[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11489-11496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               DEBT REDUCTION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4601) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
213(c) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 
to reduce the public debt and to decrease the statutory limit on the 
public debt, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4601

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Debt Reduction 
     Reconciliation Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) fiscal discipline, resulting from the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997, and strong economic growth have ended decades of 
     deficit spending and have produced budget surpluses without 
     using the social security surplus;
       (2) fiscal pressures will mount in the future as the aging 
     of the population increases budget obligations;
       (3) until Congress and the President agree to legislation 
     that strengthens social security, the social security surplus 
     should be used to reduce the debt held by the public;
       (4) strengthening the Government's fiscal position through 
     public debt reduction increases national savings, promotes 
     economic growth, reduces interest costs, and is a 
     constructive way to prepare for the Government's future 
     budget obligations; and
       (5) it is fiscally responsible and in the long-term 
     national economic interest to use an additional portion of 
     the nonsocial security surplus to reduce the debt held by the 
     public.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) reduce the debt held by the public with the goal of 
     eliminating this debt by 2013; and
       (2) decrease the statutory limit on the public debt.

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

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

     ``Sec. 3114. Public debt reduction payment account

       ``(a) There is established in the Treasury of the United 
     States an account to be known as the Public Debt Reduction 
     Payment Account (hereinafter in this section referred to as 
     the `account').
       ``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall use amounts in 
     the account to pay at maturity, or to redeem or buy before 
     maturity, any obligation of the Government held by the public 
     and included in the public debt. Any obligation which is 
     paid, redeemed, or bought with amounts from the account shall 
     be canceled and retired and may not be reissued. Amounts 
     deposited in the account are appropriated and may only be 
     expended to carry out this section.
       ``(c) If the Congressional Budget Office estimates an on-
     budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 in the report submitted 
     pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 in excess of the amount of the surplus set forth for 
     that fiscal year in section 101(4) of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 (House 
     Concurrent Resolution 290, 106th Congress), then there is 
     hereby appropriated into the account on the later of the date 
     of enactment of this Act or the date upon which the 
     Congressional Budget Office submits such report, out of any 
     money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, an amount equal to 
     that excess. The funds appropriated to this account shall 
     remain available until expended.
       ``(d) The appropriation made under subsection (c) shall not 
     be considered direct spending for purposes of section 252 of 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``(e) Establishment of and appropriations to the account 
     shall not affect trust fund transfers that may be authorized 
     under any other provision of law.
       ``(f) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall each take such actions 
     as may be necessary to promptly carry out this section in 
     accordance with sound debt management policies.
       ``(g) Reducing the debt pursuant to this section shall not 
     interfere with the debt management policies or goals of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 3113 the following:

``3114. Public debt reduction payment account.''.

     SEC. 4. REDUCTION OF STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.

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

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

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

[[Page 11490]]



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

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

     SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury.--(1) Within 
     30 days after the appropriation is deposited into the Public 
     Debt Reduction Payment Account under section 3114 of title 
     31, United States Code, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate confirming that such account has been established and 
     the amount and date of such deposit. Such report shall also 
     include a description of the Secretary's plan for using such 
     money to reduce debt held by the public.
       (2) Not later than October 31, 2000, and October 31, 2001, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate setting forth the 
     amount of money deposited into the Public Debt Reduction 
     Payment Account, the amount of debt held by the public that 
     was reduced, and a description of the actual debt instruments 
     that were redeemed with such money.
       (b) Report of the Comptroller General of the United 
     States.--Not later than November 15, 2001, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate verifying all of 
     the information set forth in the reports submitted under 
     subsection (a).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4601.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important moment for the House of 
Representatives because with this bill we will be accelerating our 
effort to pay down the debt to give relief, badly needed relief to 
future generations. I am hopeful that in the end there will be a strong 
bipartisan vote for what is truly historic, and, that is, to reduce for 
the first time since 1917 the statutory debt limit.
  In the past, the debt simply was an afterthought. While we were 
deficit spending, we spent and spent and frequently raised taxes, 
sometimes cut taxes. What was left over at the end of the year in 
deficit increased the debt, and we simply rubber-stamped that. Today in 
a time of surplus, we are doing the same thing. Everything that is left 
over at the end of the year in the surplus pays down the debt 
automatically. The problem is that once you satiate the spending 
opportunities during the year, what is left at the end of the year is 
much, much smaller to pay down the debt. So we are taking a step here 
to lock up the increase in surplus over and above what we anticipated 
when we passed our budget earlier in the year, lock that up in a 
special account in the Treasury which can be used only to pay down the 
debt. That is why we can reduce the debt ceiling.
  The Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000 has been designed by 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) and myself, and it will put us on a path to pay off the 
debt by 2013 or sooner.
  I have already explained what the bill does and how it works. It 
applies only, however, to this year's extra surplus, the year 2000. But 
once it is put in place, it will be a model for future years. That is 
why the Concord Coalition, one of the best known bipartisan groups that 
fights for balanced budgets and fiscal discipline, supports this bill. 
They said in a letter that this bill is fiscally responsible. It 
recognizes the benefit of using today's prosperity to improve the 
Nation's long-term fiscal health.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full letter be inserted in the Record.


                                        The Concord Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2000.
     Chairman Bill Archer,
     House Ways and Means Committee, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Archer: The Concord Coalition is pleased to 
     support ``The Debt Reduction and Reconciliation Act of 
     2000,'' which seeks to ensure that any increase in the 
     projected FY 2000 on-budget surplus will be used to pay down 
     the publicly held debt.
       The Concord Coalition has long urged both Congress and the 
     Administration to resist using projected surpluses as a 
     treasure trove of money to be spent on any number of spending 
     or tax cut proposals. ``The Debt Reduction and Reconciliation 
     Act of 2000'' is a fiscally responsible measure that 
     recognizes the benefit of using today's prosperity to improve 
     the nation's long term fiscal health.
       We are heartened by the improvement in the federal 
     government's short-term fiscal position in recent years and 
     encouraged by the prospect of continued projected surpluses. 
     Members of both parties deserve a share of the credit for 
     this dramatic turn around and the resulting projected 
     surpluses. The Concord Coalition fully supports the 
     commitment in this bill to use a portion of these surpluses 
     for debt reduction. We further hope that Congress and the 
     Administration will muster the political will to make good on 
     this commitment.
       At the same time, it is important to remember that our work 
     is far from complete. Reducing the publicly held debt is a 
     positive step, but is one of many steps required to bring 
     about fiscal policies that are sustainable over the long-
     term. Welcome as it is, today's prosperity has not turned 
     back the coming age wave or the growth in age-related 
     entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid. Left unchecked, the inevitable growth in spending 
     on these programs will put pressure on discretionary 
     spending, revenues, and public debt.
       That said, in the absence of substantive Social Security 
     and Medicare reform, the next best thing we can do to prepare 
     for the future is to devote every penny of the surpluses that 
     come our way to reducing the publicly held debt. Debt 
     reduction will enhance net national savings, thereby freeing 
     up resources for investments leading to greater productivity, 
     which will lead to stronger economic growth in the future. A 
     larger economy will, in turn, help ease the burden on today's 
     children who, when they become working age taxpayers, will 
     face the daunting challenge of financing the retirement and 
     health care costs of a dramatically older population.
       The Concord Coalition commends you for your effort to 
     reduce the publicly held debt. We are pleased to support your 
     efforts and look forward to working with you to take future 
     steps to improve our nation's long term fiscal health.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert L. Bixby,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Speaker, when we balanced the budget and the budget surplus 
became a reality, Alan Greenspan told the Committee on Ways and Means 
that his first preference would be to pay down the debt. He also said 
the worst alternative would be more government spending. Today we are 
following his wise counsel. Paying down the debt is good for our 
country, good for working families, and good for the economy.
  I strongly urge a bipartisan vote to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) so that he can further yield it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Iowa 
will control the balance of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say this in no disrespect to any of my colleagues on the floor of 
the House of Representatives, and certainly I intend to support this 
legislation; but I have to say that I think we are going to spend 
perhaps up to 40 minutes debating something that is not particularly 
relevant and it is probably somewhat a waste of our time.
  The reality is that any surplus over and above the current surplus 
that we

[[Page 11491]]

have, and most people predict that for this coming fiscal year it will 
be about $15 billion, will go into debt reduction in any event. The 
only thing that could change it is if the majority party decides not to 
show the kind of fiscal discipline that I think the rhetoric kind of 
indicates they intend to. And so we will be doing this, we are all 
probably going to vote for it, but again as I said this is more of a 
political act than it is an act of substance.
  Under current law, if at the end of the fiscal year we do not spend 
any of the additional surplus that we have, it will go automatically 
for debt reduction. Under this bill, it is appropriated into a fund set 
up by the Treasury Department that will go for debt reduction. And so 
it will not hurt, but it does not really help either. If for some 
reason the Senate or the House or any party should decide through a 
majority vote that they want to spend more money, then obviously that 
would change the situation. But then that is a judgment to be made by 
Members as time goes on.
  Again, as I said, we will vote for this; but it really does not do a 
lot of good. But it does give me an opportunity actually to bring out 
some things, if I may. Governor George W. Bush indicated earlier this 
year that he has a tax cut proposal and over the next decade his tax 
cuts will be $1.7 trillion. He also suggested individual Social 
Security accounts which would take away from the current beneficiaries. 
And he suggested somewhere in the range of 2 percent although he has 
not really elaborated on it. But assuming it is 2 percent, that 
basically then means that you would have to make that up for current 
beneficiaries, and that comes as somewhat a little over $1 trillion.
  So we are talking about $2.7 trillion of additional debt or money out 
of the surplus over the next decade. Right now the projected on-budget 
surplus is $877 billion. And so essentially the Governor will spend 
over the next decade three times what that surplus will be. Now, we 
understand by the end of this month, OMB and CBO will come in with 
another $1 trillion worth of surpluses over the next decade, and so 
that means that you can actually say that actually he will only then be 
overbudgeted, or over the surplus by $1 trillion.
  Now, if we were really being honest about this, what we would do is 
not just make it for this fiscal year but we would do it for the next 
10 fiscal years. But this is only for the next 18 months or so.
  So we will save $15 billion, but that money is going to be saved in 
any event. Obviously we are going to recommend that our colleagues vote 
for this; but the reality is again, it is a political act. It is not a 
substantive act. I am just kind of sorry that we are spending our 40 
minutes of debate time on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the author of this legislation and somebody 
who does concern himself with debt reduction.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, it is really with a great privilege that I 
get to stand here and introduce this legislation. I recall back just 
after I was first sworn in, we heard the President of the United States 
stand up and say he wanted to spend 38 percent of the Social Security. 
We met in the Committee on the Budget, and we were able to save 100 
percent of the Social Security surplus. We continue to exercise fiscal 
discipline. Because of that, we have surpluses now and will have paid 
off the publicly held debt by about $300 billion over the last several 
years.
  This bill is about several things. One, it is about priorities, about 
setting our priorities. Are we going to spend money on more and bigger 
government? Let me say the minority and the President have offered 
continually budgets and amendments that would spend and spend and spend 
on more government programs, on larger government, not on paying down 
the debt or giving some relief to the American people. So this allows 
us to say, Look, we have a priority here, and our priorities are, yes, 
let's pay down the publicly held debt.
  Some have said it is not significant but, believe me, I had a young 
lady, a Girl Scout here last week that came up and we talked about this 
bill. She figured her family's debt and how many boxes of Girl Scout 
cookies she would have to sell to pay off her family's portion of the 
publicly held debt. She would have to sell 19,000 boxes of Girl Scout 
cookies for her to pay off her family's publicly held debt. That to me 
is significant to folks back home. To somebody who thinks $16 billion 
is insignificant and to historically appropriate that to an account in 
the Department of Treasury, it is just beyond my belief that anyone 
would believe that that is not significant.
  Lastly, this is historic. Why is it historic? Because it is the first 
time we have said, ``Let's appropriate money.'' We take it off the 
table. And if people who have been around Washington too long do not 
understand that, then it is clear they need to go back home and visit 
with their folks. This takes the money off the table and will allow us 
to pay down the debt.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. 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 any 
sense. There are only two ways to have the money to pay off the debt, 
either take the taxes and pay it off or reduce the spending and pay it 
off, one or the other.

                              {time}  1345

  I do not see any evidence so far in this appropriations process that 
we are

[[Page 11492]]

actually reducing spending. In fact, we are going up a little bit, and 
probably we are going to need some of this money along about September 
the 15 to solve the problem to buy off this program or that program so 
we can get out of here. All we have to do under this bill, we do not 
have to repeal the act, we do not have to do anything, just pass the 
supplemental appropriation.
  This can be violated by the most simplistic legislative act of all, 
just bring out another bill, spend some more money, in spite of the 
fact that we have passed H.R. 4601, the debt reduction bill. This bill 
will die in the Senate from laughter. There will not be anybody over 
there that takes this seriously.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we on the majority side appreciate the very 
strong endorsement, bipartisan way of this debt reduction bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, by the way, lowering taxes 
increases the revenue to the Government and, unfortunately, gives us a 
surplus, which is what has happened since the Republicans have been in 
for 40 years. The Democrats ran the House and the Democrats ran up the 
debt by spending your money like it was their own.
  The Democrats used deficit spending to fund more and more Washington 
programs. The debt ballooned and they raised taxes over and over again. 
Paying down the debt was never on the Democrat agenda. Well, times have 
changed. In just 5 short years with the Republicans in charge, we have 
turned a billion-dollar deficit into trillion-dollar surpluses.
  Under our plan, we are going to eliminate publicly held debt by 2013 
or sooner; that is because we believe debt relief is a top priority. 
That is why this bill mandates that any increase in the surplus must be 
used to pay down the debt.
  This year we believe that will be close to $40 billion. Paying down 
the debt is going to help all Americans. It will lower mortgage costs 
and interest rates. More importantly, the American people expect our 
books to be balanced and our debts to be paid. We have to do it in our 
own homes, and we must do it in the people's House.
  The American people are fed up with 40 years of out- of-control 
spending by the Democrats, and they want Washington to get its house in 
order. Those who oppose this bill or believe it is not necessary are 
playing games with the American people and their money.
  Today, we are going to tear up the Democrats' big-spending playbook 
and get serious about our children's future by eliminating our Nation's 
debt once and for all.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear some of the protests from the 
left. My good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), 
professionally trained as a psychiatrist, seemed to suggest that 
somehow this was pretend.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe a common definition of insanity is doing the 
same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. And 
if we take a look at the history of the late 20th century, when this 
House was in different hands, Mr. Speaker, the folks on the left spent 
and spent and spent and spent and spent some more and raided Social 
Security and took everything not nailed down and added inflation and 
did the whole thing, the whole bit, spending money we did not have and 
yet would return home, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the importance of 
debt relief.
  Let no one be mistaken. This is not delusional. This is not pretend. 
It is not a political stunt. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since 1916 
we are voting to lower the debt ceiling.
  We have heard loud and clear from our constituents that they are 
tired of seeing deficit spending; that as we have put our House in 
order, by reducing taxes and thereby increasing revenues to the Federal 
Government, by actually generating more business in the free market and 
more commerce, at the same time we need to get our fiscal House in 
order and the gentleman from Kentucky has offered a device to do 
exactly that.
  It is not symbolic. In fact, it is historic, because we lower the 
debt ceiling. We signal our commitment to reduce deficit spending; and 
unlike those who have tried different outcomes over and over again 
expecting a different result, we make a difference today.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain why this is important: although most 
Americans assume that a Federal budget surplus in any year is 
automatically used to reduce the national debt or at least the debt 
held by the public, this actually is not the case.
  The U.S. Department of the Treasury must implement specific financial 
accounting procedures if it is to use a cash surplus to pay down the 
debt held by the public. If these procedures are not followed or if 
they proceed slowly, then the surplus revenue just builds up in the 
Treasury-operating cash accounts.
  This excess cash could be used in the future, yes, to pay down the 
debt, but only if it is protected from other uses in the meantime. 
Until the excess cash is formally committed to debt repayment, Congress 
could appropriate it for other purposes.
  Consequently, the current surplus will not automatically reduce the 
publicly held national debt of $3.54 trillion, unless Congress acts now 
to make sure these funds are automatically used for debt reduction and 
for no other purpose.
  That is exactly what this bill H.R. 4601 does; and, frankly, this 
offers a first step toward paying down the debt, because it protects 
the on-budget surplus for the remainder of this fixed fiscal year, and 
it appropriates it directly for debt reduction.
  This money will be deposited in a designated public debt reduction 
account. Appropriators would be able to reallocate these funds only by 
first passing a law to rescind the money from this account.
  Now, the debt is a huge drain on the Federal Treasury at a time when 
the impending Social Security crisis looms closer. Our current national 
debt problem pales in comparison to the unfunded liabilities already 
committed to current and future Social Security recipients. It is 
important we pay down this debt.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing today from our colleagues on 
the other side that perhaps this measure is more symbolic than 
substantive and might not really accomplish that much. I could not more 
strongly disagree. The previous speaker, my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce), made it very clear, and quite rightly, 
that absent this measure, there is absolutely nothing to stop Congress 
from spending this money. Of course, if one knows anything about the 
history of Congress, one knows that that is indeed the proclivity of 
this body, as well as the other Chamber to do exactly that.
  Let me touch on a specific situation and put this in some context. 
Where are we right now in the 2001 appropriations process? We are 
trying to pass a series of measures and the President is insisting that 
he needs another $20 billion or $25 billion above and beyond that 
record high level of spending that we are proposing.
  We hear our colleagues from the other side come down here every time 
we debate an appropriations bill to tell us we are not spending enough 
money. One of the ways that this spending can occur is by a devious 
little budget gimmick which involves reaching back into the previous 
year, in this case

[[Page 11493]]

that would be fiscal year 2000, and spending the money there so that we 
create the illusion of some modicum of fiscal restraint, when, in fact, 
it is not recurring.
  One of the things we need to do is take this money off the table so 
that it is not available for that kind of gimmickry, so that the 
American public gets the budget that they are being told and so that we 
pay down this debt, this mountain of debt which we have made some 
progress on but need to make much more.
  There is one other point that I would like to make on this. Why is it 
important that we not just spend this money? Why is it important to 
limit the growth and the spending of the Federal Government? It is 
important because we need to remember every dollar that is spent by the 
Federal Government is the political allocation of other people's money, 
and we need to minimize that whenever we can and allow the hard-working 
men and women across this country who are producing the wealth in this 
country to spend their own hard-earned money as they choose rather than 
the way that politicians choose. That is why this measure is so 
important.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I call on the next speaker, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I might just point out to the gentleman and previous 
speakers on the other side of the aisle that the public debt for the 
fiscal year 2000 is $5.628 trillion, $5.628 trillion; and under the 
Republican budget in 2005, 5 years from now, the public debt will go to 
$5.936 trillion, so it is going to go up under the Republican budget.
  I might just point out that instead of all of this talk about 
reducing it, it is actually going to increase. I might want to 
emphasize that it is going to increase. I just hope that they would 
look at the budget document; and perhaps they could clarify it if they 
so choose.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for yielding me the time.
  It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that one of our candidates for 
President is running under the theory that it is time to change the old 
concept that if it feels good, do it. But the bill that we have before 
us today fits into that. Now, I know my colleagues on the other side 
have this new-found desire to put their imprimatur on paying down the 
debt.
  It is interesting, because over the last couple of years, they really 
have not been in that position. They wanted to spend the surplus as 
fast as they could get their hands on it. In fact, they wanted to spend 
it far into the future and not even knowing what it is.
  I offered amendments, as my dear friend from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will 
remember, when we marked up the budget resolutions over the last couple 
of years, just to have hard freezes and pay down the debt as fast as we 
could, and I was lectured by the other side that this did not make any 
sense, and we really should not do it, we should not shackle the 
Congress' future ability to make the investments that it needs.
  Today, we have this bill before us; and we are all going to vote for 
it, because we all or at least most of us do believe in at least some 
form of debt reduction whether we do with the belts and suspender 
approach like this or just do it as it works automatically under 
current law, but it does not comport as well with the budget resolution 
that this House passed not too long ago. Because the budget resolution 
we passed not too long ago says that in future years, if the 
Congressional Budget Office finds that the surplus projections are 
actually higher than what was assumed earlier this year, then we could 
spend that money on additional tax cuts or spending programs or 
whatever.
  Mr. Speaker, now we have decided in this midcourse correction that we 
are going to say, no, we are going to set this very static limitation 
on what we ought to be doing with this money.
  I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very happy to welcome my 
Republican colleagues to the party of paying down the public debt. I do 
not think this bill is as well written as it could be. I do not think 
it comports with the budget resolution that my colleagues passed 
earlier this year. Hopefully, this will move them a little closer in 
the right direction of continuing what has been the greatest expansion 
in the American economy under this administration.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, let me address a few things. First of all, 
when it comes to the other side after years and years of running up 
deficits over $200 billion a year, I can think of no more amazing 
conversion than Paul on the road to Damascus.
  We certainly have seen a conversion from the other side now that all 
of a sudden they are the party of fiscal responsibility wanting to pay 
down the debt. So we certainly appreciate that conversion and hope that 
as these appropriation bills come up that we do not see some of their 
regular antics.

                              {time}  1400

  As we close out this year, we have set aside this $16 billion, which 
is significant, very much different than any time before. The publicly 
held debt is not over $5 trillion, the debt limit is, the publicly held 
debt is $3.5 trillion. So let me correct that. Obviously, when you add 
up the debt we owe ourself and the other trust funds, Social Security, 
et cetera, it does exceed $5 trillion.
  But the publicly held debt is $3.5 trillion. We pay interest on that, 
about 11 cents of every dollar that comes in in revenues. That would 
increase our revenue, if we paid that down, which we plan on doing with 
the principle of this bill. By the year 2013, we will pay it down. By 
2013, that will increase our revenues by about $180 billion a year. So 
I wanted to rebut these misstatements.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill because there is no reason to 
oppose it. All it does is enact the inevitable. You see, when Treasury 
takes in more money than it spends, it simply uses the surplus, the 
excess money, to pay off debt. It does not sit on the money. It has 
debt coming due at all times. It pays the debt off, retires the debt, 
uses the surplus in that manner. So I am mystified when I read this 
bill by what substantively it is supposed to do.
  The majority acts as though if we do not put this money in this debt 
reduction payment account and seal it off, we are going to spend it. 
But this just begs the question. This is June 20th. The fiscal year 
ends on September 30. We will not have the incremental additional 
surplus numbers until some time in July. We are out a whole week in 
July, we are out for the whole month of August. When are we going to 
spend it, and who is going to spend it?
  Who controls the appropriations process? The majority does. They 
determine what comes to the floor, what is in it and what passes, 
because they have the votes. So it is hard to see how this money is 
going to be spent between now and September 30, when they control the 
process, unless they elect to spend it on a fast track.
  That raises the next question. If debt reduction is such a good idea, 
and I think it is a good idea, why does this bill just apply to this 
fiscal year? Why does the bill present itself in this form applicable 
for just 3 months remaining in this fiscal year? Why does it just apply 
to the increase in the surplus, for that matter? There is a $24 billion 
base surplus already projected. If debt reduction is a good idea, why 
do we not set aside some of that surplus, allocate it to debt 
reduction?
  Why not even go further? Why do we not take a bill and put it on this 
floor, a bill that does not just apply to fiscal year 2000, but to the 
next 10 fiscal years, until we have retired the total debt, which 
simply says out of every surplus we actually realize in the next

[[Page 11494]]

10 years we will set aside 50 percent, or make it 33 percent, or 65 
percent, some fixed percentage every year allocated by law to debt 
reduction, if it is such a good idea?
  I think it is, and I think it would be a good idea before we actually 
have that money and it is burning a hole in our pocket, some wanting to 
use it for tax cuts and others wanting to use it for spending 
increases, let us allocate a certain amount of it by black letter law 
to debt reduction. We could do that in this bill, but it does not do 
that. This bill only applies for 90 days.
  If debt reduction is the majority's top priority, I am also 
mystified, because I was on the floor here when we presented the budget 
resolutions, our competing resolution and their resolution, which 
passed and which became the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal 
year 2001. It allocates all of the additional surplus, all of the 
surplus that CBO finds over and above the baseline surplus they project 
now, it takes all of that additional surplus and allocates it to tax 
cuts. There is a specific clause in their budget resolution for this 
year under which we are now operating which permits and encourages them 
to use all of the additional surplus for tax cuts.
  If it is such a good idea to use it for debt reduction, why did they 
not make the allocation there in the budget resolution, which is the 
operative resolution we have got?
  As a result of that allocation in their budget resolution, we 
presented a budget resolution that would reduce debt over the next 5 
years by $48 billion and over the next 10 years by $365 billion. Their 
budget resolution, by contrast, reduced debt by only $12 billion, 
because it allocated all of the additional surplus not to debt 
reduction, as this bill would imply, but to tax reduction.
  So, what do we have here? We have a bill that is absolutely minimal 
in its impact on the national debt, if it has any at all. The chairman, 
whom I respect, the distinguished chairman said this could be a model 
for future years. If it is a model, let us take it and apply it to 
future years. Let us say a certain amount of the surplus every year is 
going to be set aside to debt reduction. Let us not fool ourselves and 
the American people by adopting something which will have little if any 
impact on the actual reduction in the national debt.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of very interesting discussion here 
today. You have the minority party rushing down here to support this 
legislation, but, boy it is tough. It is tough. I mean, the speeches we 
are hearing today, about, gee, we would really like to reduce the debt, 
but there are all these other priorities out here; and, yeah, we will 
vote for it, but, gosh, it is really tough.
  You know, it is tough. I talked to a financial planner one time about 
how he counsels people that find themselves in debt, and the first 
thing he says when he counsels people is, when you find yourselves in a 
hole, stop digging. That is rule number one. It makes sense. And that 
is what we did a few years ago. We found ourselves in deficits, we were 
adding to the national debt, we wanted to end that 40-year practice, 
and we said stop digging, balance the budget, and that is what we did.
  But then the second rule that the financial planner from Manchester, 
Iowa, taught me is he said start filling in the hole. Start filling in 
the hole that you dug. And you do not do that at the end of the year 
after you have bought all of the Girl Scout cookies; you do not do that 
at the end of the year after all of the things you want you have 
purchased and you have made decisions about. You put debt as a 
priority.
  That is the difference with this bill. The gentleman from South 
Carolina is exactly correct. If we did nothing else this year, the 
Treasury at the end of the year will take what is in excess and they 
will pay down the debt. There is one problem: We do not know what that 
excess is going to be.
  The difference with this bill and the difference with this Congress 
and the difference with this priority is that we are deciding today 
that debt reduction is a priority. Yes, we can wait until the end of 
the day, and the gentleman is correct when he said yeah, you are the 
majority party, you can decide whether or not you are going to spend it 
or not, whether you are going to use it for tax cuts or whether you are 
going to reduce the debt. We are deciding today. Let us reduce the 
debt.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The gentleman from Iowa said that we 
think this is tough to vote for this. I do not think any Member on our 
side of the aisle said anything about this being a tough bill. If 
anything, this is one of the easiest pieces of legislation in my 22 
years in this institution to vote for, because it does not mean 
anything, it is irrelevant, and it is, I guess, kind of fun sitting up 
here for 40 minutes talking about something that is meaningless, when 
we have all these appropriations bills we have to pass by the end of 
next week. But, nevertheless, I guess we will do it. There is nothing 
else to do here.
  But I would like to just reiterate what my colleague said from South 
Carolina, that, you know, we should probably make this for 10 years, 
because if in fact we have the wrong presidential candidate elected, we 
are going to spend two or three times over the surplus here. As I said 
in my opening remarks, Mr. Bush intends to reduce the surplus, if there 
is a surplus, by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, and right now we 
only are projecting $877 billion in surplus. We may get another $1 
trillion, according to CBO and OMB. So he will still be twice over the 
surplus.
  So perhaps we should make this a proposal that will go for the next 
decade, because, after all, we saw what happened in the early 1980s 
when we let our emotions get ahead of our discipline. We finally got 
the budget under control under President Clinton. I would hate to see 
us lose control over it when he leaves office, but we very well could. 
So perhaps we should use some kind of gimmick like the debt limit to 
impose discipline, since it appears the majority party cannot use that 
discipline on its own.
  I might just conclude by saying what Nancy Reagan said when it came 
to drugs: ``Just say no.'' That is leadership.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we are about to just say no to more 
spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the author of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Kentucky is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to have 
bipartisan support and bipartisan rhetoric on this floor. Let me first 
correct a few things though. This does do something different than what 
is done. Right now, at this point, it is really contrary to popular 
convention. There is no Federal law that exists that requires surpluses 
at the end of the fiscal years to be used to reduce the debt. It is the 
stated practice of the Treasury. In reality, there is some cash the 
Treasury holds.
  Let me give an example. Despite the surplus of $124 billion in fiscal 
year 1999, the Treasury reduced publicly held debt by just $87 billion. 
Even when accounting for the seasonal variation, the Treasury will have 
a cash balance of about $60 billion if this rate continues over the 
next 2 years.
  What this piece of legislation does and what is historical about it 
is it will set a pattern for the next decade. It allows us, like we do 
every year when we are appropriating money, to have an account to which 
we can appropriate money for debt reduction, and certain instruction is 
given to the Department of Treasury to reduce the debt with that money 
in that account.
  Now, the Treasury has the responsibility to reduce it in a 
responsible and efficient way, so that the taxpayer's money is used 
most efficiently, so that we buy the most expensive bonds and redeem 
those so that we reduce the cost to the taxpayers as much as possible.
  This bill also reduces the publicly held debt limit and the total 
debt limit

[[Page 11495]]

of government, the first time it has been done since 1916. This bill 
sets us on a pattern to totally eliminate the publicly held debt by the 
year 2013.
  I think that is a noble goal. That will increase our revenues 
tremendously as more money goes back out into the economy to continue 
the economy's growth. Yet in this last budget, they have talked about 
tax reductions versus this debt reduction bill. Let me remind you, the 
President offered a bill that increased spending and programs, that 
offered 83 new programs. This money was going to be spent, and if we do 
not take it off of the table right now, it will be spent here in 
Washington before the end of the year.
  This money is appropriated to a new debt reduction account in the 
Department of Treasury. That is historical. Every year we have this 
pattern by which when we go through appropriations we can set debt 
reduction as a priority and set aside that money into this debt 
reduction account. If the majority decides that they want to spend more 
on government, they have that option, or if they decide they want to 
make our taxes fair, which I think is important.
  We heard the minority talk about when we tried and did pass out of 
this House the marriage penalty tax, how they spoke about it being 
unfair and about how it was too much to give back to the American 
people, and it really points out the difference in philosophy here.
  Let me show you this check. Some have said it is insignificant. $16 
billion. Look at the number of zeros on that. That is not an 
insignificant number that is going to be deposited in this debt 
reduction account to pay down the publicly held debt. Now, maybe some 
have been in Washington too long if they think that is an insignificant 
amount, and maybe some have been in Washington too long if they think 
if they do not take off the money it will be spent. But, believe me, I 
have only been here a year and a half, and I understand if you do not 
take it off the table, it will be spent.
  I am very proud of this legislation, and I want to thank the 
leadership, the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich), and others that worked to write this legislation, and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4601, 
a bill to pay down our public debt. I urge my colleagues to support 
this worthy legislation.
  H.R. 4601 requires that at the end of fiscal year 2000, an amount 
equal to the non-Social Security surplus be used to pay down the public 
debt. These funds will be deposited in an off-budget account within the 
U.S. Treasury, referred to as the ``public debt reduction payment 
account.''
  Moreover, within thirty days after the end of fiscal year 2000, the 
Treasury Department must report to Congress the amount of money 
deposited into the account, and how those funds were used to pay down 
the debt. The amount stipulated in this report must be verified by the 
Comptroller General of the United States.
  While current law stipulates that surplus money at the end of the 
fiscal year must be used to pay down the debt, this legislation ensures 
that these excess monies are placed in a fund to prevent their use 
during the next fiscal year for any other purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress has made great progress in the last three 
years with ending our long-standing pattern of deficit spending. This 
bill will further aid the effort to ``live within our means,'' and to 
avoid a return to spending more than the revenues raised. As we 
continue to make progress in reducing our overall level of public debt, 
we will free up billions of dollars that are currently being used to 
finance the interest on that debt. Lower interest leads to more 
discretionary dollars to use on investing for the future, and an 
avoidance of mortgaging the future of our children.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this timely and 
appropriate legislation.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4601, the Debt Reduction and Reconciliation Act of 2000. More 
importantly, I rise in support of paying down $14 billion of the debt 
that will otherwise be left to our children and grandchildren.
  The fiscal restraint we can show today by passing this legislation is 
critical to avoiding the tax and spend trap that brought us into 
deficit in the first place.
  Just five years ago, many in Washington, including the President, did 
not believe we could balance the budget by the year 2005, let alone 
2002 or, as it turned out, 1998. But with the help of the American 
people and a strong economy, we did it.
  Last year, we made another commitment--to balance the federal budget 
without spending one penny of the Social Security surplus in the year 
2000. Once again, we were able to accomplish that goal one-year ahead 
of schedule.
  Now, we have a new challenge--to find a way to pay back the mortgage 
of federal debt that we owe rather than leaving it to generations to 
come. We want to pay down the publicly held debt by 2013. Looking back 
at our track record, I think we can do it--maybe even ahead of 
schedule.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join this effort to 
eliminate the publicly held debt and pass this bill today with an 
overwhelmingly, bi-partisan vote.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 4601, the Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000, and encourage 
my colleagues to enthusiastically pursue its enactment as soon as 
possible.
  Since Republicans took over the majority in Congress in 1995, we have 
worked hard to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington. H.R. 
4601 is one more step on this long road. This bill will ensure that the 
federal government's days of spending beyond our means are really 
behind us.
  Mr. Speaker, those who claim that this bill is irresponsible or 
merely a publicity stunt are way off-base. In fact, the Debt Reduction 
Reconciliation Act is an eminently sensible compromise that allows us 
to cut taxes for hard working American families and small businesses, 
reduce the federal debt, and protect 100 percent of our Social Security 
system for our seniors and retirees. At the same time, it also provides 
sufficient funding for important government programs--like allowing us 
to increase funding for such essential programs as education, national 
security, and prescription drug benefits for our seniors.
  H.R. 4601 is very straightforward. It will take all of this year's 
federal non-Social Security surplus funds over and above the 
anticipated $24.4 billion surplus we were told to expect earlier this 
year, and lock it away in a new special ``off budget'' account that 
will be used exclusively for paying off the national public debt. In 
fact, the Congressional Budget Office is expected to announce this 
summer that this year's budget surplus will be at least $40 billion. 
That's $14.6 billion that, under this legislation, would be dedicated 
to debt reduction this year.
  In addition, for every dollar locked away into this national debt-
payment account, H.R. 4601 will lower the authorized federal debt 
ceiling that the federal government is allowed to borrow up to, dollar 
for dollar. This ceiling is like an authorized federal credit line and 
it currently allows the government to incur up to $5.95 trillion in 
debt. Can you imagine--$5.95 trillion of debt? Not too long ago, 
Democratic budgets projected this kind of debt as far as the eye could 
see. Now, Mr. Speaker, with enactment of this legislation, Congress for 
the first time since 1917, will lower the debt ceiling instead of 
increasing it.
  Why should we care about reducing our national debt? Beyond the fact 
that past irresponsible government borrowing has mortgaged the future 
of our children and grandchildren and saddled them with a debt that 
they did not create--reducing our multi-trillion national debt will 
lower government interest payments which currently consume hundreds of 
millions of taxpayer dollars each and every year. Anyone who has a 
credit card knows, as long as you are only paying for the interest 
charges, you will never dig yourself out of the hold and can only find 
yourself at best treading water, and at worst sinking in to a quagmire 
of red ink. Thanks to decades of Democratically-controlled Congresses, 
America has been in the red for far too long. By dedicating these funds 
to paying down the debt, we will not only reach our goal to eliminate 
the public debt by 2013, we will also be able to continue to cut taxes 
to further relieve American workers of the heavy tax burden they bear 
and even increase savings. In addition, lowering the federal debt will 
also relieve the debt's upward pressure on interest rates, which means 
cheaper car loans, school loans, mortgage loans, and even home 
improvement loans for hardworking American families.
  To be frank, Congress also needs this debt reduction legislation to 
remove the temptation to spend any unexpected budget surpluses. Let's 
face it folks, Washington is not known for keeping their hands out of 
the cookie jar. It's time to get the chain and padlock and secure

[[Page 11496]]

these funds out of temptation's way and keep ourselves, and those who 
follow us here in Congress and in the White House, on this hard-fought 
road to fiscal responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this much needed 
legislation, and encourage an enthusiastic ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4601.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, deficit spending has run rampant for too 
long. The federal debt has ballooned to nearly $6 trillion. With this 
legislation for the first time since 1917 we are reversing this trend.
  Uncle Sam will actually begin to pay off our $6 trillion credit card 
bill. Paying off our huge debt should be a top priority, not an 
afterthought.
  Under current law, any money left over at the end of the year is used 
to reduce the debt. This bill makes debt reduction a priority by 
setting aside the money up front.
  Reducing the public debt is good for the country. It increases 
national saving and makes it more likely that the economy will continue 
growing strong. American families benefit through lower interest rates 
on mortgages and other loans, more jobs, better wages, and ultimately 
higher living standards.
  Reducing the public debt strengthens the government's fiscal position 
by reducing interest costs and promoting economic growth. This makes it 
easier for the government to afford its future budget obligations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4601, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1415