[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.

                          ____________________