[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15198-15203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          DEBT RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4866) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
103(b)(1) 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. 4866

       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 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 strengthens social security, the social security surplus 
     should be used to reduce the debt held by the public;
       (4) strengthening the Government's fiscal position through 
     public debt reduction increases national savings, promotes 
     economic growth, reduces interest costs, and is a 
     constructive way to prepare for the Government's future 
     budget obligations; and
       (5) it is fiscally responsible and in the long-term 
     national economic interest to use a portion of the nonsocial 
     security surplus to reduce the debt held by the public.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) reduce the debt held by the public with the goal of 
     eliminating this debt by 2013; and
       (2) decrease the statutory limit on the public debt.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT 
                   ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 31 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 3114. Public debt reduction payment account

       ``(a) There is established in the Treasury of the United 
     States an account to be known as 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, $25,000,000,000 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. 4. REDUCTION OF STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

       Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``minus the amount appropriated into the Public 
     Debt Reduction Payment Account pursuant to section 3114(c)'' 
     after ``$5,950,000,000,000''.

     SEC. 5. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT 
                   ACCOUNT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Public Debt Reduction Payment 
     Account established by section 3114 of title 31, United 
     States Code, shall not be counted as new budget authority, 
     outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.

     SEC. 6. REMOVING PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT ACCOUNT FROM 
                   BUDGET PRONOUNCEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Any official statement issued by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget 
     Office, or any other agency or instrumentality of the Federal 
     Government of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the 
     United States Government as submitted by the President or of 
     the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget, 
     and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any 
     official publication or material issued by either of such 
     Offices or any other such agency or instrumentality, shall 
     exclude the outlays and receipts of the Public Debt Reduction 
     Payment Account established by section 3114 of title 31, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Separate Public Debt Reduction Payment Account Budget 
     Documents.--The excluded outlays and receipts of the Public 
     Debt Reduction Payment Account established by section 3114 of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall be submitted in separate 
     budget documents.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury.--(1) Within 
     30 days after the appropriation is deposited into the Public 
     Debt Reduction Payment Account under section 3114 of title 
     31, United States Code, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate confirming that such account has been established and 
     the amount and date of such deposit. Such report shall also 
     include a description of the Secretary's plan for using such 
     money to reduce debt held by the public.
       (2) Not later than October 31, 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).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4866.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 15199]]


  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, last month, H.R. 4601 took the first step toward 
eliminating the national debt by the year 2013. That bill set aside 
additional non-Social Security surpluses for fiscal year 2000 for debt 
reduction by depositing the money in a newly created public debt 
reduction payment account in Treasury. Money deposited in this account 
would be taken off budget and could not be used for any purpose other 
than paying down the publicly held debt. The bill passed an 
overwhelmingly 419 to 5.
  Well, what a difference a month makes. Since then, as my colleagues 
may recall, the budget surplus for this next year was going to be about 
$180 billion, the Congressional Budget Office has announced that that 
now is going to rise to a level of $268 billion. So today, H.R. 4866 
would build on that progress of H.R. 4601 by depositing into the 
account an additional $25 billion out of the non-Social Security 
surplus for the fiscal year 2001.
  A debt reduction payment account has already been established from 
Treasury. The account is not part of the budget. So any cash, any money 
that we put into that would be taken outside of the budget. Twenty-five 
billion dollars of the non-Social Security surplus is automatically 
deposited into this account if this bill is passed. The statutory debt 
limit will also be reduced by an equivalent amount. Once the money is 
deposited into the account, the Treasury must use the money to reduce 
the public debt. The money cannot be used for any other purpose.
  Thirty days after the end of the year, after the end of fiscal year 
2001, Treasury has to submit a report detailing to Congress the amount 
of money that was deposited into the account, the amount of the public 
debt reduction, and the exact Treasury securities that were redeemed 
with those funds; and this information is verified by the GAO.
  Let me just give those people at home that I know watch what happens 
here with a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of concern, let me give them a 
thumbnail sketch of what we are talking about here today.
  The budget, when we passed it in April for fiscal year 2001, was 
going to have a surplus of $180 billion. The Congressional Budget 
Office has now reestimated that surplus to be $268 billion.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues what we have planned based on this 
bill and based on our budget for how that money should be used. First 
of all, $166 billion of that is Social Security. It is taken out of the 
budget under our budget plan. It is taken away. Nobody can touch it. We 
have done that now for the third consecutive year. We have had the 
opportunity to take Social Security completely out of the budget.
  The Medicare surplus, the Medicare Trust Fund surplus, $32 billion, 
is taken outside of the budget. Nobody can use it for anything else, as 
it was used in the past. The debt that we are reducing is $25 billion. 
All right. There will be tax relief of about $5 billion to $6 billion.
  Let me give my colleagues some of the percentages. The debt reduction 
of this bill alone represents 83 percent of the budget surplus going to 
reduce the national debt. We have the opportunity today to pass on to 
our kids a little less debt than we did the day before. The tax cut by 
relationship is only representing about 2 percent of that particular 
budget.
  This is the second bill in a row to reduce the national debt, and 
there is still the opportunity to have a third bill in the fall to, 
again, make another principal payment toward the national debt.
  Now, it is not going to be very glamorous to do this, and there is 
going to be a lot of people who run down here to the floor and say, oh, 
well, this would automatically happen. Yes, sure. For the last 40 
years, it has not automatically happened. Nobody reduced any debt 
during that period of time. If someone wants to believe this is 
automatically going to happen, I have got some swamp land someplace to 
sell to them.
  This is prioritizing how the surplus ought to be used, national debt 
number one.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill comes to the floor under the Suspension 
Calendar, which it is a suspension of the rules. But I would assume it 
also means it is the suspension of common sense. I have never before 
heard anybody that is going to reduce the deficit by proclamation.
  I was amazed that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) would say that 
he was addressing his remarks to the people at home, because I would be 
embarrassed to tell the people at home that I am supporting a bill that 
never went through any committee in the House of Representatives.
  It is just that someone woke up in the middle of the night and said 
let us give a message to the people at home. Last night, the message 
would have been that we would reduce the budget by $7.5 billion. But 
that was not a sufficient message for the people at home. That would 
not fly in going to the convention. So we say, let us reduce it by $90 
billion or whatever the new numbers are going to be.
  One does not reduce deficits just by standing on the floor 
proclaiming what one wants to do. One does not reduce the deficit by 
just trying to find out what is the new surplus under the Clinton-Gore 
administration, what has been announced, and then, as soon as one does, 
one adds it to the list of tax cuts that one has had that, so far, is 
$611 billion. Then, too, one has to restrain one's spending.
  The people at home know that the only way to reduce debt is to 
increase revenue or to decrease spending. So what my colleagues are 
trying to do is to do both. But since we know that this is merely a 
proclamation for the people at home, and since we know that nobody in 
this House is against the concept, and since we know that the gentleman 
that is supporting the bill on this side belongs to the same committee 
I belong to, and it certainly did not come from our committee, that 
maybe it came from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.
  I do not have any problem with that, because we Democrats would 
support the reduction of the deficit. It is a waste of people's time to 
do this. We need people to do things by action, not just by statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott), who is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
maybe the more committee members we have of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, we can see where this suspension came from.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is Howdy Doody time again.
  Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record my remarks of June 20 when 
we passed the last iteration of this foolishness.
  Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that Groucho Marx said the main 
requirement to be a good politician is to appear to be serious.
  The Washington Post recently commented on the performance of the 
majority in this Congress by calling this the ``pretend Congress.''
  Now my colleagues get the second act from what I said in June. 
Because after we passed the bill, immediately the Congress went to work 
and started passing a supplemental appropriation. They reached into 
this lockbox that they say they are creating, and they took out of it 
all of the money and spent it. Then they started on the budget for 
2001, and they started moving around pay days and when contractors get 
paid. It is all a flimflam.
  Now, for the folks back home who are listening, let me explain 
something to them.

                              {time}  1615

  When the Federal Government gets tax money in, it sits in the 
treasury, and when the bonds come due, those government bonds, people 
say----


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

[[Page 15200]]


  Mr. McDERMOTT. I am explaining to the Speaker, because he may not 
understand either, from the way these bills come.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, point of order. My understanding of the 
rules on the floor is that we are to address the Speaker, not the 
people back home, and yet he directly addressed them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise all 
Members to address the Speaker, and not the television audience.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand how the budget 
money is dealt with, because I know you may not have been on the 
Committee on the Budget.
  When the money is in the Treasury and the bonds come due, if there is 
money laying there, they buy back those bonds. They do not have to 
borrow money to roll over the debt. It happens automatically. It 
happens automatically. It has done it for years. We do not need bills 
like this, which come out here 2 weeks before the convention to say 
that we are reducing the debt. We have been reducing the debt. It has 
been going on on a regular basis.
  Now, if my colleagues on the other side were serious about reducing 
the debt, and we get a new announcement from the Congressional Budget 
Office that says that we have $90 billion more in surplus, why do they 
come out here and only buy back $25 billion? Why do they not buy it all 
back? We know why. Because the Republicans want to give tax breaks. We 
are going to move on one of them here very shortly.
  The fact is that we have already given $611 billion in tax breaks 
over the next 10 years. Now, if my colleagues were serious about paying 
back the deficit and they wanted to reduce the debt, what they would do 
is stop spending money, let it accumulate in the treasury, and when the 
bonds come due, the treasury pays them off. We do not do it by spending 
every chance we get.
  We have to save some money here also for what happens in September. I 
will say it now so I can get out my remarks in September and say that 
we are going to spend a bunch of money in September to buy our way out 
of this Congress. The majority cannot stop themselves. It is an 
election year. And that makes this a sham.
  Now, we are all part of the PR, and we are going to vote for it, like 
everybody else; but do not, anybody who is watching, pay any attention.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record hereafter the remarks I referred 
to earlier:

               Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000

       Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Groucho Marx said that the main 
     requirement to be a good politician is to appear to be 
     serious. The Washington Post recently commented on the 
     performance of the majority in this Congress by calling this 
     `the pretend Congress.'
       This is one of the new acts. This debt reduction bill here 
     pretends to do something. We are all called here together, we 
     are going to be serious, we are going to give pompous 
     speeches about how we are going to reduce the debt, and we 
     are saving America, and all those Girl Scout cookies and all 
     that stuff will just be fixed by this bill.
       Now, the chairman at least was honest, and I really 
     acknowledge the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) honesty. 
     This bill is effective from now until September 30, 2000. It 
     does not quite make it all the way through the election. So 
     it is not really a very good pretend item. It would be better 
     if it went at least until November 8. But this is a bill for 
     4 months.
       Now, you ask yourself, why would anybody be doing such a 
     thing? Well, if you come up to a new reestimate of the 
     revenue estimates here very shortly, the CBO and the OMB are 
     going to come out with a whole bunch more money. Clearly the 
     majority is afraid that they are going to spend it. They 
     cannot save themselves. They have all the votes. This is your 
     problem. We have the votes, as the majority over there, and 
     they are going to put more money on the table and if you do 
     not pass this bill, you will not be able to stop yourself 
     from spending it. That is what this is about, I guess. Or 
     maybe it is not about that.
       The fact is that we have a situation where the Treasury 
     does not need this bill to pay off more debt. If we get to 
     the end of the fiscal year and there is some money there, 
     they reduce the debt. They do not have to borrow. It is real 
     simple. They do not need us to pass H.R. 4601 to tell them 
     what they have been doing for 200 years. If they have a 
     surplus, they buy down some of the debt. But this is a 
     symbolic act, as my colleague from California says. I thought 
     this would be on Friday, because this is usually the news 
     cycle on Friday, they want to have something that says the 
     Republicans today have passed a bill to encourage reduction 
     of the debt.
       Now, if you think about it, if you want to reduce the debt, 
     you do not give big tax breaks, because taxes bring in money. 
     And if you cut the taxes, there will not be any money to pay 
     off the debt. So when you come out here and vote for tax cut 
     after tax cut after tax cut and then say, And we want to 
     reduce the debt, you simply are not making sense. There are 
     only two ways to have money to pay off the debt, either take 
     the taxes and pay it off or reduce the spending and pay it 
     off, one or the other.
       I do not see any evidence so far in this appropriations 
     process that we are actually reducing spending. In fact, we 
     are going up a little bit, and probably we are going to need 
     some of this money along about September 15 to solve the 
     problem to buy off this program or that program so we can get 
     out of here. All we have to do under this bill, we do not 
     have to repeal the act, we do not have to do anything, just 
     pass the supplemental appropriation.
       This can be violated by the most simplistic legislative act 
     of all, just bring out another bill, spend some more money, 
     in spite of the fact that we have passed H.R. 4601, the debt 
     reduction bill. This bill will die in the Senate from 
     laughter. There will not be anybody over there that takes 
     this seriously.

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is 
interesting that both of the gentlemen who just spoke voted for the 
bill that they ridiculed. They rush here down to the floor and they 
say, oh, what a bad bill; oh, it is just theater; oh, we cannot stand 
it, and then they vote for it. Boy, that is political will. Boy, that 
is courage.
  This is the Democratic magic show. Do not look at what we are doing; 
look over here. Look over here. We want people to look over here; do 
not look at what we are working on. Look over here. Let us talk about 
everything else but the facts that we are reducing the debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who serves as one of our representatives to the 
Committee on the Budget, for yielding me this time; and I would note 
for this House, mindful of the remarks of my colleague on the Committee 
on Ways and Means from Washington State, my remarks in response to his 
comments in June that also appeared in the Congressional Record where 
we offered the popular definition of insanity. The popular definition 
of insanity is, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting 
a substantially different outcome.
  And therein we find the horns of the dilemma for our friends on the 
left. Because they come to this floor and speak disdainfully of 
process, indeed, Mr. Speaker, inviting our constituents to believe that 
this is somehow a flimflam. But, Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is the 
flimflam came in the 40 years of one-party dominance that this Congress 
saw where our friends on the left continually spent not only the money 
raised in revenue for general purposes but revenue intended for Social 
Security, revenue intended for Medicare, revenue that drove us deeper 
and deeper and deeper into debt.
  And, Mr. Speaker, while we welcome their support, disdainful though 
it may be, while we welcome their support here and we also welcome 
their rhetorical endorsement now of debt retirement, we also point out 
that we stand in support of today's resolution because we intend to 
retire the debt. We have listened to the folks back home, Mr. Speaker; 
and, moreover, we understand this fundamental truth that fails to be 
grasped by our friends on the left: the money in the United States 
Treasury, Mr. Speaker, belongs to the American people, the American 
taxpayer. And, yes, we proudly stand and say that the American people 
ought to hold on to more of their hard-earned money instead of sending 
it here to Washington.
  Now, it is a legitimate debate. My colleagues on the left believe the 
highest and best use of taxpayer money, of

[[Page 15201]]

the American people's money, Mr. Speaker, is to keep it here in 
Washington for more and more expenditures, for more and more grand 
schemes, because the Washington bureaucrats know best.
  We know exactly the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. That is the voice 
of fiscal sanity here. We say let the American people hang on to their 
money and let us take a portion of that money that remains in 
Washington and use it to pay down the debt with this particular 
resolution to the tune of $25 billion, paying down the debt, in effect 
lowering the debt ceiling, for the second time since 1917, and thereby 
making history.
  No, Mr. Speaker, it is not gimmickry. It is something that is unique 
and novel to our colleagues on the left. It is sound accountancy and 
ultimately being accountable to the American people.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are different ways to skin this cat; and I guess 
the puzzling, perplexing aspect of this bill is why we are reaching for 
a new solution when we have got other solutions ready at hand.
  For example, as the gentleman from Iowa knows, we are way over the 
discretionary spending caps. There is no chance that we will adhere to 
the caps that we set in 1997. We could reset the discretionary spending 
caps, reinstate the process we call sequestration, so that if we exceed 
those caps, there is an automatically across-the-board series of cuts 
that reins in spending to the level we have set.
  We also have something around here we call the pay-go rule. It 
applies to tax cuts and entitlement increases. It says, basically, if 
we want to have either, we have to pay for it. We have to offset it. 
There must be an offsetting tax increase to diminish the revenue loss 
or there must be a decrease in an entitlement in order to pay for an 
increase in entitlement. Those rules are there. Why not simply put them 
back into working order?
  Furthermore, if we are really in earnest, the surplus projected for 
next year, 2001, is $102 billion, per CBO's most recent report. $102 
billion is the on-budget surplus without including Social Security. Why 
go for $25 if the on-budget surplus is $102? Why not raise our sights, 
lift the bar a bit, and go $50, half of the on-budget surplus? At least 
why not go for $32 billion, because $32 billion is the amount of 
surplus calculated into that $102 billion surplus which is attributable 
to the surplus in the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund?
  Now, the last time we had a similar bill to this on the House floor, 
there was a companion bill which sought to redefine the on-budget 
surplus to exclude the surplus in the Medicare trust account. The 
surplus in the Medicare trust account is $32 billion in fiscal year 
2001. This amount should be, if we are really in earnest about 
protecting the Medicare surplus, at a minimum $32 billion. Why is it 
$25 billion? Why have we set the bar so low, and what do we accomplish 
by doing all this?
  Now, I voted for it the last time; I will vote for it again this 
time. But I really think this is more about showmanship than about 
substance, because there are other ways to do what we want to do. And 
if we are really sincere and earnest about doing this, it ought to be 
higher than $25 billion.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. This is not showmanship. This is not just for rhetoric. This is a 
sincere attempt to try to prevent new spending, which occurs over and 
over again when we are about to close a congressional session.
  Is it perfect? Maybe not. But it is genuinely designed to protect the 
update in surplus, which we have just received from the CBO, over and 
above what we planned when we passed the budget earlier this year, from 
being spent on programs which will continue to grow like Topsy in the 
years ahead.
  Is this for the people back home? I heard a Member say, oh, but this 
is for the people back home. It is for the people back home. It is to 
protect their hard-earned money that has come to Washington as a 
windfall profit to the Federal Government, a windfall profit that 
should not go into new spending programs.
  And, yes, we must be honest. Politicians will find a way to spend 
money. It is seductive. It is not just on one side or the other. This 
is a genuine attempt to put this money off budget so it cannot be spent 
and that it will go where it should go: to pay down the debt.
  Now, it has been alluded to that, oh, well, this relates to new tax 
relief. There is no way any new tax bill can get at the updated surplus 
for this year. The only thing that can happen to it that is not in the 
interest of the people is that in the last moment it will be spent on 
new programs. And we want to stop that. Yes, we do. And, yes, it is for 
the people, because it will protect their earnings that they have sent 
to Washington from new spending programs.
  This should be overwhelmingly embraced by both sides of the aisle, if 
they genuinely want to stop new spending this year. I encourage a 
bipartisan vote for this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to join with the chairman of this committee in asking for a 
bipartisan vote on this, I guess we can call it a bill.
  It really does not mean anything. But if I understand the chairman of 
the committee and the sponsors of this bill correctly, we have to have 
this bill to make certain that the politicians do not spend up the 
surplus and that we reduce the deficit. We have to let the whole 
country know that we are here to stop these politicians who cannot 
control themselves.
  Now, I assume that the politicians that we are talking about are 
Members of Congress, because they are the ones that will be doing the 
spending, and these are the people that we want to control. And I want 
to control them, too. It just so happens that the people that have 
created this declaration of wanting to reduce the deficit are the 
people who are in charge of the spending. Are my colleagues saying that 
the majority does not trust itself, and so it has to create some type 
of a mandate, some proclamation saying that they are going to reduce 
the deficit by $25 billion?
  Suppose these same politicians that my colleagues and I are trying to 
control decide that they do not want to do this, and suppose they have 
the majority? Then it means that what we are doing today is worth 
absolutely nothing except to send out some political message. And so 
why would we not join with our colleagues in saying control the 
politicians, control the spending, reduce the deficit, pay down the 
Federal debt so that we do not have this burden of interest to carry?
  And since we know that our colleagues know that they are in control 
of the calendar, they are in control of the tax cuts, they are in 
control of the spending, why would we as the minority not say, for 
God's sake, put handcuffs on these people, they are completely out of 
control? So do not ask why we are joining with our colleagues. We have 
no choice. Our colleagues are telling us that they have no discipline, 
as the majority party comes to the end of this congressional session, 
except to attempt to buy themselves out of it.
  Well, I have more confidence in my colleagues than they have in 
themselves. But if they feel that they can bypass the Committee on Ways 
and Means and bring a leadership proclamation to the floor that says I 
love America and I would like to reduce this debt, and figure that any 
Member is going to vote against it, then my colleagues are mistaken.
  So let us suspend the rules, let us suspend common sense, let us vote 
for this proclamation, and get on to legislation to see whether or not 
we are

[[Page 15202]]

really concerned about reducing spending and making certain that we do 
not just give tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the working poor.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) who is the author of the original legislation 
to set aside this money for debt reduction.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I recall a few weeks ago when the minority 
was talking when we brought up the initial bill to establish this debt 
reduction account in the Department of Treasury and I remember one 
thing they said, and that was that if we were serious, then why would 
we only do it for 1 year?
  We are serious. We are doing it for fiscal year 2001. My hope, my 
belief is that we will continue to do this for the future.
  We have a $3.5 trillion publicly held debt. That is mind boggling. We 
must continue on this historic path to pay down the publicly held debt. 
We have an opportunity today to actually appropriate and pay down the 
publicly held debt by another $25 billion.
  Just a few weeks ago we voted to pay it down by $16 billion. Today 
the Congressional Budget Office reported that the sun is shining ever 
brighter on America, that we have a greater surplus.
  We have voted to set aside Social Security with a lockbox. We voted 
to set aside Medicare with a lockbox. Now we are setting debt reduction 
as a priority so that at the end of the year, if we are looking at the 
surplus, we have to decide truly are we going to take this money from 
this debt reduction account and spend it on more and bigger government, 
as has been done by the minority for years and years, or are we truly 
going to remove the shackle of debt from our children, are we going to 
reduce that debt, the debt that every family in America and every 
future generation will have to pay.
  This will allow us to set our priorities at the end of the year, yes, 
and to discipline ourselves, as the gentleman said, to make sure that 
we pay down the debt, that we reduce this mind boggling debt. That is 
why we must seize this opportunity. It is like my bill that was passed 
last month. This bill will continue that historical precedent of paying 
down the debt by appropriating to this account in the Department of 
Treasury.
  It is the moral equivalent of burning a mortgage or cutting up a 
credit card when it is no longer needed or when it has been paid off. 
It is removing the shackles of debt from our children. And we owe it to 
our children and our grandchildren. It is simple. It is common sense 
and it is the right thing to do.
  In Kentucky we sing a song, ``the sun shines bright on my old 
Kentucky home.'' And let me say, fiscally, the sun is truly shining 
bright on America; and we need to continue to repair this roof while 
the sun is shining. Let us continue this work. Let us ensure that 
America is a land of hope, of prosperity and economic bounty.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage support of House Resolution 4866.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I only have one remaining speaker so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Debt 
Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2001.
  Recently we learned from the Congressional Budget Office that non-
Social Security budget surpluses will be nearly $1.3 trillion more than 
previously anticipated over the next decade.
  Make no mistake, if we do not protect the people's surplus, 
politicians will find a way to spend it on more government. This 
legislation protects all the Social Security and Medicare surpluses for 
fiscal year 2001 while setting aside $25 billion in additional surplus 
to pay down the public debt.
  We must seize this unique opportunity and not just spend it on bigger 
government. Simply put, paying down the public debt lessens the burden 
facing the next generation of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) toned down his 
rhetoric momentarily from ridicule to wonderment and to questioning. He 
wants to know why we are doing this at this point. He thinks it is 
because maybe we do not trust ourselves.
  Well, first and foremost, I would say to the gentleman it is because 
many of us have been good observers of Congresses over the last 40 
years and how we got into that situation and how Congresses and 
Presidents have this tendency to spend money when it is left on the 
table. So that is number one is that we are good observers. It does not 
matter which party it is.
  It happens to have been during those 40 years that the Democrats were 
in control almost all of that time. But the point is that we are good 
observers. I think experience is a good teacher, and we have learned 
from those experiences. And that is the first reason.
  But the second reason is an issue of priority. It is an issue of 
choices. Instead of a budget that waits until the end of the year to 
set a priority, which, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget pointed out, 
is exactly the current process, if, and I put that word out there in 
big letters, if there is money on the table at the end of the year, 
there is a mechanism to pay down the debt.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is correct, it is 
automatically then paid down by Treasury because they have nothing else 
to do with the money, if there is money left over. The problem is that 
there has almost never been money left over. And, in fact, there has 
been money that was needed to be borrowed. That is how we got into the 
national debt in the first place.
  So it is a matter of almost like a family with their budget laying 
out in front of them deciding that the Visa bill has to be paid first 
before they look at something new to do, before a new family vacation 
maybe is taken, before they put on a new addition to their house, 
before they try something new as a new priority, new spending, new 
indebtedness of any kind, they say it is a priority to pay down the 
mortgage, it is a priority to pay down the national debt.
  And so, instead of waiting until the end of the year to say if there 
is money left over, we are saying there is money left over, this is a 
priority, this is a choice that the Congress is making. And if at the 
end of the year, the President and the Congress decide to do something 
different, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) pointed out very 
correctly, if we decide to do something different, then the American 
people know that that choice was made.
  It was a choice between new spending and Social Security. It was a 
choice between new spending and Medicare. It was a choice between new 
spending and debt reduction. It was a choice between tax reduction and 
debt reduction.
  That is a choice that we can go home and explain to our constituents. 
This is a choice that we can explain to America. This is a choice that 
is responsible in the area of budgeting. I believe it is those choices 
that need to be made.
  It is for that reason that we come out here with a bill that we 
believe is important. No, it is not maybe the most important 
legislation that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has ever 
seen, but we believe it is an important priority; and it is for that 
reason that we bring the second bill of debt reduction.
  And if in the fall, as the gentleman stated, there is more money, we 
can bring a third bill for debt reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just ask the gentleman just one question; and that is, 
can the same Congress that passes this resolution today be the same 
Congress

[[Page 15203]]

to ignore it in September? That is all I am asking.
  What we are doing today is just showing good intentions, and that is 
what it is all about. We could vote for eliminating disease. We could 
vote against war and for peace. And that is good and I will vote with 
the gentleman. But I just do not want people to believe that what we 
are doing today means that we are under any legislative obligation to 
fulfill what the gentleman is stating.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
answer the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill. Now, the gentleman has a long and very 
stellar career in this Congress and I know the gentleman knows full 
well the difference between a resolution, a proclamation, and a bill. 
Because a bill can become a law.
  That law can be changed, the gentleman is correct, but it is a law 
and it is a law that must be followed by the Treasury. It is a law that 
must be followed by the Congress. It is a law that must be followed by 
the President unless or until that law is changed. And that law can be 
changed in the fall, the gentleman is correct, but it will be a change 
of law and a change of priority. It will be the juxtaposition between 
spending and Social Security.
  If they want to spend more money, they can. If the Congress wants to 
spend more money, it can. Certainly it can raise taxes. It can dip into 
Social Security. It can decide not to do any debt reduction. But we are 
deciding today that that choice must be made instead of waiting, as the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) pointed out, until the very 
end of the day on the very last legislative opportunity to see if there 
is any money left over.
  We are saying it is a priority. And interestingly enough, not only 
are the Republican majority joining together today to say it is a 
priority but last month 419 Members of this Congress, including the 
very respected gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the very 
respected gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), joined with us in that 
tact.
  Now, I understand that there might be some ridicule on their side 
because they have never been in a position to reduce debt. We believe 
it is an important priority. We appreciate the fact that the gentleman 
joined with us in this regard, and we would hope that they would be 
slightly more enthusiastic as a look at a possible third debt reduction 
bill in the fall.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we all have to be in support of this once 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) acknowledges that the same 
Congress that makes the decision today as to what it is going to 
attribute to reducing the deficit is the same Congress that is going to 
come back and say what they think is in the national interest.
  It defies reason and common sense why the majority party can come to 
this House and tell the American people and our colleagues that they do 
not trust their ability to control spending. But, in order to do this, 
they have to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they say they 
do not want to do.
  We are going to help them all that we can and we are going to help to 
reduce the Federal debt. We are going to try to stop them from these 
outlandish tax cuts that they tried to do in the last session and was 
vetoed.
  When that $792 billion tax cut was vetoed, the majority did not even 
try to come together and try to override the veto because they never 
expected that tax cut to pass.
  As a matter of fact, I think the good wisdom of the Republicans in 
this House is that they do not expect any of these tax cuts to become 
law. They do not even bring them to the floor unless they promise to 
veto. And they are never discussed, anyway. And so, if they want to 
call this the Republicans' bill to control itself from excessive 
spending, why would we not be able to support them in that effort?

                              {time}  1645

  You are the majority. You are in charge. You set the agenda. You set 
the appropriations bills at the spending level. You come in and ask for 
your tax cuts. And then in the middle of the night you smell a surplus 
that we never had before in all of the Reagan-Bush years. We never 
really had a chance under Republican Presidents. Even though we had the 
majority, we did not know what a surplus was until we got President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore. So this is new to us. And so it is 
obviously new to you, as well.
  We are enjoying a surplus, but we still have this tremendous, close-
to-$6 trillion national debt, and it has to be reduced and it has to be 
reduced by discipline. I would suggest, since it is too late in this 
session, that maybe the first thing that we should do next year is that 
Republicans and Democrats set aside their party label and start to talk 
with each other as to what is in the best interests of the people of 
the United States. Maybe then we will not have Republican bills and 
Democratic bills saying, Please stop us before we spend some more. 
Maybe we can have bipartisan bills that will be able to show the 
American people that we are serious.
  And so in an effort to show you my sincerity, I stand here tonight 
and join with you and say, let us do this. Why? Because it is the right 
thing to do. And with it I pray that you in the majority can control 
your urge to spend unnecessarily and depend on our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I understand that the minority will try and stop us to reduce the 
taxes on the American people and to reform those taxes, but we will try 
and stop you from dipping into the Social Security trust fund yet 
again, the Medicare trust fund yet again, to add to our debt, to add to 
our deficits as you did for 40 years. We will and we will succeed.
  But there is one factor that you left out and that is the fact that 
the Congress is not the only one in control. Every eighth grade 
government student knows that the President has to sign the law. I hope 
he signs this law; and I hope we reduce the debt for my kids, for your 
kids and grandkids and for all of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4866, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________