-BOX RECONCILIATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5173) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to sections
103(b)(2) and 213(b)(2)(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. 5173
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 Relief Lock-box
Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 2001''.
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 saves social security and medicare, the social security
and medicare surpluses should be used to reduce the debt held
by the public;
(4) until Congress and the President agree on significant
tax reductions, amounts dedicated for that purpose shall be
used to reduce the debt held by the public;
(5) 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
(6) it is fiscally responsible and in the long-term
national economic interest to use a portion of the nonsocial
security and nonmedicare surpluses 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 by $240,000,000,000
in fiscal year 2001 with the goal of eliminating this debt by
2012;
(2) decrease the statutory limit on the public debt; and
(3) ensure that the social security and hospital insurance
trust funds shall not be used for other purposes.
TITLE I--DEBT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX
SEC. 101. 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 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) There is hereby appropriated into the account on
October 1, 2000, or the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever is later, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $42,000,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001. 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. 102. 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. 103. 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,
[[Page H7680]]
(2) the congressional budget, or
(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.
SEC. 104. 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. 105. 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, 2002, 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, 2002, 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).
TITLE II--SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX
SEC. 201. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
SURPLUSES.
(a) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
Section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2001 (H. Con. Res. 290, 106th Congress) is
amended as follows:
(1) In the section heading, by inserting ``AND MEDICARE''
before ``SURPLUSES''.
(2)(A) In subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``and the
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund has been running a surplus for
the last 2 years'' after ``years''.
(B) In subsection (a)(4), by inserting ``and the Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund surplus will be $32 billion'' after
``billion''.
(C) In subsection (a)(5), by striking ``the'' the second
place it appears, and by inserting ``and Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund'' before ``surpluses''.
(D) In subsection (a)(6), by inserting ``and medicare''
after ``security''.
(E) In subsection (a)(7), by inserting ``and hospital
insurance'' after ``security''.
(3) By striking subsection (c) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(c) Lock-box for Social Security and Hospital Insurance
Surpluses.--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--
``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent
resolution on the budget, an amendment thereto, or conference
report thereon, that would set forth a surplus for any fiscal
year that is less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
``(B) Exception.--(i) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
the extent that a violation of such subsection would result
from an assumption in the resolution, amendment, or
conference report, as applicable, of an increase in outlays
or a decrease in revenue relative to the baseline underlying
that resolution for social security reform legislation or
medicare reform legislation for any such fiscal year.
``(ii) If a concurrent resolution on the budget or an
amendment thereto or conference report thereon would be in
violation of subparagraph (A) because of an assumption of an
increase in outlays or a decrease in revenue relative to the
baseline underlying that resolution for social security
reform legislation or medicare reform legislation for any
such fiscal year, then that resolution shall include a
statement identifying any such increase in outlays or
decrease in revenue.
``(2) Spending and tax legislation.--
``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
``(i)(I) in the House, the enactment of that bill or
resolution as reported; or
``(II) in the Senate, the enactment of that bill or
resolution;
``(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the
form recommended in that conference report,
would cause the surplus for any fiscal year covered by the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget
to be less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
social security reform legislation or medicare reform
legislation.''.
(4) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively, and inserting after subsection (d)
the following new subsections:
``(e) Enforcement.--
``(1) Budgetary levels with respect to concurrent
resolutions on the budget.--For purposes of enforcing any
point of order under subsection (c)(1), the surplus for any
fiscal year shall be--
``(A) the levels set forth in the later of the concurrent
resolution on the budget, as reported, or in the conference
report on the concurrent resolution on the budget; and
``(B) adjusted to the maximum extent allowable under all
procedures that allow budgetary aggregates to be adjusted for
legislation that would cause a decrease in the surplus for
any fiscal year covered by the concurrent resolution on the
budget (other than procedures described in paragraph
(2)(A)(ii)).
``(2) Current levels with respect to spending and tax
legislation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of enforcing any point of
order under subsection (c)(2), the current levels of the
surplus for any fiscal year shall be--
``(i) calculated using the following assumptions--
``(I) direct spending and revenue levels at the baseline
levels underlying the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget; and
``(II) for the budget year, discretionary spending levels
at current law levels and, for outyears, discretionary
spending levels at the baseline levels underlying the most
recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget; and
``(ii) adjusted for changes in the surplus levels set forth
in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the
budget pursuant to procedures in such resolution that
authorize adjustments in budgetary aggregates for updated
economic and technical assumptions in the mid-session report
of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
``(iii) Such revisions shall be included in the first
current level report on the congressional budget submitted
for publication in the Congressional Record after the release
of such mid-session report.
``(B) Budgetary Treatment.--For purposes of enforcing any
point of order under subsection (c)(2), changes in outlays or
receipts resulting from social security reform legislation or
medicare reform legislation shall not be counted in
calculating the surplus for any fiscal year.
``(3) Disclosure of HI Surplus.--For purposes of enforcing
any point of order under subsection (c), the surplus of the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for a fiscal year shall
be the levels set forth in the later of the report
accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget (or, in
the absence of such a report, placed in the Congressional
Record prior to the consideration of such resolution) or in
the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying such
resolution.
``(f) Additional Content of Reports Accompanying Budget
Resolutions and of Joint Explanatory Statements.--The report
accompanying any concurrent resolution on the budget and the
joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference
report on each such resolution shall include the levels of
the surplus in the budget for each fiscal year set forth in
such resolution and of the surplus or deficit in the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, calculated using the
assumptions set forth in subsection (e)(2)(A).
``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) The term `medicare reform legislation' means a bill
or a joint resolution to save Medicare that includes a
provision stating the following: `For purposes of section
201(c) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2001, this Act constitutes medicare reform legislation.
``(2) The term `social security reform legislation' means a
bill or a joint resolution to save social security that
includes a provision stating the following: `For purposes of
section 201(c) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2001, this Act constitutes social security reform
legislation.'.''.
(5) In the first sentence of subsection (i) (as
redesignated), by striking ``(1)''.
(6) At the end, by adding the following new subsection:
``(j) Effective Date.--This section shall cease to have
any force or effect upon the enactment of social security
reform legislation and medicare reform legislation.''.
(b) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
(1) If the budget of the United States Government submitted
by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, recommends an on-
[[Page H7681]]
budget surplus for any fiscal year that is less than the
surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that
fiscal year, then it shall include proposed legislative
language for social security reform legislation or medicare
reform legislation.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall cease to have any force or effect
upon the enactment of social security reform legislation and
medicare reform legislation as defined by section 201(g) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001
(H. Con. Res 290, 106th Congress).
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 201
in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 (H.
Con. Res 290, 106th Congress) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 201. Protection of social security and medicare surpluses.''.
SEC. 202. REMOVING SOCIAL SECURITY 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 old-age, survivors,
and disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act (including the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund) and the related provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(b) Separate Social Security Budget Documents.--The
excluded outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act shall be submitted in separate Social Security
budget documents.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
General Leave
Mr. HERGER. Madam 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. 5173.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher),
for his tireless efforts in the area of debt reduction.
Madam Speaker, last year, the House overwhelmingly passed, 416 to 12,
legislation I introduced, the Social Security lock-box. In March of
this year, I introduced the Medicare lock-box, and in June, the House
passed it, 420 to 2, to lock away Medicare surpluses. Both lock-boxes,
however, have six times been stopped from coming to the floor in the
other body by their Democrat leadership and the Clinton-Gore
administration. Today, we try again and add to the Social Security and
Medicare lock-boxes a third lock-box to be used only for paying down
the national public debt.
Rather than paying down national debt with only what remains, after
all of the spending is done, this measure sets aside surpluses. No
longer will paying down the debt be an afterthought. It instead becomes
the priority. This legislation accomplishes three major goals. First,
it again stops the raid on Social Security by locking up the entire
Social Security Trust Fund surplus. Second, it protects seniors that
rely on Medicare by setting aside 100 percent of the Medicare surplus.
Third, the debt lock-box would take an additional $42 billion off the
spending table and use it to pay down public debt.
All in all, 90 percent of the total surplus, or $240 billion, will be
used to pay down debt.
{time} 1615
I suspect my friend from the other side of the aisle will attempt to
paint this bill as anything other than a real effort to pay off public
debt. However, the real question is very simple: In the aftermath of 40
years of excessive spending, are we going to make our children and
grandchildren foot the bill? Do our children not deserve to grow up
unhampered by the burden of untold debt incurred by previous
generations?
Members of this House are either for protecting Social Security and
Medicare and paying down the public debt, or they are not. This
legislation combines our historic protection of the Social Security and
Medicare trust funds with our unprecedented commitment to debt
reduction, thus keeping us on track to eliminating the public debt
completely by year 2012, or before.
This bill is a win-win for our children, a win-win for fiscal
discipline, and a win-win for our seniors. I urge my colleagues to
support the Debt Relief Lock-box Reconciliation Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful thing to be a Member of the House of
Representatives in an election year. It is really quite amazing to
watch the Republican Party switch positions. During the last 2 weeks
the big issue each week has been we are going to override the
President's veto on a tax cut that we have given to the people.
They have come out here, and they always put out the press release
that goes back to their home newspapers, and it says we tried to save
you from the awful taxes of death and all these other things, and the
press releases go home; but on the very day that we were trying the
last failed override, the Republicans switched position in midair on
the same day over in the Committee on Ways and Means and said we want
to pay down the debt. We do not want to give away all that tax money;
we want to pay down the debt.
So they have had the benefit of the press releases on the fact that
they want to cut people's taxes, and everybody wants to cut people's
taxes, we have said that all along. But the fact is that they have been
reading the polls, and they figured out that the American people do not
want tax breaks for the wealthy few. What they want is to pay down the
national debt.
So now 7 weeks from tomorrow is election day, and the Republicans
say, Oh, my God, the people are not with us. We better go where the
people are.
It reminds me of that story about the French parliament, where the
member came out of the parliament and said, Where is the mob? I am
their leader. They are now running out to get in front of where the
American people are.
Madam Speaker, this kind of battlefield conversion about 7 weeks
before the election is really kind of a sham. We will all vote for it.
Do not let anybody think we are going to have a bad vote on this. It is
a PR thing. We are going to send out the PR releases too.
But the American people should not be fooled by this, because no
separation legislation is needed to reduce the debt. If, at the end of
the fiscal year, when we get to September 30, if there is money left in
the Treasury, the Treasury takes it and buys back debt. They reduce the
debt. They do not need any rule, they do not need any law, they do not
need this kind of nonsense; and that may explain why the Senate has
already not even bothered to take up two previous bills just like this.
These lockboxes are good for press releases, but they do not do
anything about what is required, which is discipline and not spending
money. There has already been $300 billion in debt bought back from the
public since 1997 by this mechanism. We did not have any lockbox or
anything else; the Treasury just bought back the debt at the end of
each year.
But the real danger here is the kind of three-card monte that the
Republicans like to play here. It was in June that they voted to put
out a supplemental appropriations act and reach in and break their own
lockbox. They said they had established this lockbox; but, when it came
time and they wanted to do something, they just said, hey, pass an
emergency appropriation and we will do it. They broke their own
lockbox.
So today we are here, and we are going to pass on suspension calendar
by 414 to 0, with a press release.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H7682]]
Madam Speaker, just a quick comment, if I could, on my good friend
from Washington's comments. It is interesting that during the 40 years
that his party held control of the House there was not any debt being
paid down. As a matter of fact, we had $200 billion and $300 billion
deficits during those years.
As a matter of fact, the last year that they controlled both Houses
and the presidency, not only did we not have tax fairness, we were
paying the highest taxes in our Nation's history except for World War
II. We actually had the highest tax increase during 1993, the last year
that his party was in control.
So now the gentleman is right, we did try to bring about some tax
fairness; to the 25 million married couples who pay an average of
$1,400 a year more, just because they are married, a marriage penalty.
We also tried to help those with small businesses and farms who would
like to not have their farms and small businesses sold when they pass
away just to pay the taxes.
So, yes, we have worked for tax fairness, and I find it tragic that
your party and your President have chosen to veto and not pass that
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), our majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I guess this is the point in time where we might rely
on that old homily: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. For 40
years, throughout all of my adult lifetime, the Democrats controlled
this Chamber. During all those 40 years, the growth of government
spending seemed to be without limit. Their hunger for new spending
programs, one risky spending scheme after another, knew no bounds; and,
as they continued spending, spending, spending, and reached the limits
of the government's revenue, they spent the Social Security surplus,
they spent the Medicare surplus, and then they went into debt to the
tune of $250, $260, $270 billion a year. They knew no limit.
In 1994 the public got fed up with it. They turned to the Republicans
on our promise that if we were given the majority, we will try to
balance the budget. We intended to balance the budget. The voices from
the left said it could not be done, it cannot be done. It might have
been done if they had ever tried, but they never paid any attention to
it.
Well, we not only tried, we did it. Not only did we balance the
budget, but we now have an operating surplus of $268 billion. We have
here a proposition that says 90 percent of that surplus, 90 percent of
it should be dedicated to debt, to buy down of the publicly held debt.
What is that promise for future generations? Reduced interest expense
on the debt, a reduced burden.
They say again, it cannot be done. But we must do it. We must try. We
bring this resolution out here today as a measure of our resolve toward
that goal. Not only 90 percent of the unified budget surplus, but 100
percent of all Social Security surplus, 100 percent of all Medicare
surplus.
Why must we do that? Because, Madam Speaker, it is not the
government's money, it is the people's money. The American people
created this surplus, and they now ask us to do something responsible
with it.
Make no mistake about it, the cries are out there for more spending.
Every Democrat in America has got a new risky spending scheme, and
their leader is Vice President Gore. They will spend that money, unless
we stand in the way.
We will have this vote today. And, yes, maybe the Senate will not
take it up, but we in this body will have made a mark; we will have
made the point. We have a commitment; and after this vote is taken,
when the Democrats vote for it, as well as us, and they make what they
have already confessed to be their public relations statement, it will
be harder to go back, even for them.
So, yes, we are saying today we put a limit on government spending;
we establish a higher priority of real debt reduction. Yes, there has
been $350 billion worth of debt reduction since we took the majority;
and no, it never would have happened without us, because we knew,
understood and complied with the priorities of the American people. It
is now time for all of us to take a stand. I say we can never go back.
Madam Speaker, it is not wasted upon me that our newest, youngest
Members are the people that lead this charge, people like the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), people like the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), people who have just gotten to this town and
people who have had a vow that while they are in this town they will
not squander your money on risky spending schemes, when the better
alternative to pay down the debt that was piled up by those who
squandered in the past can take a higher priority. I applaud the youth,
I applaud the enthusiasm, I applaud the leadership, and I recommend a
yes vote for all people, those who mean it, and even those who want to
make a public relations statement today.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I would only say to the distinguished majority leader
that it is good to come out here and give a 90 percent debt reduction
figure and say we will spend only 10 percent. But one really has to
know how to add and subtract when one starts that kind of discussion,
because the 10-year surplus is $4 trillion, $4.5 trillion, and the tax
cuts proposed by the Republicans are over $943 billion. That is 21
percent spent on tax cuts alone. You cannot get 21 percent out of 10
percent. I do not care how you squeeze it or twist it or what kind of
press release you put out, you cannot make the cuts you wanted to make
last week and come back in here today and say, we want to pay down the
debt to 90 percent.
Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Texas a moment ago,
I could not help but remember the infamous words of Will Rogers, when
he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it is
them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem,'' and how many times
we stand on this floor and we talk about things that are the truth, but
we leave out the rest of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.
Now, I wish to congratulate my Republican colleagues for coming
around to the Blue Dog position on debt reduction, which, by the way,
has been supported by a majority on my side of the aisle since we first
proposed it this year, and 37 on your side of the aisle supported it
when we had a chance of making it work.
Today we have a bill at least rhetorically that says we are now
coming around to debt reduction. Unfortunately, this legislation falls
into the category of too little too late, and completely unnecessary;
but let us pass it.
Once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle have gone back
to their districts during the August recess talking about tax cuts and
come back talking about debt reduction. They apparently have heard the
same message I have heard countless times from the folks I represent;
if in fact we have some extra money in the form of a surplus, we should
use it to first pay down our debt and prepare to meet the challenges of
Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Social Security and Medicare are
the first priority of the American people, as it should be, and should
be of this body.
I would have preferred that the Republican leadership had been as
enthusiastic about that position 6 months ago when the Blue Dogs
offered a budget that would have made debt reduction our top priority,
and I am tired of listening to this side of the aisle always being in
the wrong. Let me remind every one of my colleagues, 140 Democrats
supported the debt reduction bill offered by the Blue Dog Democrats,
and 37 Republicans in a bipartisan way supported our budget.
{time} 1630
It made debt reduction our top priority instead of pursuing tax cuts
that would consume all of that surplus. But I am glad we are coming
around to our way of thinking. Over the last 2 years, while the
Republican leadership has been pushing proposals to use all the
[[Page H7683]]
surplus for tax cuts, those of us in the Blue Dog Coalition have been
fighting to make debt reduction our top priority.
On July 22, 1999, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) offered a
motion to recommit, H.R. 2488, the Tax Cut Reconciliation Bill, which
would have required that 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and
50 percent of the non-Social Security surpluses be dedicated to
reducing the national debt. This motion was defeated by a party line
vote of 211-210, roll call No. 332, with only one Republican voting for
it.
On February 10, 2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) offered a
motion to recommit, H.R. 6, that would have required Congress pass
legislation reserving enough of the on-budget surplus for debt
reduction to put the Government on a path to eliminate the publicly
held debt by 2013 before the tax cut could take effect. This motion was
defeated by a vote 196-230, on roll call No. 12, with all Republicans
voting no.
Where were all my Republican colleagues who were talking about the
virtue of debt reduction today on those votes when we had a chance to
put in place a serious bipartisan plan for debt reduction?
The solid Republican opposition to these and other efforts to reserve
surpluses for debt reduction stands in sharp contrast to the professed
commitment to debt reduction that we hear today.
I was extremely disappointed to discover that the bill reported by
the Committee on Ways and Means would only apply to 1 year. The
conversion to the cause of debt reduction appears to be just a short
plan of convenience. The bill before us will leave Congress free to
abandon debt reduction and return to fiscally irresponsible proposals
to use the entire surplus for tax cuts and/or increased spending next
year.
The markets who are looking to us to see if we are serious about
fiscal discipline will not be impressed by a temporary 1-year
commitment to debt reduction that we can abandon next year. They are
looking for a fiscally responsible, long-term framework that will keep
us on a course to paying down the debt while meeting our priorities on
the tax cut and spending side of the aisle.
We should follow the advice of the Concord Coalition to set new
discretionary caps for the next 5 years on spending for this Congress
controlled by the current majority and develop a long-term plan for
allocating the surplus between debt reduction, tax cuts and spending
for priority programs such as Medicare, agriculture, and defense.
Some of my colleagues have said that this bill dealing with debt
reduction can apply for only 1 year because we do not know what the
surpluses will be after next year. I would simply ask my colleagues,
where was that concern last week when we were passing tax cuts and
attempting to override? That was the concern some us had about those
tax cuts. We do not know what the future surpluses are going to be.
Therefore, we should be conservative and pay down the debt.
In contrast to the debt reduction legislation before us now, the Blue
Dog proposals which the majority rejected would have provided for a
meaningful, long-term commitment to use surpluses for debt reduction.
We believe that debt reduction should be our first priority and using
the surplus not something to settle for out of desperation when all
else fails.
If the Republican leadership is sincere in their support for debt
reduction, I would ask them to work with the Blue Dogs and all on our
side of the aisle in our efforts to ensure that debt reduction is the
first priority and using the projected surplus over the next 10 years,
not the next year, and realize that there are those on this side, in
fact the majority of my colleagues on this side have supported with
their votes recorded that we believe deficit reduction is the most
important tact.
It still is not a bad plan. Go back to the drawing board. One year
should not be enough. We ought to have at least a 5-year spending cap
proposal on the floor of the House, and we ought to deal with the 10-
year projections in a realistic way.
I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to join with us
in doing just that.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of comments. I want to thank my
good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the Blue Dogs.
The very positive budget resolutions that they have put out over the
years, I believe, have been very helpful. Again, I want to thank the
gentleman. I have worked with him for a number of years on the
Committee on the Budget.
The problem, however, is that at least the vast majority of their
party has not gone along with that. As we look at during the years that
Democrats were in control, not only were we not reducing the debt, we
were increasing it, as a matter of fact increasing it by $200 billion
and $300 billion a year, which, by the way, did not count what was
going into Social Security, so it was probably almost double that, for
almost 40 years off and on.
So we see again that, while the words are good, and I want to thank
the gentleman and there is no doubt that his intention was very good,
that was not what was being followed.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Fletcher) who has been very active on the Committee on the Budget
working with us on our side on crafting this legislation.
Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all of his
work. I have had the privilege of serving now almost 2 years on the
Committee on the Budget with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
and I know he has been a champion of making sure that we lock up Social
Security and Medicare and not spending a penny of Social Security or
Medicare on other Government programs, on more and bigger Government,
which had been going on here in Washington before I arrived, at least
for 40 years, where they had taken money from the Social Security trust
fund and money from Medicare and spent it on more and bigger
government.
Now, with fiscal discipline, we have been able to have a surplus.
Yes, there is a real debate as to what do we do with this surplus. I
think we need to put an emphasis on debt reduction. I am certainly glad
to have the support of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for this debt reduction.
This is the third bill that I have been privileged to bring to the
floor to reduce the debt. And I thank them for the votes and certainly
hope that they do vote and support it today.
We do have some differences on tax fairness. I think we should
eliminate taxes that are unfair on married couples. That is just not
the right kind of family values this institution should establish in
this country. And double taxing and causing someone to go to the
undertaker and the IRS in the same month are not the kind of values
that this institution should espouse.
So, yes, we have substantial differences on how we should spend not
our money but the people's money; and that is what we are talking about
here today.
Now, what we are doing in this bill clearly is taking and doing
something new that has not been done before; and that is appropriating
money to a debt reduction account, $240 billion. Now, some naysayers
may say, well, this will occur anyway. But, in fact, it does not occur
that way.
Now when we go to the end of the year to debate how this money is
spent, we have $240 billion, and I am very hopeful the other body, the
Senate, will take this up. And taking up this legislation, then if we
are going to increase spending on more and bigger government, we are
actually going to have to take this money now from this account and we
are going to have to at least flush out the folks that want to spend
more money and make it very clear that they are taking that money from
future generations.
That is what this is about. Do we want to live within our means like
every family does when they are around the kitchen table and decide to
balance their checkbooks or do we want to say, no, I am going to spend
more, maybe please some constituents that we want or whatever, but I am
going to do more and more and build bigger government and I am going to
mortgage it on the backs of the future generation?
[[Page H7684]]
That must stop. I am thankful that we are able to stop that at this
time, we are able to pay down that debt, $240 billion, hopefully
eliminate it by 2012. And, yes, I do think we can give some tax refunds
to folks to go make tax more fair. And these two are not mutually
exclusive. We can do both.
In the Blue Dog budget, they had a tax relief plan and some of the
reasons we did not support that is I think CBO ended up scoring that as
a tax increase. There is some question about that. So I think we have
some honest debate.
But what does this bill mean to the average person? First off, every
child that is born owes $20,000 now in debt. Every taxpayer pays a dime
out of every dollar just to pay the interest on it. What this means is
that we are going to eventually eliminate that. We would like to reduce
that debt on future generations. We would like to tear up their
mortgage and pay it off. We would like to make sure we can increase
revenues by reducing the debt that we owe and the interest on that
publicly held debt. It means it will keep the economy going, more
people will be able to afford a home, interest rates will be lower,
people will be able to afford more on their children's education, and
they might even be able to take a family vacation that they have not
been able to take for a while. This means that we keep the economy
going, hopefully, in the direction it is going, a booming economy, so
that we can provide more.
So what this means is that it is for the future generations. It would
eliminate, eventually, that $20,000 debt that every child owes. Every
newborn that comes into this country receives that $20,000 debt, and we
are working on eliminating that.
Again, I say it is very clear, what are our priorities? Do we want
more and bigger government? Well the Clinton/Gore administration, over
2 years, presented budgets that did what? Increased taxes, $82 billion
1 year and $45 billion the next or thereabouts. That is the difference
in priorities. We believe it is not the Government's money, it is the
people's money.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I want to join with the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
and congratulate people talking about debt reduction.
I do not know where my colleagues have been in the last 18 months or
so, but if it were not for the surroundings in this room being familiar
to me, I would think I was in another country in another parliamentary
setting.
This is what we have been saying for 18 months and we have been told
repeatedly, it is the people's money, give it back to them. We have
seen hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts enacted by the people
who come down here today and try to convince us that they want to
reduce the debt. I mean, I thought I was in another country.
This is familiar and, so, I guess I am in the United States.
Let me give my colleagues some example of what I am talking about.
They keep talking about 40 years. Here are facts. This is history. This
is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is not a projection.
This is facts. These are the budget deficits under the Presidents.
Right here the red is President Carter. This is President Reagan.
This is President Bush. Reagan starts here. All of this debt. Blue
starts with Clinton. If we start 40 years, they are trying to tell
people that Democrats in the House did something that is
constitutionally impossible. They had a Republican President for 24 of
those 28 years with a veto pen, just like President Clinton has. During
6 years of Reagan's 8-year term, they had a Republican Senate. There is
no way under this Government that the House can do anything by itself.
So I appreciate what they are saying. But as the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) said, they are asking people to believe something that
is constitutionally impossible.
Beyond that, what we are talking about is a real debt of over $3.5
trillion that we have been screaming about here for 18 months. I had
the motion to ask my colleagues to just reserve half, split it with the
kids of tomorrow, half of the on-budget surplus over the next 10 years,
just split it with the kids.
No. We got one vote from them. The rest of it was let us take 87
percent under those projections for a tax cut now for ourselves, we
will not worry about the future, notwithstanding the fact that it was
only a projection.
Now, if my colleagues want to talk about debt reduction, let us not
just do it this year, let us do it in connection with what we have been
telling people about tax cuts and let us do it over 10 years. That is
what the Blue Dogs ask them to do. If they are going to use 10-year
numbers to do a tax cut, then, for heaven's sake, let us do a 10-year
number for a debt reduction package. Then we have got apples to apples.
Then we have got something that people can relate to, understand,
appreciate, and either agree or disagree with.
But to come here now, I mean I am going to vote for it, too, why not,
but this is I hope the forerunner of people who have been talking about
what, I think, are irresponsible tax cuts based on projections coming
and saying, let us do it the conservative way, let us do it on a 50-
percent split with the kids.
As a matter of fact, they say 90 percent of a unified budget, that is
only $7 billion more than the Blue Dog plan would have been this year
under a 50-percent on-budget surplus. We would have put 35. They put 42
for 1 year.
{time} 1645
Over 10 years we will put under the Blue Dog plan over $1.3 trillion
more toward debt reduction than anything my Republican colleagues have
voted for this year.
Let me just say this in closing. I appreciate the time. I hope that
we can come together and quit all this finger pointing and so on. But
there is no way that you can disregard 18 months and come down here and
say, Well, you guys come along and join us. What we need to do is a 10-
year projection, not a 1-year or 30-day, or it will not even be 30
days. October 1 is the new fiscal year. It will be 15 days.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If the gentleman would leave his map up, I think that is a very good
prop. I would like to refer to it myself. There are only certain
numbers I think that really count. That is the results that we are
doing. If we look again over the 40 years that the gentleman's party
was in control, the Democrats, we spent more than we brought in each of
those 40 years. The fact is that for the last 4 years, we have actually
not had 2 and $300 billion deficits.
Let me just read. During 1998, the Republican Congress had a balanced
budget, the first one in 30 years, paid down $51 billion. In 1999, we
had a balanced budget plus we paid down $87 billion. This year, the
year 2000, we had a balanced budget and we paid down $224 billion. We
are projecting that for next year, 2001, and that is the only budget we
have control over as the gentleman from Tennessee knows, the only
budget we have control over is the one we are in right now, we are
projecting a $240 billion paydown of the public debt, 90 percent of the
entire surplus, not after we finish spending but before we begin
spending we want to dedicate.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, I would point out as we look at the graph, as we look
at the chart, it is a fact that all spending bills originate in the
House, as we contemplate where we would be today if we were using the
President's budget from 1995, had we not had the election of a
Republican House in 1994, where would we be today? I think the answer
to that is based upon the President's budget at the time; we would
still be running chronic $200 billion deficits today.
I want to thank some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
particularly the Blue Dogs, for their efforts at deficit reduction. But
I must say some of the credit also goes certainly to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), our budget chairman, and goes to the Republicans who
in 1994 and in 1995, we were able to slow the rate of government
growth, one year down to 2.7 percent. And in so doing, by slowing
[[Page H7685]]
that government growth rate, allow revenues to catch up with
expenditures, and now we have balanced budgets. If indeed we do look at
the chart, Members notice that when we begin to run those surpluses is
at the point in time that the Republican House's budgets began to kick
in.
I rise in support of this debt relief lock-box act because this bill
uses 90 percent of next year's budget surplus to pay down the national
debt. I think as we look at the Republican plan to pay off the total
public debt by 2013 and the President has signed on to that plan, we
are committed to doing that; as we look at that, we now begin to
realize that there are more revenues coming in than we ever imagined.
The surplus is growing at a very good clip. The administration has
continued to veto those measures like the marriage and death tax relief
bills, so they have made it clear that they do not want to let
Americans keep some of this money. They do not want to have that
returned. From our side of the aisle, our response to that is, All
right. Well, let's at least make certain that the government doesn't
spend it. Let's make certain that it goes to paying down the debt.
Because according to the General Accounting Office, the government made
more than $20 billion in improper payments in fiscal 1999 through
waste, fraud, and abuse. Let us at least agree that we are going to
root out that waste, fraud and abuse in these Federal agencies; and let
us agree that before we spend any more of this money, we will first use
90 percent of it to pay down that national debt.
I urge my colleagues to prioritize by passing this bill so that we
can reach that consensus, which I think will be something we can all
agree upon.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, I would like to return the compliment to the gentleman
from California. I truly have enjoyed attempting to work with him and
several others on his side of the aisle who have attempted to be
consistent. The bill today is not consistent. That is my problem. You
cannot be on the floor one week arguing for gigantic tax cuts and then
the next week coming in for saying debt reduction. You cannot do that
in an honest sense. You can do it in a political sense, and I realize
that is what we are doing today.
I happen to have been here during the Reagan-Bush years. Only one of
those 12 years did the Congress, the big-spending liberal Congress that
we have heard so many times referred to, only one time in those 12
years did the Congress ever spend more than Presidents Reagan and Bush
asked us to spend. I say that to say, let us stop the finger pointing.
There is enough blame.
I give credit to my colleagues on the other side for those things
which they have attempted to do. But I have a healthy disagreement with
the budget priorities they have brought. The gentleman from Kentucky a
moment ago inferred in the usual sly way that the Blue Dog budget would
have increased taxes. He knows that is not right. He knows that our
budget proposed real tax cuts, just like he knows that last week when I
stood up in support of the President's veto on the marriage tax
penalty, I support eliminating the marriage tax. He knows that. My
argument was that it did not take $292 billion to do it, it took $82
billion.
Let us confine our tax cuts within the confines of what we need to do
to pay down the debt, which the gentleman from Tennessee was talking
about a moment ago. You cannot do both. If you are going to have a $1.3
trillion tax cut, you do not have any money left for deficit reduction
and still meet the needs of Social Security and Medicare and defense
spending and all of the other things that we need.
My colleagues know that I support eliminating the death tax and have
voted that way and hope that in this compromise in the 90-10 era that
we can have a death tax repeal effective January 1, 2001, on all
estates up to $4 million if we can pull up our sleeves and start
working together.
Now, I do not know why we have this legislation. Well, I do.
Everybody knows why it is out here today. We keep talking about 40
years. Forty years is history. I am more interested in this year and
the next 10 years and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) is,
too. I know exactly where he comes from. But he has got a duty to do
today. His leadership has decided we have to now emphasize debt
reduction, so we are going to have a bill out emphasizing debt
reduction so we can have press releases back home. But the real way we
are going to deal with this is to get real.
Let me also make it very clear when we talk about numbers, there is
not a dime of these dollars that are not the people's money. It does
not take Members of Congress standing up and saying this is the
people's money. We do not have any money to spend that we do not first
take from the American people. It is a matter of priorities. My
priority is fixing Social Security and fixing Medicare first, paying
down the debt and then dealing with the priorities that were your
number one priority last week. This week it is a different one.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again what is important, I think history is important, what did
happen, what are the actual facts. Again as we see on this chart here,
for 40 years, the Congress where the Constitution sets up that the
Congress, the House of Representatives specifically under Democrat
control, or under anyone's control sets up a budget. They are the ones
who author spending bills.
It is interesting that there is reference to tax reduction or tax
fairness as though somehow that is wrong. My good friend from Texas,
just to respond to that, I do not think it is wrong to correct and have
tax fairness for a young married couple who is married who has several
children and yet they are penalized an average of $1,400 just by the
fact that they are married. I also do not think it is wrong that
farmers and small businessmen in the gentleman from Texas' district as
well as my rural area in northern California who work hard all their
lives, who would like to leave their families, their children their
farms and small businesses, they do not get anything out of it, they
are dead, but that they have to sell their small farms and their small
businesses simply to pay the taxes. I do not think that is wrong.
That is our priority.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I wish when my colleague makes mention
of me that he would extend the courtesy of yielding for purposes of a
response. I agree with the gentleman. That is precisely our point. We
can deal with the death tax and meet every single one of the tear-
bringing responses that he just brought again to the floor. I agree
with him. We can deal with the marriage tax, not like you were
proposing it last week, but like the Blue Dogs have suggested for the
last 18 months. We can do it. Let us roll up our sleeves and do it, and
you will find that we will reduce the debt as much or more as the bill
before us today and do just exactly that.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am sure that the President of the United States is very pleased to
see this conversion of the Republican Party about 2 weeks before the
final negotiations begin. He has said from the beginning that we are
going to strengthen Social Security, we are going to strengthen
Medicare, and we are going to pay off the debt and then we are going to
get to the issues like the inheritance tax and the marriage tax penalty
and so forth. He has made proposals. He has said, Let's put it all in
one package. It is going to happen. But this is the first time, the
first time, in fact this started the other day in the Oval Office or in
the conference room up at the White House where suddenly the
Republicans after all this tax cutting suddenly had for the first time
a new proposal laid on the table by the Speaker saying we want 90
percent to go to debt reduction.
Now, it really is better late than never. I think if somebody comes
into the church and accepts the gospel of debt reduction, it is better
to do it now than never. And so we welcome you. We really do. We are
going to be able to end this session and do what the American people
need and what they have wanted all along. They have been telling us
that. All the polls have been
[[Page H7686]]
telling us from the beginning that they recognize that simply giving
money back but leaving this debt resting on their kids was not fair.
They knew. We have had a good life. But they said, Let's pay down our
credit card so that our kids don't have to pay it down in the future.
The President has said it. He said it in the State of the Union right
here in the well. And now the Republicans are with him. That is
wonderful.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, we are really talking about a $70 billion surplus in
excess of Social Security and Medicare. It should be 90 percent of that
$70 billion, or $63 billion rather, that we are taking 90 percent of
the on- and off-budget surplus, which is a start; but it means more
spending.
The President has said he sees probably there is no room for using
any excess to pay down the debt this year other than the debt held by
the public. We have got to go further than this. Talking about paying
down the debt held by the public by 2012 means that we do not solve
Social Security. We do not use that money to do what is important in
saving Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this is a good start, but it should be more. We are
really talking about a $70 billion surplus in excess of Social Security
and Medicare. Ninety percent of that $70 billion, is $63 billion that
should be dedicated to debt reduction in addition to the Medicare and
Social Security surplus. Rather, we are taking 90 percent of the
unified budget surplus which allows an additional $20 billion more
spending. Ninety percent of the $70 billion is $63 billion or only $7
billion increased spending. The reason such tax cuts as the marriage
penalty tax should be on the table, is that it takes increased spending
off the table.
The President has said he sees little room for additional debt
paydown in 2001. Let me quote the New York Times of September 13th:
``Mr. Clinton told Republicans he viewed paying down the debt as a
priority, but said he was not sure it could be done in the 2001 fiscal
budget, which is set to begin on Oct. 1. `Whether we can do it this
year or not depends upon what the various spending commitments are,'
Mr. Clinton said.''
We can do better than this. Talking about paying off the debt by 2012
is misleading. It means that we do not solve the Social Security
problem because it is the Social Security surplus that is being used to
pay down that portion of the total debt held by the public. We need
that money to do what is necessary to save Social Security and
Medicare.
{time} 1700
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we have a historic opportunity before us today. We can
make debt reduction the priority instead of the afterthought. This
Congress can throw away the old ways of paying debt only after the
spending is done.
We are also reaffirming our commitment to saving every penny of the
Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Ending the raid on these
trust funds is the right thing to do. All in all this bill will pay
down an unprecedented $240 billion in public debt in just 1 year.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure for our
children, for our grandchildren, for our seniors, and for the best
interests of our Nation.
Madam Speaker, and just responding quickly to my friend on the other
side of the aisle on the gospel of debt reduction, I would like to
refer to the board, a graph up here which shows that for 40 years under
Democrat control, we deficit-spent every year; and I think what is
important is that for the last year, for the last 4 years, we have not
only not deficit-spend, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
And I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott), in 1998 we paid down $51 billion. In 1999, we paid down $87
billion. In fiscal year 2000, $224 billion; and this year, we are
asking to pay down $240 billion. Again the proof of the pudding is in
the eating.
We have done it before, and let us do it now and let us commit to it.
Mr. ARCHER. Madam Speaker, this bill is very straightforward and
simple, and I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky,
Congressman Fletcher, for all his work on this bill. This bill would
direct approximately 90% of the total budget surplus toward debt relief
in Fiscal year 2001. It includes Congressman Herger's Social Security
and Medicare lockbox legislation, and it adds an additional $42 billion
from the on-budget surplus in FY 2001 for additional debt reduction.
No question, we would have preferred that some of these funds would
have gone to end the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married
couples and to repeal the death tax to protect small businesses and
family farms, but President Clinton blocked these bipartisan efforts.
So now, the next best use for these funds is to pay down the debt.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said debt relief is the
best way to keep our economy strong. Of course, Chairman Greenspan also
has said that the worst possible use of these surplus funds is for more
spending.
We don't want debt relief to be the crumbs on the table after the
Washington spending binge, we want debt relief to be the meat and
potatoes that grows our economy instead of big government.
That's why this bill represents a compromise. President Clinton
showed that he did not want to use the taxpayer-generated surplus for
tax relief with his vetoes. Buy by the same token, Republicans in
Congress do not feel that the lion's share of the surplus should be
used for more spending. So why don't we compromise and use the funds to
pay down the public debt?
I hope and am confident we will have bipartisan support for this bill
today, since every Member of the Ways and Means Committee voted for
this bill last week. If there are any objections, and I hope there will
be none, but if there are, I would expect them to focus on the level of
debt relief included in this bill. Again, since the House passed this
exact same approach to debt relief in July by a vote of 422-1, I cannot
envision any objections as to how this bill achieves debt relief.
This bill is the latest highlight of a Republican record on debt
relief that is unmatched in history.
Since Republicans gained control of Congress, we have paid down $351
billion in debt--$351 billion. Now, we propose to continue this effort
by paying down an additional $240 billion of debt for FY 2001.
Combined, that would mean that by the end of FY 2001, we would have
paid down well over a half a trillion dollars in the public debt.
Half a trillion dollars in debt relief is a remarkable accomplishment
for which we can all be proud.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5173, the
Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for FY 2001. This legislation
achieves several important goals--not the least of which is to retire
the nation's debt by an additional forty two billion dollars in FY
2001. It does so while providing that one hundred percent of the Social
Security and Medicare surpluses are fully protected. Why is it so
important to all Americans, including seniors that we pay down the
debt? I'll be more than happy to tell you why I think it is vital that
we pay down the debt since we have eliminated the nation's deficits.
Thomas Jefferson made the following statement:
I place economy among the first and most important of
republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the
dangers to be feared.
The was in 1816. That was a credible statement then and it remains so
today. If you divide the number of citizens by the outstanding public
debt, what would you get? Your share, my share, each and every child's
share is $20,559.
The gross debt, which is all of the federal government's outstanding
debt, totals about $5.5 trillion. To answer the question I posed
earlier: We must reduce the debt because it will enhance net national
savings, this in turn would free up resources for investments in
productivity that will lead to stronger economic growth in the future.
A larger economy will help ease the burden on our nation's children,
who in later life as taxpayers, will be asked to shoulder the burden of
paying for retirement and health care costs of a dramatically older
population.
Paying down the debt is the right thing to do and I urge my
colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.
Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5173 and want
to commend the Republican Leadership for abandoning their fiscally
irresponsible budget and trying to salvage, albeit with less than a
month left until the 106th Congress ends, something from the ruins of
their failed budget that hinged on a foolhardly $2 trillion tax cut.
H.R. 5173 would reserve 90%, or $239 billion of the total projected
federal budget surplus for Fiscal Year 2001, for debt reduction. As a
senior member of the House Budget Committee, I have consistently argued
that the
[[Page H7687]]
best course of action to insure the continued fiscal health of this
nation, is to pay down publicly-held debt, while simultaneously
safeguarding Social Security and Medicare. Under H.R. 5173, the non-
Social Security, non-Medicare surplus, estimated at $42 billion, would
be reserved for debt reduction and would be kept in a newly-established
special account, maintained by the U.S. Department of Treasury, for use
to purchase publicly-held debt at or before maturity. H.R. 5173 also
amends the Republican flawed budget, H. Con. Res. 290, by creating
``points of order'' in the House and Senate, against any legislation
that would use the projected $165 billion Social Security Trust Fund
and $32 billion Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund surpluses for
anything other than paying down the debt. This measure, which leaves
$29 billion available for spending increases or tax cuts, represents an
enormous departure from the Republican Leadership's trillion dollars
tax cut.
Paying down the debt is sound fiscal policy. First, by retiring
Treasury bonds and reducing their availability, interest rates decline,
including lower cost mortgages and car loans. Second, reducing the debt
frees up capital for investment in more productive assets which will
spur economic growth. Third, paying down the debt frees up federal
resources which are otherwise consumed by interest costs. Fourth, lower
interest rates, increased savings and economic growth, and freeing up
resources all work together to increase our ability to extend the
solvency of Social Security and Medicare. And fifth, the projected
long-term budget surplus is based on assumptions which could change.
I have consistently argued that consuming the projected surpluses
rather than pay down debt, leaves no room for error if the assumptions
on budgetary surpluses turn out to be wrong and could lead us back on
the path of increased debt, squeezing out Social Security, Medicare,
defense, and other priorities. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I rise
in support of H.R. 5173, a concession by the Republican Leadership that
their massive tax cutting scheme, was fiscally imprudent.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5173, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. HERGER. Madam 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.
____________________