[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4705-4726]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL 
                               YEAR 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Thursday, March 22, 2001, and rule XVIII, the Chair declares 
the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
for further debate on the subject of the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2002.

                              {time}  1859


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for further debate on the subject 
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, with 
Mrs. Biggert (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, the following time remained for debate:
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 47 minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 51 minutes remaining; 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) has 10 minutes remaining; 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 23\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The Chair understands that the time remaining for the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) is to be yielded to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle). Without objection, that will be the order. Therefore, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 57 minutes remaining.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services, for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I understand that the resolution before us 
contains a provision that would establish a reserve fund for fiscal 
year 2002 that would permit Congress to consider a possible amended 
budget request from the President for additional defense spending.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUMP. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the Secretary of 
Defense is engaged in a top down strategic review of the missions, 
processes and requirements of the military. I expect that this review 
will lead to an amended budget process for national defense by the 
President later this spring or early summer.
  Could the gentleman clarify the processes by which resources from the 
strategic reserve fund would be made available to support such an 
amended budget request and how this process would apply to the annual 
defense authorization legislation?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield, the 
resolution permits the adjustment of the 302(a) allocation aggregates 
and functional totals to reflect authorization and appropriations 
legislation reported by July 11 of this year if such legislation 
exceeds the allocations contained in this concurrent budget resolution. 
The appropriation totals for the reported bills would be adjusted by 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget not later than July 25, 
2001. The allocations could be further adjusted for a conference report 
considered at a later date as well.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the

[[Page 4706]]

gentleman's clarification that the adjustment mechanism in the 
resolution would apply for both authorization and appropriation bills. 
I remain concerned that the timelines for reporting legislation and 
making required adjustments may be unsupportable should the 
administration be late in submitting an amended President's budget by 
request fiscal year 2002. In order to preclude such a problem, I ask 
that the gentleman work with me and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, during the 
conference on the budget resolution to ensure that full consideration 
of the legitimate defense needs of the Nation is not restricted by an 
artificially imposed calendar deadline.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I am 
wholeheartedly committed to working with the distinguished chairmen of 
both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
Appropriations to ensure that the process delineated in the budget 
resolution is sufficiently flexible to give the committees adequate 
time to consider properly and report out legislation acting on the 
President's amended budget request.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle).
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), who 
understands full well, better than many of us, that the very richest in 
this country are getting an incontrovertibly huge portion of this 
budget to the detriment of the average people in our districts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Madam Chairman, like the gentleman from 
California, I ought to be thrilled about this tax cut, because rich 
families like mine will have even more money. In fact, I think my dad 
might be able to buy an extra boat down at the Cape; that might be a 
good thing, and then we could fit so many more people that we would 
like to have down there.
  This is an absolutely incredible budget in that it reverses the age-
old priority of helping working families in this country. The President 
claims that he wants to leave no child behind. Well, that is not 
reflected in this budget. This budget, in fact, increases education at 
less of the rate than the number of students that are going to be 
enrolling in schools, despite the fact that we have crumbling schools. 
This budget even makes sure that subsidies are taken away from 50,000 
families on child care. I mean, I thought we were family-friendly in 
this Congress; we wanted to make sure people could go to work and have 
child care.
  So this budget has less affordable housing, fewer child care tax 
subsidies, fewer dollars to support our aging and crumbling schools, 
fewer dollars for Medicare and Social Security; and all the while it 
gives the top 1 percent nearly half of the $1.6 trillion tax cut. I 
mean, it does not take much more understanding than that. Half of the 
tax cut goes to the top 1 percent of this country, and who pays for it? 
All of these programs. That is who pays for it.
  Madam Chairman, it is said that actions speak louder than words, and 
this budget resolution is deafening. It fairly shouts that the single 
most important thing this government can do is redirect our national 
wealth to those who are already affluent. Not educate our children, not 
provide affordable prescription drugs to seniors, not save Social 
Security, not even give tax relief to the working poor.
  This budget is built around a huge tax cut, and to pay for it, the 
President would raid Medicare and send the bill to working Americans.
  Madam Chairman, this budget resolution trashes a century-old priority 
of helping working class Americans into the economic mainstream. It 
would slash the Public Housing Capital Fund, making affordable housing 
even more scarce. It would take child care subsidies away from 50,000 
families at a time when only 10 percent of eligible families are 
receiving them in the first place. It suggests significant cuts to job 
training programs, making it harder for workers to keep up with the 
changing economy.
  Even on education, which the President supposedly cares so much 
about, it dramatically cuts the rate of increase and eliminates funding 
to rebuild crumbling buildings. This despite the fact that the 
Department of Education anticipates student enrollment to grow by 
another four and a half million over the next 4 years.
  Less affordable housing, fewer child care subsidies, less job 
training, inadequate support for schools, and of course weakened 
Medicare and Social Security systems--this is a budget that will stifle 
economic opportunity for tens of millions of Americans in order to pay 
for a disastrous tax cut to benefit the very wealthy. We should be 
taking advantage of this era of unprecedented prosperity to update our 
social infrastructure for new economic and demographic realities, not 
squandering it on a cart-before-the-horse tax cut that doesn't help the 
people who need it most.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), who as a physician understands full well 
the harm that will be done to the seniors in this country by the 
inadequacy of the prescription benefit that lies in the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chair, during the break I found the symbols of 
this budget; I found three walnut shells and a pea here. If we watch 
this budget, we are going to watch these guys play that old country-
fair game of moving it around.
  I want to talk about the numbers, because we have talked about the 
principles, all the principles; but let us talk about dollars.
  The President says, and we agree, there is $5.6 trillion in surplus. 
Now, if we take away the Social Security and the Medicare and put it 
into those trust funds and leave them there to deal with Social 
Security and Medicare, we are down to $2.5. We take $3 trillion out 
with those two issues. Now we have $2.5 trillion; we can just spend it 
any way we want.
  So the President says, let us spend $1.6 trillion on a tax break, let 
us give it back to the people. That sounds good. Everybody in favor of 
that, all right. But, let us think a minute.
  When we change the tax structure, we change the whole tax structure. 
Right now there are 2 million people who have to figure their taxes 
twice under the AMT. With the President's changes, there will be 25 
million people who will get the pleasure of figuring their taxes twice. 
If we want to change that and fix the AMT, it costs $300 billion. Ah, 
and, if we spend this 1.6 trillion and do not pay down the debt, we 
wind up having to pay another $400 billion in interest. Now, if we add 
all of that up, that leaves $207 billion to deal with all the needs of 
this country over the next 10 years.
  The President has said he wants to give prescription drugs. That is 
$153 billion. So we are getting down to $60 billion for 10 years, 
remember; and then he wants to do something about defense, maybe $5 
billion a year for 10 years. That is 50. So we are down to $10 billion, 
folks, left to do everything this country needs. He says he wants to do 
something about education. I have to get my walnut shells out here 
again because that man is going to have to have these to start moving 
it around. He says he wants to do something about conservation, wants 
to save the land and the trees and whatever, wants to deal with crime. 
But the walnut shells must have the answer, because the tax cuts for 
health care coverage is another issue. There is no money for the 
President to do what he says he is going to do.
  The numbers are right here. All Americans sitting at the kitchen 
table, take it down, $5.6 trillion minus $2.5 trillion, minus $500 
billion, we have $3 trillion gone. That only leaves $2.5 trillion. It 
is not there. Vote against it.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey), who agrees with the statement from the Alliance 
of Retired Americans that the budget before us could cause Medicare, 
which has out-performed conventional commercial health systems over the 
past decade, to go into a financial nose dive and insolvency by the 
year 2010 or so.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, the budget resolution we have before us 
is essentially perverse. It is so because the main feature of this 
budget is a huge tax cut. Now, that tax cut, as was explained to us 
just a few minutes ago,

[[Page 4707]]

is much larger than it pretends to be, or the President pretends it to 
be. When that tax cut over 10 years is fully implemented, it turns out 
to be at least $2.5 trillion. That eats up essentially all of the 
anticipated surplus under the rosiest of circumstances over the next 10 
years. That means that there is nothing left for education, there is 
nothing left for health care, there is nothing left for agriculture, 
there is nothing left for disasters. Every penny which is anticipated 
to be in the budget under the rosiest scenario over the next decade is 
gone. It is wiped out.
  Why would anyone do that? Well, I think that there is a lesson here 
by examining history. This particular President was, for a period of 
time, the Governor of Texas. While he was Governor of Texas, he 
inherited a huge surplus from the previous administration, just as he 
has inherited a huge surplus from the previous Presidential 
administration here in Washington.
  So, in Texas, he engaged in a huge tax cut. He thought that that 
would be a good thing for the Texas economy. Well, what is the fact of 
the matter? The fact of the matter is now that the Texas budget is in 
serious deficit. The Texas economy is in serious decline. That is what 
this President wants to do to the Nation. When somebody asked him, 
well, what are you going to do about the situation in Texas, while he 
was campaigning last year, his response to that question was, well, I 
hope I am not there to deal with it, and he was not there to deal with 
it. But we and he and the American people will be there to deal with 
the perverse consequences of this tax cut if we allow it to happen.
  Now, what about Medicare? The President says he wants to have a 
prescription-drug program under Medicare, but there is no money for it 
because it is all gone, it is eaten up by his tax cut. So he wants to 
take money out of the Medicare trust fund and out of Social Security. 
He wants to take fully $1 trillion out of Social Security and Medicare 
over the next 10 years.
  Think about what that is going to do to the security of people who 
are relying upon Social Security for at least some part of their 
retirement. Think of what that is going to do to the health care of 
aged Americans who are relying upon Medicare to provide their health 
care during their elderly years. He eats up $1 trillion of Medicare and 
Social Security, and that is the effect of this budget; and that is why 
it needs to be defeated.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who understands that we could take the $50 
billion a year that we are going to give away to a few rich Americans 
in estate tax relief and fund a decent prescription-drug benefit for 
our seniors with that same money.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I do not often come to 
the floor to speak on budget matters. I tend to leave these debates to 
the so-called budget experts. But I cannot sit idly by and let what we 
have worked so hard to accomplish be rolled back and destroyed for 
political benefit by the so-called experts, who seem to have lost touch 
with old-fashioned common sense.
  Some people have referred to me in my political career as a liberal, 
but there is one very conservative thing my mama taught me when I was 
growing up: We simply do not spend money that we do not have. Now, my 
so-called conservative colleagues seem to be violating my mama's 
commonsense, conservative rule.
  When I was elected in 1992, the annual budget deficit was approaching 
$200 billion per year, and was projected to grow at over $500 billion 
per year. If the projections had turned out to be correct, the budget 
deficit for the last 10 years would have been somewhere between $2 
trillion and $5 trillion. Those projections proved to be woefully 
incorrect. Instead, the Congressional Budget Office now projects that 
we will have a budget surplus of over $5 trillion over the next 10 
years.
  What is my point? Am I trying to prove that President Clinton and 
this Congress did a great job or worked some magic to create the 
surplus? No. My point is that budget surplus and projections can be in 
error, and they almost always are.
  Consider these facts: In January of 2000, the CBO projected that the 
budget surplus would be $2.4 trillion less than they projected that it 
would be 1 year later, in January of 2001. They were 75 percent off in 
their projections. That is staggering, even compared to the 
miscalculations they made during the 10 years that I have been in 
Congress.
  The CBO itself says that there is a 1 in 20 chance that the Federal 
budget will be back in deficit in less than 5 years, even without a tax 
cut. If we take out the Social Security surplus, CBO says there is a 1 
in 5 chance that we will be back in deficit spending. That is with no 
tax cut, no prescription drug benefit, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no 
farm emergencies, and even if we keep the same spending levels, 
adjusting only for inflation.
  So what is up with my so-called conservative colleagues? They 
obviously did not grow up listening to my mama's conservative 
philosophy, but I think I am going to stick with my mama's philosophy: 
We should not spend what we do not have. I think that is still a good 
philosophy for our households, and it is also a good philosophy for our 
country. We should stick to it and vote against this budget resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
remainder of the time that I control to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I would say I wonder where the gentleman's mother was 
for the last 40 years when we were spending all the money that the 
Democratic-controlled Congresses were spending that they did not have.
  It is great to quote one's mother when it works. I am probably as 
much at fault for that as anybody, not listening to my mother enough. 
But we should quote our mothers all the time, not just some of the 
time.
  What we are going to talk about tonight, we are going to talk about 
the budget that we believe is an important step towards securing 
America's future. As we wrote this budget in the committee, taking the 
advice of the President, taking the advice of many years of budgets, we 
came up with six principles that we felt were important to put into 
this budget:
  No. 1, maximum debt elimination;
  No. 2, tax relief for every taxpayer;
  No. 3, improved education for our kids;
  No. 4, a stronger national defense;
  No. 5, health care and Medicare modernization with a prescription 
drug benefit;
  And finally, No. 6, better Social Security for our seniors.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) will talk about how we are 
going to improve education for our children.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, for a number of years we have been taking a look at 
the dollars that we spend from Washington on our children. We have 
determined that the most effective way to spend those dollars is when 
we empower local school officials and parents to make the decisions for 
their children.
  The direction of President Bush's education reform agenda and this 
budget reflect the importance that we place on parents and local school 
officials. The President's education plan calls for increased 
flexibility so as the dollars go to the local level, they can identify 
the needs of the particular children in their schools and match the 
needs to the funding that comes from Washington.

[[Page 4708]]

  We want to hold States and local school districts accountable, making 
sure that every child is learning. For those children who are locked 
into failing schools, we would provide them with a way out.
  But the budget is about investment. It is about how we are going to 
spend and how much more we are going to invest in America's children. 
The budget resolution calls for an increase of $4.6 billion, an 11.5 
percent increase in program spending. We are going to triple funding 
and spending on one of our key priorities, which is making sure that 
every child has the opportunity to learn how to read.
  We are going to provide $2.6 billion in increased spending to make 
sure that there is a qualified teacher in the classroom with all of our 
children. And as we ask States to hold schools accountable for 
learning, we will provide the funds to the States to not only develop 
the tests, but also to administer the tests at the local level.
  Over the last number of years, we have identified special education 
as one of those major mandates on States that we never fully funded. We 
set aside an additional $1.25 billion to move towards meeting that 
commitment of full funding for special education.
  We increased Pell grant spending by another $1 billion, so more of 
our children will have an opportunity to access higher education. In 
addition, we make provisions through the Tax Code, setting up 
educational savings accounts so more parents and families can prepare 
for the higher education needs of their children, but also for the K 
through 12 expenditures that they will incur.
  There is a tax deductibility feature for teachers for classroom 
expenses. There will be a full tax exemption for all qualified prepaid 
State tuition plans, and a provision to allow for tax deductibility for 
certain features for school construction.
  This is a comprehensive plan of education reform. It is a 
comprehensive plan for funding education to meet the priorities of 
America's children today and in the future. We are moving in the right 
direction. I encourage my colleagues to support this so we do not leave 
a single child behind.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, in response to what has just been said, let me say if 
there is a difference between two budgets, it is more distinct on the 
issue of education than anywhere else.
  While the gentleman claims that they have increased education between 
this year and next year by 11.5 percent, he can only claim that by 
claiming over $2 billion that we have already appropriated in the last 
Congress for education. If we back out that money already appropriated, 
the increase is about 5.6 or 5.7 percent.
  If we compare that to last year, the current year, in 2002, that will 
pale in comparison. In 2001, we have an increase of 18 percent for 
education. Over the previous 5 years, we have had an increase averaging 
13 percent. What they are now bringing to the floor as an education 
budget pales in comparison to what we have done in the recent past, and 
it pales in comparison, it is no comparison, to what we are presenting 
in our budget resolution.
  Our budget resolution will take our good fortune, the surpluses we 
have now, and invest more than $150 billion above the rate of inflation 
in education, $130 billion in our Democratic budget resolution for 
education over and above what the Republican resolution provides. So if 
they say this is a first criterion, then on that score we win hands 
down.
  There is another salient difference between us and them. That is on 
Social Security and Medicare. All through the 1990s we have been able 
to foresee the day coming when the baby boomers retire, and when they 
all retire, Social Security and Medicare, two essential programs, are 
going to be stretched, possibly to the breaking point.
  We did not have in the early and mid-1990s the wherewithal to deal 
with this problem. Even when we finally got the budget in surplus, it 
still was not big enough to step up to this huge problem. But now that 
we have gotten the year-to-year deficits out of the way, we have to 
face the long-term deficit. We may be sitting on an island of surpluses 
right now, but we are surrounded by a sea of debt. That debt runs into 
trillions of dollars for benefits promised but not yet provided 
Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries in the future.
  Given the opportunity, we have got the obligation to do something 
about it, and our budget does something about it. Our budget will take 
one-third of the surplus and transfer it in equal shares to the 
Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund, extending the 
solvency of Social Security to 2050 and Medicare to 2040.
  The Republican budget resolution does nothing at all for the solvency 
of those two systems. In fact, it actually takes away from the solvent 
life of the Medicare system by allowing a new prescription drug benefit 
to be deducted from the trust fund, diminishing the fund available to 
run the regular benefits now provided by that program and shortening 
its solvent life.
  We add prescription drugs, but for the additional benefits, we 
provide additional money out of the general surplus of the Treasury.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Let me start by talking about the resolution that is before us today, 
the Bush Republican budget that is before us today.
  I think it is important to note that this budget, even though it is 
only for fiscal year 2002, this is a budget that is driven by one thing 
over 10 years, by this $1.6 trillion tax cut, actually a tax cut that 
is growing by leaps and bounds every day.
  The problem with this budget is that in order to get the tax cut 
funded and to meet the $260 billion of additional spending the 
President wants, and, in addition, more spending that the President is 
going to ask for later, he has to offset it somewhere.
  Where he offsets it, and our colleagues, our Republican colleagues on 
the Committee on the Budget did that as well, is they do it through the 
trust funds. They do it primarily through the Medicare Hospital 
Insurance Trust Fund, where they take a large portion of it to fund 
their reserve, and in order to meet the public's demand for 
prescription drug coverage, they come up with a minimal prescription 
drug plan that the President campaigned on, the Helping Hand plan, 
which will not solve the problem. We will talk about that in a second. 
But in doing so, they shorten the life span of Medicare, and it leads 
to the following conclusions: either ultimately to cut Medicare 
benefits, raise payroll taxes, or actually increase debt when we ought 
to be decreasing debt instead.

                              {time}  1930

  At the same time, the Bush budget, which the Republican budget 
tracks, would use $500 billion to $600 billion of Social Security trust 
fund monies to privatize Social Security.
  We do not know exactly what privatize means, but we do know any time 
you take trust fund monies, monies that have been obligated to future 
benefits paid for by FICA taxes, you have to make up that money. That 
is money that is already obligated, and you have to make it up either 
through more debt, higher payroll taxes or reduced benefits.
  Here is what happened with the Republican plan. With the Republican 
plan moving at least $150 billion out of the Medicare trust fund, it 
shortens the life span to Medicare. The actuaries came out the other 
day and they said Medicare now is good till 2029 or 2028, but under the 
Republican plan before us tonight, you would actually shorten it to 
about 2024. It is moving in the wrong direction in trying to ensure 
Medicare solvency.
  On top of that, the Republican plan as it is would affect Social 
Security, and this is what is in the President's budget. The actuaries 
the other day

[[Page 4709]]

said the plan would go to about 2038 or 2039, full benefits paid under 
Social Security to 2038. Yet under the President's and the Republican's 
plan, it would shorten the life span of Social Security to as little as 
about 2027.
  Madam Chairman, I do not think that that is what the American people 
want, given these two very successful programs. And the problem that we 
have today is the Republican budget, try as it might, the numbers 
simply do not add up because with a 10-year budget, the numbers are 
driven solely by trying to fund the tax cut first and then deal with 
our obligations to pay down the debt.
  Our obligations are to ensure the solvency of Social Security and 
Medicare, not just for today's beneficiaries, but near-retirees and 
future beneficiaries and to find a prescription drug program. That is 
what the American people said they wanted in the last election.
  Madam Chairman, I am going to switch and yield to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), my colleague.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, I am up here to talk about one issue, 
the prescription drug benefit that everybody says they want from 
Medicare. Now, sometimes the Republicans, when they do budgets, tell 
the truth.
  There are some people who actually come out and say what it is. A 
Republican acknowledged today that the $153 billion that President Bush 
set aside would not be enough. Let me quote him, he said ``everybody 
knows that figure is gone. That is what the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) said.
  He said it was set before the CBO estimated last year's House bill, 
which he said has already gone to $200 billion. The President put $153 
billion in the budget, and the bill we passed last year was $200 
billion.
  Now the Republicans know that we have $392 billion in surplus in the 
Medicare plan. People pay their taxes. Everybody gets a pay stub that 
says HI on it, and that is the Medicare trust fund; that is we have 
$392 billion more than we needed.
  The Republicans say, well, we will keep $239 billion, and we will 
take $153 billion away and put it into the drug bill. That is the $153 
billion, the President says.
  We know last year's bill was $200 billion, so we already know they 
are going to cheat. They are not going to give you what they promised 
last year. What the Democrats promised is the other one over here, 
where we add $330 billion out of the surplus in addition to what we put 
into Medicare.
  As I said before, this is a shell game. These walnut shells, you can 
move them around, but the fact is this is a walnut shell. You cannot 
get two things out of the same money; and, my friends, if you are 
counting on a prescription drug benefit, you better hope the Democratic 
bill passes.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, in North Carolina, we have a district 
where we are aging, and we have an out-migration of young people. What 
this means is the fact that we have larger percentages of older, lower-
income people who indeed are paying an ever-increasing amount for 
prescription drugs. And to that extent, there is not a Medicare model 
that can effectively provide those resources in my district.
  We cannot depend on HMOs for insurance for that. So in our district, 
it would mean that many of our people will go without the kind of 
health care they need. If, indeed, this budget goes through, there is 
very little hope with the proposed amount of money that is in the 
Republican bill that it would be sufficient to meet the needs of the 
constituents in my area.
  Madam Chairman, there are many other districts in the United States 
that are very similar to my district. So I think the sensitivity is 
there. The people know that prescription drugs is a number one issue, 
but in rural America, where there are larger percentages of lower-
income, senior citizens and the lack of insurance models for 
prescription drugs, we must depend on the Medicare model to have it.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to ask the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the difference between the 
Democratic plan and the Republican plan as I see it is this: The 
Republican plan A takes $150 billion to start out of the Medicare trust 
fund, thus shortening the solvency of the trust fund to pay for its 
prescription drug plan. The Democratic plan funds a prescription drug 
program at an adequate number and does not deplete it from the Medicare 
trust fund thus does not do anything to shorten the solvency of 
Medicare. In fact, we propose extending the solvency of Medicare.
  Madam Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Washington if that would be 
correct; and I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, what the gentleman is saying is that 
the President's budget says this, and this is the one he brought up and 
stood up here and talked about, that Medicare over the next 10 years is 
going to be $654 billion short. The Republicans's plan puts nothing 
into that. They put $153 billion into drugs and another a bunch of 
money, they call it modernization, $239 billion in modernization; 
whatever that means, I do not know. It does add to the $640 billion.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond 
briefly.
  Madam Chairman, of course my colleagues do not know what 
modernization is because they never proposed it. I mean it should not 
be a surprise that they come out on the floor now and say they do not 
know what modernization is. They do not know what reform looks like; of 
course not.
  It has been Republicans that have come to the floor in budget after 
budget after budget extending the trust fund, extending the solvency.
  When we took control of the Congress just 6 years ago, the trust 
funds were going bankrupt. And now my colleagues run to the floor and 
say our budget might, our budget could, our budget may, because you 
have at least some intellectual integrity to suggest that at least 
under our plan we can get the job done and still be able to provide the 
kind of reforms and modernization that we claim we can under this 
particular budget.
  Yes, this budget allows for Medicare modernization. We are proud of 
that. The fact that my colleagues want to come in here and want to 
scare seniors about Medicare, I say sadly is not all that unusual. But 
I would ask my colleagues to please curb your rhetoric, because my 
colleagues know full well, that is not what our budget does.
  Madam Chairman, to talk about how we are going to reduce the national 
debt, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), 
who is an outstanding member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of this 
budget resolution. I am especially pleased that a key aspect of this 
responsible budget blueprint is a significant reduction of our national 
debt.
  When the Republicans became this Chamber's majority in 1995, the 
Congress had become all too familiar with running deficit budgets. That 
year the deficit was $164 billion. Worse yet, our publicly held debt 
was $3.8 trillion.
  By the end of the fiscal year 2000, there were not deficits. In fact, 
we celebrated our third consecutive budget surplus, an achievement not 
seen in 50 years. We will have a surplus again this year, Madam 
Chairman, and this is a budget we can be proud of.
  This year the government is paying down the debt by $262 billion. 
Since 1997, we have set aside $625 billion for debt repayment. That is 
a remarkable achievement and a good starting off place. But this budget 
will pay down an historic $2 trillion of publicly held debt over the 
next 10 years.
  Why should we pay down the national debt? One reason is paying off 
the debt helps reduce interest rates. If those interest rates 
permanently fall by just 1/100 of a percent, the Federal Government can 
save an estimated $300

[[Page 4710]]

million per year in interest payments. Saving that money allows us to 
focus on funding the priorities of this Congress.
  How does paying down the debt help the American people? It makes it 
easier for lending. It helps the average American get a loan for a 
purchase of a car, open a small business or pay down his credit card 
debt.
  How does it help the American economy? It encourages more private 
sector investment. Instead of buying government bonds, that money can 
be used to finance long-term private sector projects, ensuring that we 
enjoy the strong economy we know is important.
  By paying down $2 trillion, the government's publicly held debt will 
decline to just 7 percent of the gross domestic product by the year 
2011. Its lowest level in 80 years.
  We are paying down as much debt as we can as fast as we can. So why 
do not we just eliminate the public debt? Because the roughly $1 
trillion of remaining debt is nonredeemable. It consists of marketable 
bonds that will not have matured, as well as savings bonds and special 
bonds for State and local governments.
  This budget is committed to responsible debt reduction. By refusing 
to touch the nonredeemable debt, the government will not pay premiums 
and penalties for retiring the debt too fast; that could cost the 
American taxpayer as much as $150 billion.
  Madam Chairman, in town hall meeting after town hall meeting, my 
constituents tell me that they are responsible for providing for their 
families, for running their business and planning for the future for 
themselves and their families. Leaving more than $3 trillion for 
another Congress, another time is not only irresponsible, it is 
unworthy of us as their elected representatives.
  We have an opportunity and an obligation to pay off the maximum 
amount of debt that we can responsibly pay, and that is what is 
presented in this budget resolution.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this budget. Debt 
reduction can be this Congress' most important legacy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, there was a mention made before about 
privatizing Social Security in our budget. We do not privatize Social 
Security in our budget, and the gentleman from New Hampshire will talk 
about that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), who is vice chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), Chairman of our Committee on the Budget for yielding the 
time to me.
  Madam Chairman, I think it is important that we step back. We have 
heard a lot of rhetoric here. And as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) pointed out, most of it is designed to scare people.
  I think that is unfortunate, because we have an historic opportunity 
to use record budget surpluses to do the right thing for the country; 
to put together a strong budget; to make the Tax Code more fair. I 
think we should step back and talk about what is in this budget rather 
than listening to speculation and scare tactics.
  As the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) indicated, we pay down 
more debt over the next 10 years than has ever been paid down by any 
country in the history of the world, over $2 trillion in debt 
retirement keeping interest rates low.
  Of course, we cut taxes. We have heard a lot of speculation that it 
will be a $2.5 trillion dollar tax cut, and it is very interesting to 
see Members on the other side advocating for reform of AMT, which is 
not even part of the President's proposal.
  The reason is because they are putting up a strawman that they might 
debate against, when they know full well the way budgets are written, 
it allows for $1.6 trillion over the 10-year period and no more.
  We improve education, strengthen our national defense, and, of 
course, we have health care reform, Medicare modernization. For the 
first time in our country's history, we are creating a reserve fund to 
support reforms, modernizations for Medicare that were designed 35 
years ago. Somehow the minority wants to portray this as being risky. 
Suddenly it is risky to set up a reserve fund, something we have never 
done in this country. I think not.

                              {time}  1945

  Of course, Social Security. Let us take a close look at how we are 
dealing with Social Security in this budget. First and foremost, we are 
setting aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, something I 
am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be pleased to 
know. It will be the third year in a row that we have done this.
  It is important to reflect on the fact that it was the House 
Committee on the Budget 3 years ago that first proposed the idea of 
setting aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. We protect 
that surplus. It is shown very clearly.
  We will use much of those revenues that are coming in to do the right 
thing for the taxpayer and retire a record amount of debt, but we also 
set up a reserve account for Social Security.
  In addition to that reserve for Medicare, we set up a reserve for 
Social Security in order to pay for a bipartisan bill, reforms, 
modernization, initiatives that will strengthen that program. We do not 
prejudge what that fund will or will not be used for. But we know it 
will be there when we can get a bipartisan bill like the Kolbe-Stenholm 
bill that has been introduced or some other piece of legislation. We 
know we will have the funds to strengthen Social Security.
  Is there tax relief in this bill? Yes. Right here, $1.6 trillion. Not 
2, not 2.5, not 2.8. It is very clearly written in the budget 
resolution making the Tax Code more fair for all Americans.
  Even after we do all this, we still have money left over in a 
contingency reserve. That is not risky. It is fair, it is balanced, and 
it makes common sense.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has 43\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 50\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Chairman, to briefly respond to my dear chairman 
of the committee, let me say that, when we talked about Medicare in 
1995 when the Republicans took control of the House, the first thing 
they tried to do was to cut Medicare by $270 billion and Medicaid by 
$107 billion to fund their tax cut. They did not like it in 1965, they 
did not like it in 1995, and we are not sure that they like it right 
now. We fought them then, and we stopped them from doing it; and we 
helped preserve the program.
  Let me tell the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), one cannot 
reserve something that is already obligated for the future. One can 
only spend it on what it is obligated for, or one has to cut to get 
there.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), my very 
good friend, in 1965, I was 5 years old. Most of the people here were 
at least that age. We were not here in 1965. The gentleman was not here 
in 1965. How old was the gentleman in 1965? My guess is the gentleman 
probably was not much older than me.
  My point is very simple, can we back off of this for just a moment. 
Both sides want to protect Social Security. Both sides want to protect 
Medicare and pay down the national debt. Both sides want to provide tax 
relief. Can we at least agree on that, and talk about real numbers?
  If you want to continue to heighten the rhetoric here tonight, we can 
go toe to toe. That is not what the American people are wanting to tune 
in to listen to tonight. They want to know what is in your budget. They 
want to know what is in our budget.

[[Page 4711]]

  Do not try to scare seniors with this. That is not what this is 
about. Both sides, both sides, I say very respectfully, want to save 
Social Security, Medicare, pay down the debt, and provide tax relief. 
We have a little bit of different approach on all those things. Let us 
talk about those little bit different approaches, but quit scaring 
seniors, telling them we are not setting aside this or we are dipping 
into that. That is not fair. Let us be fair about this debate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley). Going back to the topic of education on which I 
think we are clearly superior, who better to talk about education than 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who is a public school 
teacher. She in turn will recognize and yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price), who is a former professor at Duke, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who is a former professor of 
physics at Princeton.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, the Republican budget deserves a failing grade on 
education, there is no question about it, because it only increases 
funding for the Department of Education by $2.4 billion. That is 5.7 
percent, 5.7 percent over last year's levels. That is less than half 
the average increase that Congress has provided for the last 5 years.
  Now, to inflate their increase, the Republicans try to claim credit 
for funding that we already provided for next year. That is not 
education leadership; that is budget gamesmanship.
  Democrats, on the other hand, provide $4.8 billion more for education 
than the Republicans do for next year. This chart makes the comparison 
very clearly. Our budget provides $129 billion more over the next 10 
years. Under the Democratic budget, our country will be in a much 
better position to address the challenges we face in education like 
reducing class size, school construction, recruiting and training 
teachers, boosting title I aid for disadvantaged students, increasing 
Pell Grants for college students, meeting the Federal Government's 
obligations to special-education funding, expanding Head Start.
  There is so much that we need to do. Education needs to be a priority 
item in this budget, and the Democratic budget resolution provides that 
priority.
  Let me ask the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who has also 
joined us here, to discuss how the Democratic budget addresses what I 
consider to be the number one education issue of the next decade, the 
teacher shortage. We are going to need 2.2 million new teachers in this 
country in the next 10 years, and I do not think anybody knows where 
they are coming from. We need to be anticipating this need.
  I ask the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) where are we on this 
question of the recruitment, retention, and professional development of 
teachers?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, the Democratic budget recognizes that, whatever 
education reforms we are talking about, they will not mean anything 
unless we have quality teachers in the classroom. Does the Republican 
budget respond to this need? I would say no.
  Over the next 10 years, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price) points out, we will need 2.2 million new teachers. This is a 
national problem. It requires national attention. This is not something 
that a single school district or a single State can take care of.
  Many of these teachers will be called on to teach science and math. 
Many will feel inadequate to do that. We must find ways to recruit and 
retain quality teachers, including math and science teachers, not only 
to keep the attrition rate low, but to ensure that the classrooms are 
not overcrowded.
  The Democratic budget recognizes that, when our schools recruit and 
train new teachers, they are going to need modern classrooms as well.
  Madam Chairman, I just want to emphasize that talking about 
educational reform is not good enough. We have to put something behind 
it.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have got 
a problem with school construction. Our schools are bursting at the 
seams. One cannot go on a school tour anymore without looking at a 
classroom or closet that has been converted to a classroom or students 
sitting on the floor, radiators, windowsills because the classroom is 
overcrowded.
  The Republican budget diverts $1.2 billion in school construction 
that this Congress provided last year and then eliminates construction 
funds for the next year. This comes at a time when we have a crisis in 
this country. We have $100 billion worth of projects for new school 
construction and renovation.
  The Democratic budget provides $4.8 billion more than the Republican 
budget for education and $129 billion over the next 10 years. We have 
said education is a priority, and we have put our money where our mouth 
is.
  Our budget also provides more than the Republicans for special 
education, an issue that is near and dear to my heart. The Democratic 
budget moves our country closer to a promise we made 26 years ago when 
we first passed the Individuals with Disability Education Act. We said 
we would pay 40 percent of the excess cost. Well, we need to do that. 
The Democratic budget does that over a 10-year period, adding $1.5 
billion each year.
  Since coming to Congress, I have visited every school district, 
large, small, rural, urban; and despite their geographic and economic 
differences, every school is struggling to provide the necessary 
services to children with disabilities.
  We have a historic opportunity to meet our Federal commitment to our 
local schools. It is time that we keep the promise that we made 26 
years ago that we invest in education of every child.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, speaking of promises made, probably everyone in this 
Chamber remembers that when Candidate George W. Bush promised to raise 
the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100 for freshman, it was welcomed 
with great enthusiasm. Well, President Bush, I am afraid, is not 
upholding that promise.
  The Republicans in this budget have fallen $1.5 billion short of the 
amount needed to fulfill that promise. The Republicans are only 
providing enough funding here to raise the maximum award by $150; that 
is, from $3,750 to $3,900 a year. With $4.8 billion more for education 
next year, the Democrats' budget does far better for that.
  For a final thought, let me turn again to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), who, as his bumper stickers say, is in fact a rocket 
scientist, and ask him: Is the Republican budget adequate in terms of 
critical research funding?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, this is also related to education which we 
will address shortly. Quite simply, the Republican budget shortchanges 
scientific research. This is important, not only for producing the new 
ideas that are necessary to power our economy to lead to productivity 
growth, but it is also how we train the future educators and the future 
scientists.
  The Republican budget holds NSF flat. It cuts NASA below the level 
needed to maintain the current purchasing power. Basic scientific 
research, which is the backbone of our economic success, would suffer 
under this Republican budget.
  The Democratic budget, on the other hand, looks after these 
interests. The

[[Page 4712]]

Democrats provide $300 million more than the Republican budget for 
research and development at NASA, NSF, the Department of Energy. We 
keep our commitment to doubling the funding for the National Institutes 
of Health by 2003.
  Our increased commitment as a Nation to scientific research is 
essential. This is important for education as well as for economic 
benefits to everyone in this country.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, we need to 
invest in our future; and we can do that by investing in education.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) to speak about our commitment to our 
Nation's defense.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues can see from our 
budget, some of our priorities are listed; and one of those is a 
stronger national defense. That is one of the reasons that I support 
the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution.
  Not only have the Republicans once again balanced the budget without 
dipping into Social Security and Medicare, we have met important 
priorities that continue to provide for the commitment of our men and 
women who are willing to stand in harm's way to give us a strong 
defense.
  When I visit the soldiers that are at Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth 
and our guardsmen at Forbes Field in my district, I know we need to do 
more for them. They have done a great deal to defend us. This budget 
does provide for that.
  After years of neglect and a series of overdeployments under the 
previous administration that left our defenses stretched thin, the 
defense budget faced serious shortfalls. For too long we made the motto 
of the military ``do more with less.''
  Between 1997 and 2001, the Republican-led Congress added $34.4 
billion to make up for that inadequate funding. I am proud to say that, 
with this budget, the Republican budget, we are adding another $14.3 
billion to fulfill our first duty under the Constitution, and that is 
to provide for the common defense.
  Our military personnel deserve the 4.6 pay raise that we are 
providing for in this budget. They deserve the $400 million committed 
to improve military housing, which is a very big issue for them, 
quality of life issues. They deserve the $2.6 billion down payment on 
the $20 billion technology program to improve the equipment that they 
use when they go out on a mission.
  More importantly, they deserve to know that, when Secretary of 
Defense Rumsfeld completes his military-wide, top-to-bottom review, 
that we stand ready, in the Republican initiative, not in the 
minority's initiative, that we will provide the necessary resources 
should there be more money needed to help make sure our troops are best 
trained and well equipped.
  For those who have already served, this budget provides $3.9 billion 
to expand TriCare benefits for our military retirees from the age of 65 
up, and it provides another $1.7 billion increase in veterans' health 
care, things that we have made commitments to that we are following up 
on.
  Madam Chairman, this is a responsible budget. We are passing the 
budget on time. It is a budget that meets the priorities, as my 
colleagues can see from here. It is a budget that allows room for the 
appropriate adjustments, should they come, for unseen emergencies and 
for reform.
  I encourage all of my colleagues, my friends on the other side as 
well, to join me to vote for this resolution.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis).

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Chairman, our debate tonight is in part a 
disagreement as to the size of a tax cut and what our priorities as a 
Nation should be.
  Here are the facts: The Congressional Budget Office projects a $5.6 
trillion Federal surplus over the next 10 years. Democrats and 
Republicans have agreed that we should set aside $3 trillion of that 
projected surplus that is in the Social Security and Medicare Trust 
Funds. That leaves a projected surplus of about $2.5 trillion. This 
projection was made in January of this year based on an assumption that 
the economy would enjoy a substantial growth rate in excess of 3 
percent annually for the next 10 years. That assumption is increasingly 
questionable.
  Over a majority of States now are experiencing their own financial 
difficulties, and last week two major national financial institutions, 
Wells Fargo and Merrill Lynch, significantly lowered their projections 
as to our surplus. In fact, Wells Fargo suggested that the projection 
for this year will be 20 percent lower than what the CBO had projected.
  Based on what we believe is a more conservative approach, the 
Democratic budget alternative calls for a tax cut of approximately $737 
billion, roughly one-third of the projected surplus. This $737 billion 
tax cut allows us to direct $3.7 trillion to pay down the massive 
Federal debt, to help keep interest rates low, and to protect Social 
Security and Medicare for the retirement of the baby boomers.
  Our $737 billion tax cut, in contrast to the Republican tax cut, 
targets tax cuts to those taxpayers at the bottom and the middle who 
are struggling the most to make ends meet. The Democratic budget plan 
provides marriage penalty relief by providing a standard deduction for 
married couples equal to twice the standard deduction for individuals. 
We provide relief from estate taxes by increasing the estate tax 
exclusion to $4 million per married couple; that is, $2 million per 
individual immediately, gradually increasing that exemption to $5 
million. Our estate tax reform would repeal the estate tax for over 
two-thirds of the estates that pay the tax currently.
  Our $737 billion tax cut would also allow tax cuts to be focused on 
what Democrats and Republicans ought to agree is a priority, and that 
is bolstering worker productivity. Let us invest in the education and 
training of our citizens, and research and development of technology, 
which is increasingly a powerful tool in the hands of our skilled 
workers. Our tax cut can be used for a permanent research and 
development tax credit, interest-free bonds for school construction, 
and providing greater deductibility to small- and medium-sized 
businesses to purchase information technology to enjoy more 
productivity in their own businesses.
  In closing, let me caution my colleagues, both Republican and 
Democrat, to be careful with these surplus projections. If these 
projected surpluses do not materialize and we have enacted a massive 
tax cut, I fear we will once again be saddled with a massive Federal 
debt, and interest rates will begin to climb again. Let us get our 
priorities straight, and let us pass a responsible tax cut with relief 
for all Americans.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), a very distinguished member of not only the 
Committee on the Budget, but also the Committee on Ways and Means, who 
will talk about tax relief for every taxpayer.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) and congratulate him on a great budget.
  I also want to respond a little bit to some of the points that have 
been made tonight. Let me start by saying that my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle have done a good job, I think, in setting out the 
principles of this budget and making clear that it does, in fact, meet 
our national priorities.
  It increases funding for our public schools, it strengthens our 
national defense, it protects Medicare and Social Security in ways that 
we have never done before in this Congress. It truly protects the trust 
funds.
  It does things that I think are necessary in terms of paying back the 
public debt. We just heard the debt talked about. The fact is this 
budget retires

[[Page 4713]]

more public debt than we have ever done before as a Congress. In fact, 
it pays back all. All of the available public debt is going to be paid 
down under this budget.
  At the end of the day, after all those priorities are met, after the 
debt is paid down, Social Security and Medicare protected, our national 
defense strengthened, there is still money left on the table. And that 
money left on the table those of us on this side of the aisle believe 
very strongly ought to go back to the hard-working taxpayers that 
created every dime of that $5.61 trillion budget surplus.
  Is it too much to ask that we allow folks who paid every dime of that 
surplus to keep about 28 percent of it, a little less? That is what we 
are proposing here tonight. It is about $1.62 trillion that would go 
back to the folks who created every dime of that surplus. We think 
everyone ought to get that tax relief. We think every hard-working 
taxpayer deserves it.
  It is interesting to look at the statistics. We now have the highest 
rate as a percentage of our GDP, our economy, in taxation than we have 
had in this country since World War II. In fact, if we go back before 
World War II, we will not find taxes that high. We also have a 
faltering economy. We have an economy that could use a tax cut to boost 
economic growth and keep us from going into a recession.
  We also need to do some stuff in terms of addressing concerns in our 
Tax Code. We need to simplify our code and make it fair. These are all 
things we can do under the budget allocation we have set aside here for 
tax relief.
  I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
tonight attack the budget with regard to the tax side, saying it is 
only tax cuts for the rich. We are going to hear that a lot. But let us 
be clear: This debate tonight is not over what kind of tax cut we have 
or do not have, it is over how much money is left available in the 
budget for tax cuts. This Congress can then work its will on that. But 
I want to address that criticism because it is wrong.
  If we look at the proposals that have come from the President, the 
proposals that have come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, those 
that are likely to come to the floor even later this week, we will see 
that, in fact, the tax relief we are talking about makes the code fair. 
It makes the code more progressive, not less progressive. In fact, the 
wealthiest Americans will pay a higher burden of the taxes in this 
country, not a lower burden, if we are to pass proposals that have been 
before the Committee on Ways and Means and that have been proposed by 
President Bush.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. A family making $35,000 a year, 
under the proposals we have seen from President Bush and reported out 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, would pay no taxes; 100 percent tax 
cuts. Those making $35,000 a year, families with two kids would pay no 
Federal income taxes at all. Those making $50,000 a year would get 
about a 50 percent Federal income tax cut. Those making over $75,000 
would get about a 25 percent tax cut. This is something that I think we 
need to address tonight. If you look at the Bush proposals and the 
Committee on Ways and Means proposals, in fact the Tax Code will become 
more progressive. Taxpayers at the higher end will pay a higher burden 
of the total taxation than they do today.
  Madam Chairman, I want to say that the chairman of the Committee on 
Budget has done a great job with this. This budget is fair. What is set 
aside for tax relief is certainly fair. It allows us to double the 
child credit, it allows us to eliminate the marriage penalty, it allows 
us to get rid of the death tax and let every American save more for 
their own retirement.
  We have a lot of priorities to address in this Congress, and we do it 
in this budget. Those priorities ought to make sure that hard-working 
Americans who created every dime of that surplus get to keep a little 
more of their hard-earned money. This tax relief makes a lot of sense 
right now for our economy and for the American taxpayer, the families. 
It also makes a lot of sense for our government.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget and let Americans keep 
more of what they earn.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 
minutes, for purposes of control, to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) to address the agricultural aspects of our 
budget resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) will control 7 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, the Republican budget presented here tonight does not 
reflect the challenges and difficulties of our American farmers. In 
fact, it deliberately avoids it. The American farmers are in crisis. 
When we think of natural disasters here at home, the unfair markets 
abroad, and energy costs stemming from more of the geopolitical forces 
than from agricultural foundations, these all put the American farm and 
the entire fabric of rural America at risk. The response to this budget 
is nil. In this case, inaction speaks for itself. What it says to the 
American farmers is that while many love to pay lip service, that is 
what we would rather do than provide assistance to farmers.
  The House Committee on Agriculture has been hearing from many 
different farm groups lately, and they have been practically unanimous 
in one belief, that we must be realistic about the level of support 
necessary to keep the American family farmer in business. They have 
urged the Committee on Agriculture to work to locate an additional $9 
billion for farm relief for this year. My amendment in the Committee on 
Budget would have done that, plus it would provided $4 billion through 
the year 2011.
  The Democratic alternative provides $46 billion increase to the 
baseline budget to meet emergencies. That would be $8 billion for year 
2002 and $4 billion throughout. Supporting farmers that have supported 
this Nation for so long is not a matter of politics, but a commitment 
from both the Democrat and Republican Parties to the American farmer.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), have made it clear that we need to 
increase economic support for farmers. In our recent markup I raised 
this issue, as well as I have raised it in the Committee on Rules 
today. I was disappointed that the amendment failed on a partisan vote 
because I truly believe that the concern of my Republican colleagues 
for American farmers indeed is genuine. I know that many of my 
colleagues in the majority will say that we do not need the increase to 
the budget because we indeed have the existence of a contingency fund. 
I respectfully say to them this is bad policy, bad policy for farmers 
and shaky fiscal ground on which to develop a budget.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for yielding me this time, and the gentlewoman 
is totally correct to raise the question about the adequacy of the 
reserve fund.
  The resolution before us provides for a strategic reserve fund for 
agriculture, defense and other appropriate legislation. In addition, 
the contingency fund has other reserves for additional prescription 
drug spending, special education and emergencies.
  The contingency fund approximates the on-budget surplus, which is 
$750 billion for 10 years. To preserve Medicare, this fund is 
partitioned into a Medicare contingency fund of about $240 billion and 
a general contingency fund of about $515 billion. It is at this point 
that the year-by-year amounts available for agriculture, defense, 
veterans, education, health care and other priorities become more 
critical.
  Although there appears to be ample resources for the $515 billion 
over 10

[[Page 4714]]

years, in reality there is little room to accommodate additional 
resources for agriculture. In fiscal year 2005 and 2006, the general 
contingency fund has only $12 billion and $15 billion available. These 
amounts are barely sufficient to cover the $12 billion requested by 
agricultural groups as was stated, not to mention additional defense 
and other appropriate spending. Increased defense expenditures, 
additional prescription drug coverage and additional tax proposals 
severely limit funding beyond 2005.
  Let me say, Madam Chairman, this budget resolution as it pertains to 
agriculture literally bets the farm and ranch after this year that the 
projected surpluses are going to materialize.
  Madam Chairman, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to look at the Democratic substitute and the Blue Dog budget to see 
what is really going to be necessary for agriculture and to vote for 
that. If Members vote for the resolution before us, you are literally 
betting the farm and ranch on a shaky projected surplus.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who cares about water and the black 
farmers.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina very much for yielding.
  Like my colleague from Texas, I am concerned about the plight of the 
farmer here in America. Under the Republican plan, there is no 
contingency plan for the $27 billion that we have had to earmark for 
emergency funding. In addition to that, the Republican budget 
resolution eliminates field offices for the Department of Agriculture. 
Those of us who live in rural America understand that our people need 
to be able to go to the offices within a reasonable period of time in a 
reasonable area.
  Also the water and infrastructure needs. Many of us represent areas 
that do not have running water and sewer. Under this Republican budget, 
the problem of water and sewer in our rural areas is not adequately 
addressed. So we encourage Members to look at the Democratic 
alternative and support that for the people of America.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson) for his comments.
  Madam Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, our farmers once again are 
facing a crisis as they have in the last 3 years. Our farmers are 
facing a recession, record low prices and rising energy costs. We have 
the opportunity during the budget markup to show some leadership and 
commitment to our farmers.

                              {time}  2015

  However, this committee dropped the ball. Over the past 3 years, 
Congress has appropriated emergency funds for our farmers to the tune 
of $27 billion. We already know we are going to have to provide 
emergency assistance once again. But where is it in the budget? It is 
not there. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, testified before the Committee on the Budget, 
and I quote, ``We recommend that rather than providing additional 
assistance on an emergency ad hoc basis the budget allocation for 
agriculture needs to be permanently increased.''
  This budget has left agriculture to compete with what is left of the 
surplus and to depend on supplemental emergency assistance. This is not 
how the farmers of this country deserve to be treated.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute for a brief 
response.
  Madam Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the tone of the 
gentlewoman's comments. We do have a slight disagreement on how we are 
going to achieve this goal, but it is a goal that is shared on both 
sides. As I say, I appreciate the tone in which the gentlewoman made 
her presentation and I hope that we can continue that tonight because 
there are, I think, shared goals even though there are differences of 
opinion on how to reach those goals.
  I would just report to the gentlewoman that the American Farm Bureau 
Federation has recently today sent me a letter endorsing our budget, H. 
Con. Res. 83, which is the Republican budget, but again there is much 
work that we are going to have to do in agriculture and a number of 
other areas, and we share that workload and hopefully can continue to 
do it in a bipartisan way.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk), a new member to the Committee on the Budget, to discuss our 
commitment to Medicare and reforming Medicare and modernization with a 
prescription drug benefit.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, this budget is based on really three key 
principles of economic growth, fiscal responsibility and protecting 
those most in need.
  We all know the economy has soured. In my own congressional district, 
Motorola has laid off employees, Outboard Marine has gone bankrupt and 
so has Montgomery Ward. We know that the best education program and the 
best health care program and the best Social Security program is 
parents with a job. This budget does that.
  This budget also pays down debt, $2 trillion in debt, leaving us at a 
level of debt not seen since the Wilson administration in 1917.
  This budget also protects those most in need. We increase funding for 
special education, move towards our goal of doubling the National 
Institutes of Health and lay the groundwork for saving Social Security 
and Medicare. Our seniors know that Social Security and Medicare are in 
trouble over the long-term and even the charts of the other party show 
that very clearly, with a precipitous drop around 2015. Our seniors 
know that we will go from 30 million collecting a Medicare benefit and 
Social Security to 90 million as the baby-boom generation retires. They 
know that Medicare has an $11 trillion unfunded liability; that Social 
Security has a $9 trillion unfunded liability, and the way out of this 
is bipartisan Medicare modernization and reform.
  President Bush put his hand out during his speech to the Nation on 
this, and it is incumbent upon us to make that happen. We know that the 
Medicare part A fund is solid for the next couple of years, but part B, 
the part that goes to pay for doctors, is already in debt. For us, I 
believe the key principle we should abide by is that health care 
offered to Medicare seniors should be as good as that offered a 
Congressman.
  That is the principle upon which we must make our decisions on this 
budget.
  This budget restarts our economy, making sure that parents have a job 
and can provide health care. This budget pays down debt and this budget 
leaves a foundation for bipartisan Medicare reform.
  Now my hat goes off to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), who has really hit the 
ground running with this document. I really have to commend our ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is 
the epitome of dignity in this process. It is in that spirit that we 
have to take on the Medicare challenge. When one looks at the number of 
people who will retire in the coming years, as our baby-boom generation 
passes from their working years, we need to join together to make sure 
that we have Medicare modernization that offers a prescription drug 
benefit, that offers a choice of doctors and that controls spending.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind compliment, and I 
pick up on something he said. He said that among the principles of both 
budgets is the commitment to protecting those in need. In light of 
that, I would like to point out that our budget resolution makes 
provision for $18 billion for low-income assistance programs and 
another $70 billion to enhance and improve access for working families 
to health care that they do not have because they are not fortunate to 
work for an employer who provides coverage.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts

[[Page 4715]]

(Mr. Capuano), the former mayor of Summerville, Massachusetts, to talk 
about this aspect of our budget.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Chairman, before I talk about that issue I need to 
go back to the chart we just saw and we have seen already three times 
tonight by my count, is the six items that the other side is trying to 
deal with.
  I actually agree with everything on that chart, but I want to talk 
about them for a minute. We talk about maximum debt elimination. I 
agree, we all want to do that. Surprisingly enough, the Democratic 
proposal does more.
  We want to improve education. We all agree on that. Surprisingly 
enough, the Democratic proposal does more.
  We want to have a stronger national defense. My goodness, 
surprisingly enough, the Democratic proposal does more.
  We want to modernize and stabilize Medicare and Social Security. 
Again, surprisingly, the Democratic budget does more.
  The only thing we do not do more on is tax cuts, but we are being 
criticized tonight as somehow being against tax cuts because we are 
only proposing $800 billion in tax cuts, roughly half of what the other 
side is proposing. The question is, what do we do with the remainder?
  What we do is what I am about to talk about. We do more Medicare, 
defense, all the things we just talked about. We also do more research, 
more housing, more LIHEAP, more environment, more justice and more 
agriculture.
  To talk about the vulnerable people we are going to help, because I 
actually think that it is not a bad thing, I can talk about adoption 
services; I talk about day care services; I can talk about services for 
people with disabilities, home-based services for the elderly, 
including Meals on Wheels, which we do more by. But I want to talk 
about one issue in particular, and that is housing, because it is so 
important to people in my district and in many parts across this 
country.
  America used to believe that safe, affordable housing was a basic 
necessity and almost a right for all Americans. For years, for years, 
this government stood up and helped people attain homes. No one here 
complains when the mortgage rates drop, and that is a de facto, quasi 
governmental agency. Everyone here jumps up to protect the mortgage 
deduction in the Tax Code. We all do that because we know how important 
it is.
  No matter what we do, no matter what we have done, not every American 
can afford to buy a home. I am not talking about the lazy takers 
amongst us. We all know there are some. We know that. That is not who I 
am talking about. I am talking about people who have played by the 
rules. They have gotten all the education they can get. They work hard 
every single day. They try to put money aside, but when they are faced 
with incredibly skyrocketing rents in many places across this country, 
paying back their college loan, buying a car, buying insurance for that 
automobile, trying to raise a family, when they are faced with all of 
that it is very, very difficult for many Americans to put aside money 
for a down payment.
  As a matter of fact, five and a half million Americans today pay more 
than 50 percent of their income for housing costs. More than 50 percent 
of their housing costs represent their income. That is incredible. It 
is much more, much more an important part of their daily lives than 
their tax liability, because simply put most of those Americans do not 
have much tax liability. They do have rental costs. They do have 
mortgage costs, if they can afford it.
  The President's budget, the budget we have before us, the Republican 
budget before us, cuts almost every single housing program we have. 
They cut $700 million from capital improvements for public housing. 
They completely eliminate $310 million for the drug elimination 
program. They completely eliminate a meager $25 million for the rural 
housing and economic development program. Never mind those $5.4 
million, never mind the three million people who live in public 
housing. Of those three million, one million of them are children; they 
are children. Five hundred thousand are seniors. Another 300,000 are 
veterans. We just do not care. That is why the Democratic proposal puts 
that money back, and if all the money we are trying to put back into 
housing alone is totaled up, it totals out to a grand total of 1.5 
percent of the tax cut. That is 1\1/2\ pennies out of every dollar 
proposed for their tax cut. That is why we are standing here trying to 
help the most vulnerable people amongst us. The money is short when one 
is comparing it to the tax cuts that we are trying to give today for 
people who already have housing, who already have fuel, who already 
have food.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I am delighted he is bringing up the issue of 
vulnerability, and I want to speak about the vulnerability of many of 
the people who indeed need food. There are many who would have us to 
believe that the strength of the economy in the past 10 years has 
largely eliminated poverty from our midst and that we are now living in 
the good life for all who desire to quickly reach out and grab it. 
However, to those who believe there is no economic hardship in this 
country, I would invite them to let the scales fall from their eyes.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, 
Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry, I know personally about the food 
stamp and indeed I want to make sure that other people know there is a 
need for not only revising but increasing it.
  Madam Chairman, I support my colleague because he recognizes the very 
real hardship people have in providing housing, and I want to emphasize 
indeed the percentage of working families now receiving food stamps, 
who are lower income, does not represent the low-income people. In 
fact, we have dropped in the percentage of participation in food stamps 
far greater than we have reduced poverty. So some of us feel that those 
of us who are enjoying the good life should also make provisions for 
those who are vulnerable. I for one want to stand up and speak about 
food stamp reform and support those who do.
  In the Democratic alternative, there is $350 million more for food 
stamps this year. So that represents an increased amount of opportunity 
for working families who are lower income to participate in that.
  I know my time is short, but I just want to say very briefly we put 
such a hardship on very poor people. Guess what? We cause all of this 
headache for food stamp applications, and if I wanted a home I only had 
to do this.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Brown), a distinguished new member of the Committee 
on the Budget, to talk about paying down our publicly held debt and our 
commitment to our Nation's veterans in this budget.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, I commend the chairman 
for a great budget. Having chaired the Committee on Ways and Means for 
South Carolina, I recognize the extreme pressures that the gentleman is 
under as we try to formulate a budget that would meet the needs of this 
great Nation and also return back to the taxpayers their due return 
that they so patiently waited for for so long.
  As we campaigned across the land, one of the items that concerned 
most of the constituents was the ever-increasing debt. I am grateful, 
Madam Chairman, that that was one of the first items we addressed, is 
paying down the debt. Congress has paid down some $625 million in 
public debt since the Republicans took majority control of the House 
and the Senate.

                              {time}  2030

  For 40 years, debt was racked up as far as the eyes could see under 
deficit spending. Paying down $625 billion is

[[Page 4716]]

only the beginning. The budget pays down $2.3 trillion more dollars in 
public debt over the next 10 years. Paying down the debt will mean 
better interest rates for all Americans, and the citizens of the First 
Congressional District. Just think how much more purchasing power we 
would have if college and university loans were at a lower interest 
rate. The same goes for a mortgage for a house or financing a family 
car. Lower interest rates will help all Americans.
  In 2002, we will eliminate some $213 billion in debt. In 5 years, we 
will be up to $1.2 trillion; and in 10 years, some $2.34 trillion.
  The work is far from over. As we heard tonight from both sides, there 
are additional items that could be funded if the will was to do so.
  This budget, thanks to President Bush, has made it clear that the 
Federal Government's growth rate should be no larger than 4 percent per 
year. This is larger than the rate of inflation; it is larger than the 
rate of most people's wages increase.
  I think we can continue to fund important priorities. The budget 
assumes a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary budget for our 
veterans over the fiscal year 2001 level, and a $3.9 billion increase 
in mandatory spending for veterans. This would accommodate a big 
increase in educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.
  Madam Chairman, the average American family knows how to balance its 
budget. The Federal Government is catching up to the Joneses. Things 
are looking up for the great business that is conducted in Washington, 
and all of us will benefit from these prudent decisions to restore 
fiscal sanity and pay off our bills.
  Madam Chairman, I am grateful to be part of this committee.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), I yield myself such time as I may consume to say 
by explanation that the $5.6 trillion surplus from which we are both 
working is a projection of the Congressional Budget Office; and in 
making that projection, they assume that discretionary spending, the 
money that we appropriate annually every year, will be increased each 
year by the rate of inflation.
  In light of that, we have provided for defense, national defense, 
which consists of more than half of the so-called discretionary 
spending budget. We have provided realistically in our budget 
resolution $115 billion over 10 years to pay for the modernization of 
our national defenses and for increased pay for our personnel to 
improve recruitment and retention and for military housing and other 
quality-of-life advantages that they justly deserve. That is in budget 
authority, $48 billion more, than is provided in the Republicans' 
budget resolution. So it is a significant amount of money. Whether it 
is enough or not, only the future will tell, but nobody can deny that 
$115 billion over inflation is a substantial plus-up for the defense 
budget.
  Madam Chairman, to discuss further the defense budget, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who represents, 
among other things, I believe, the Pentagon.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I certainly applaud the 
leadership that has been demonstrated by the gentleman from South 
Carolina. He is extraordinarily knowledgeable on defense authorization, 
as well as our priorities for this budget resolution. That is why I 
oppose this budget resolution, because it makes deep tax cuts at the 
expense of critically needed programs.
  Let me focus primarily on the shortfalls in the Defense Department 
that this budget resolution will greatly exacerbate.
  Just a few months ago, the service chiefs testified that there was a 
need for an emergency supplemental appropriations bill of $7 billion, 
just to cover urgent shortfalls in the Defense Department. One of the 
most critical funding deficiencies expected this year is a shortfall of 
$1.4 billion in the defense health program. That is responsible for 
providing health care to all active-duty personnel and military 
retirees and their family members. Dr. Clinton, the head of health 
programs for the Defense Department, just testified last week that 
there is a $1.4 billion shortfall this year, and that money is not 
provided in this resolution for next year.
  Senator Domenici wrote on March 15 to Secretary Rumsfeld saying that 
before the end of this year it may become necessary to truncate day-to-
day health care operations and delay implementation of authorized 
programs for a large number of beneficiaries. The Democratic budget 
provides for this $7.1 billion defense supplemental and provides $48 
billion more for defense over the next 10 years than the Republican 
budget. Of this amount, the $1.4 billion is for urgently needed funding 
for health care and $1 billion is for ensuring that the full pay raise 
Congress authorized last year is provided.
  Madam Chairman, it is imperative that we address these shortfalls 
now. Already the Defense Department has confronted shortages of medical 
equipment, deteriorating military hospitals, as well as shortfalls in 
the direct care system and payments for managed care support contracts. 
We do not have the money in this budget resolution to fulfill our 
responsibilities to implement the senior pharmacy benefit that is 
scheduled to go into effect in the next few weeks, and the TRICARE for 
Life benefit for military retirees over the age of 65. This budget 
resolution assumes a base that is inadequate in fiscal year 2001 and 
shows virtually no increase in subsequent years.
  Beyond the defense health care problems that we have, we cannot 
afford to shortchange the defense priorities that are necessary in this 
complex world; and by that I refer to cyber-terrorism, biological and 
chemical threats that are posing new dangers to our national security. 
Modernization requires a continued commitment to research and 
development and to technologies and equipment that will ensure that our 
armed services maintain their global dominance.
  Developing the next generation of weapons programs will also require 
difficult decisions involving priorities and capabilities. It is 
unrealistic for this administration to assume that their top-to-bottom 
review conducted in an academic manner without thorough consultation 
with Congress and the armed services will effectively transform our 
military to meet the challenges of the next century without adequate 
funding. This budget resolution does not provide that adequate funding. 
We are not going to cancel procurement of an aircraft carrier or the 
joint strike fighter program and think that it will generate enough 
savings to pay for other programs or not meet an unmet security need.
  Madam Chairman, investing in our national security should not be a 
partisan issue. Not addressing the current year's funding deficiencies 
in this budget resolution provides an unrealistic budget projection 
from the outset and directly affects our military readiness and the 
quality of life of our troops and families. Madam Chairwoman, this 
alone is reason to reject this budget resolution.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back my time to the distinguished gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Budget and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. COLLINS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, high energy prices, high interest rates, and finally, 
excessive taxation are choking this Nation's economy. This budget 
addresses one of those three factors, and that is the excessive 
taxation. How do we rein in excessive taxation? Simply by controlling 
spending. Let no one forget that the reason we have excessive taxation 
is because we have excessive spending.
  The tax burden on the people of this Nation is the highest that 
taxation has been since World War II. Why is that, Madam Chairman? It 
is because the Congress over the past 50 years has created an abundance 
of government programs. Each program well intended,

[[Page 4717]]

but expensive, expensive because the good intent of each program has 
been expanded far beyond their means; and as we hear tonight, they are 
to be expanded even more so by the other side of the aisle.
  An example, Madam Chairman, is welfare, and it was only after the 
Republicans gained the control of Congress that welfare spending was 
addressed, and successfully, I might add. Another is Medicare. Medicare 
is a health insurance program which has been very beneficial to 
millions of seniors, many who would not have had access to health care 
had it not been more Fed care. But Medicare is facing a real problem 
over the next 15 years due to the number of people who will be under 
the Medicare insurance program. We would think by listening to the 
opponents of this budget that the Republicans are canceling the 
Medicare insurance. Such is far from the truth. I will remind them, 
Madam Chairman, that it was the Republican Congress who heard the call 
of the Medicare trustees in 1995 and 1996 who reported to the Committee 
on Ways and Means that the Medicare fund would be short of money or 
broke by this year. And it was the Republicans who made changes in 1997 
and extended the Medicare program for another 25-plus years.
  Madam Chairman, this budget also gives flexibility to reform the 
Medicare program and include in that reform prescription drugs and also 
to ensure that Medicare will be around for many, many years to come. 
This budget further strengthens the Department of Defense. It flexes 
funds for education, giving more control at the local level. This 
budget reduces the public debt from $3.2 trillion that has accrued 
today down to $818 billion over the next 10 years. That is less than $1 
trillion of public debt after 10 years.
  This budget sets aside payroll taxes and other trust fund receipts by 
an amount accruing to over $8 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, this budget gives Congress $1.6 trillion 
over the next 10 years to reduce the tax burden on every taxpayer in 
America. Tax relief will provide over $400 of relief this year for 
families, and upwards of $1,600 per year over the next 6 years. I urge 
my colleagues to pass this responsible budget. It is time to stop the 
runaway spending in this Congress of the people's money, and it is time 
to stop the overtaxation of the American family.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a new member of the committee.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their 
hard work in putting together this document.
  I hope to take a little different perspective this evening on this 
budget, a little bit of a generational perspective. We have a historic 
opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime window through our economic 
prosperity, the surplus opportunities to keep our commitment to 
seniors, to invest in national priorities and, most importantly, to 
ensure that future generations do not inherit the type of debt that 
this generation inherited.
  If we observe this chart, we see the rapid trend in the reduction of 
debt. Babies not even born yet will be born into a world between now 
and 2007 with massive amounts of debt. This budget, this budget, Madam 
Chairman, pays down the debt as rapidly as is financially possible, 
without raiding the safety deposit boxes of America and taking Johnny's 
and Suzie's U.S. savings bonds that have been given to them or won in 
the paper editorial contest. Without doing those things, we pay down 
the debt as fast as is humanly possible.

                              {time}  2045

  We keep our commitment to the soldiers and sailors, most of them in 
their late teens and early twenties, who are charged with the 
responsibility of giving us the freedom that we all take so for granted 
each night when we lay down in bed. It keeps our commitment to them by 
investing in quality-of-life issues and higher pay raises, and it 
responsibly anticipates a review that will evaluate their needs and 
allocate resources in the most responsible and appropriate way.
  We invest in the future. We invest in education. We make sure that 
future generations have access to the best teachers, the best 
classrooms, the best opportunities that this great country can provide.
  Madam Chairman, we keep our promise to seniors. Make no mistake about 
it, those who are on Social Security and Medicare today and those who 
will be in the near future, their program is intact. Their program will 
be intact. I would urge them not to fall for the Mediscare tactics that 
sometimes afflict debates such as this.
  But for future generations, we have an obligation, a moral 
obligation, to fulfill our commitment to providing that safety net, but 
also ensuring that that program is there. Study after study has shown 
that without major reform, those programs will not be there for future 
generations without some responsible, courageous leadership from this 
body.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, after reducing the debt as fast as possible, 
after investing in education and health care, after investing in 
defense, there is still money left over. Instead of spending more and 
more and more that got us into the debt situation we are in today, we 
return it to the taxpayers.
  In this time of precarious economic instability, we give taxpayers, 
American citizens, the opportunity to have back a portion of their 
money to invest in college education, to pay down their own personal 
debt, to pay down their mortgage, to spend it on other things as they 
see fit. That is the beauty of this budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Madam Chairman, as a newly elected Member of Congress from Texas, I 
wanted to take this opportunity, and also as a 14-year member of the 
Texas House of Representatives, to correct the record for the listening 
public on the economy in Texas and on Governor Bush's record as 
Governor.
  I had the privilege of serving under three Governors in Texas. I was 
the House Republican whip in Texas, and I personally witnessed the 
benefits of Governor Bush's visionary leadership, his focus on 
returning the tax surplus in Texas to the taxpayers of Texas.
  I can testify personally that many of the things heard here earlier 
tonight in the debate are simply not true about the Texas economy. In 
fact, anyone listening here tonight can simply log onto bidc.state.tx 
and confirm this for themselves.
  As of October 2000, Texas has added over 2.4 million new jobs since 
January of 1990, and Texas leads all other States in net job creation. 
In a time when manufacturing jobs nationally have declined, Texas has 
seen an increase in manufacturing jobs. I can testify further that that 
is a direct result of Governor Bush's leadership and his consistent 
vision in understanding that the tax surplus belongs to the taxpayers.
  Talking about the last legislative session, the Texas Legislature had 
$5.6 billion more to budget for the previous budget cycle as a direct 
result of projected increases in revenue generated by the State's 
expanding economy. Governor Bush said then and he has said again as 
President today, ``We have a surplus in Texas because we have been good 
stewards of tax dollars. During times of plenty, we must not commit our 
State to programs we cannot afford in the future.''
  As Governor, as he has done as President, Mr. Bush prioritizes the 
needs of the Nation, just as he did the needs of the State. He made his 
top priority public education. The Texas Legislature, under Governor 
Bush's leadership, passed a $3.86 billion increase in funding for 
public education, the largest single increase in the State's history, 
which resulted in a $3,000 across-

[[Page 4718]]

the-board pay raise for teachers and a $1.2 billion cut in property tax 
rates for Texas taxpayers.
  In my experience in 14 years in the Texas House, the previous 
administrations that preceded Governor Bush, the Democrat 
administration, consistently sought to raise taxes and increase 
spending. In every session I have served under Governor Bush, he sought 
to decrease spending, control spending, cut taxes, which led to a 
tremendous strengthening in the State's economy. We will certainly see 
the same benefits here nationally.
  The budget that the Committee on the Budget has produced, on which I 
had the privilege of serving, under the leadership of the gentleman 
from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), is very focused and consistent with the 
priorities that George Bush set out as Governor, focusing first on 
eliminating more public debt than has ever been eliminated in the 
history of the United States. This is all the debt that can be paid off 
without incurring a penalty to taxpayers.
  It focuses, secondly, on guaranteeing Social Security and Medicare.
  Madam Chairman, I urge passage of the budget resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished chief deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me, and thank the Committee on the Budget for the great debate we are 
having here tonight and the hard work that has been done on this budget 
from both sides. Really the topics we are talking about are the kinds 
of topics that we should be discussing in Washington as we set out a 
blueprint for this budget year.
  The Farm Bureau today has joined in the call that this budget be 
adopted. Other agricultural groups, now that they have had a chance to 
look at this budget, are also stepping forward and saying that this 
budget does meet the needs of agriculture. It addresses the tax 
overcharge that we have collected in excess of what the government has 
said over the last several years we would need for the next decade.
  I have heard some of my friends on the other side stand up tonight 
and say that we need a tax cut not in the $1.6 trillion range, but 
about half of that, about $800 billion.
  I would just remind them that when we passed that tax cut of that 
amount, $792 billion over 10 years on the House floor just 2 years ago, 
many of the same people who are saying that this amount is too much, it 
is irresponsible, they were saying that amount was too much, when it is 
very apparent now that that amount was not too much. If we would have 
started with that $792 billion tax package that the House narrowly 
passed 2 years ago, we might not see some of the economic problems we 
see in the country today, and we would only be 2 years into a 10-year 
tax cut, 2 years into a tax cut that is the size that everybody now 
says we should be pursuing.
  I think a couple of years from now everybody will see that the tax 
cut proposed in this budget is equally modest, and is also as positive 
for the economy as that one would have been as a good start.
  This does set aside the Social Security Trust Fund. It does set aside 
the Medicare Trust Fund. It pays off all the debt in 10 years that we 
can pay without a prepayment penalty. It is a great blueprint for this 
year. I urge my colleagues to adopt this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I would simply like to show my good friend, the 
gentleman from Missouri, a chart that we prepared which is our analysis 
of the gentleman's budget.
  If they will look at the bottom line, the gentleman was not here when 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Agriculture, spoke, but it is the bottom line that 
concerns him.
  The truth of the matter is, there is nothing exceptional or extra in 
this budget for agriculture. The Farm Bureau and farmers on the whole 
are betting on the come; they are hoping that the Committee on 
Agriculture can come up with a new farm bill which will allot them some 
additional money. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will then have 
the authority to add that money for agriculture and defense.
  The problem is, the bottom line is $20 billion. If defense beats 
agriculture first to the trough, they could easily take $10 billion or 
$15 billion of that $20 billion. If we follow that bottom line over to 
the year 2005, it is negative. It is declining every year. It is down 
to $600 million, $600 million into the Medicare Trust Fund.
  So we have a very constrained limit, and that is what the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was saying just a minute ago.
  Let me now turn to debt reduction, because everybody keeps coming 
back to that. Clearly if that is a good thing, and we both agree that 
it is, we should be judged by it. If we are judged fairly, our budget 
resolution provides, by our calculation, $3 trillion, 681 billion in 
debt reduction. Theirs provides $2 trillion, 766 billion. We are $915 
billion better on that score alone.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I just wanted to respond in part to the gentleman from Missouri when 
he talks about the taxpayers in this country overpaying their taxes and 
being entitled to a refund. Certainly they are. There is not an 
argument about whether there should be a refund. The question is how 
much.
  The question also is about debt reduction. We have placed on our 
children's and grandchildren's future a $5.7 trillion mortgage, so it 
is not just all about tax cuts, to the gentleman from Missouri, it is 
also about equity and fairness to future generations in this country 
and whether we are going to do the right thing.
  I was at the White House about 4 or 5 weeks ago and had a chance to 
speak to the President. I told him about Governor Graves from Kansas. I 
said, ``I know you know him, being a former Governor.'' He said, ``Yes, 
he is a friend of mine.'' I said that Governor Graves was interviewed 
recently by the Associated Press and was talking about revenue 
shortfalls and tax cuts, which have happened in Kansas, substantial tax 
cuts, in the past 3 or 4 years, and about financing education.
  Governor Graves said very candidly, ``If I had known then what I know 
now about the revenue shortfalls, I would have done things 
differently.'' What he was saying was that they are scrambling now to 
find revenues to finance education in the State of Kansas, and they do 
not have sufficient funds to do an adequate job. In fact, Governor 
Graves has now asked for a tax increase because of revenue shortfalls 
and projections which went awry. The same thing, according to The New 
York Times, has happened in 15 other States.
  So I caution all of my colleagues in the House to be conservative 
here. We can always go back and cut taxes more. Let us cut taxes as 
much as we can afford, but let us not overdo it so we have to come back 
later and ask for a tax increase.
  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa 
(Chairman Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
for all their work on this budget effort, and I agree with the 
chairman, who has pointed out that there is really a lot of common 
ground here. There may be a little question in the difference of 
approach. There is a lot of common ground. People on both sides want 
tax reduction, and clearly people on both sides want debt reduction.
  We have heard a lot of discussion tonight about the benefits of debt 
reduction. The problem is, we keep talking about this in the context of 
a surplus, and we ought to be calling it what it really is, which is a 
projected surplus. The budget leaves little margin for error in that 
context.

[[Page 4719]]

  My concern is, if things do not go as planned, we are going to enact 
the tax cuts, we are going to enact our spending program, and debt 
reduction will be the odd man out. It will be what falls off the table.
  So I would urge caution as my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas, 
did as well, that we ought to be fiscally responsible. We ought to make 
sure we take advantage of this one-time opportunity to take a real bite 
out of the tremendous debt we have built up over the last 20 years.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding 
to me, Madam Chairman.
  Madam Chairman, our highest, most urgent priority in this budget 
resolution must be debt reduction. There is $3.7 trillion outstanding 
of public debt. If we do not pay it off, who does? Our children do. We 
are paying over $200 billion a year in interest on that debt today. It 
makes far more sense to make debt reduction our priority, because if 
these surplus estimates do not get realized over the next decade, then 
we are not going to be able to pay off the debt.
  If we enact the tax cut, we know this Congress is not going to raise 
taxes again, so what we are going to do is raise Social Security and 
force our children to pay off the debt as well as pay for our 
retirement. That is wrong.
  The Deputy Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance 
testified before the Senate Committee on the Budget last week that of 
the $3.7 trillion of public debt outstanding that the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) referred to, $3 trillion will mature by the 
end of this decade.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I would like to respond to this issue of the debt, which is hard to 
do with a completely straight face after decades in which the Democrats 
were in control of this Chamber and the other body, and routinely, year 
after year, there were no surpluses. The money was spent. Social 
Security surpluses were spent. The debt was run up.
  Republicans come along, balance the budget, start paying down 
hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, and put forward a plan which 
over the next 10 years retires all the available debt, and then we hear 
that suddenly, somehow, that is not enough.
  Let me explain something: There is a limit to how much and how fast 
we can pay down the debt. The numbers that my colleagues on the other 
side are talking about, I am sorry to say this, but it is just not 
possible. I would remind them that we have billions and billions of 
dollars worth of Treasury securities that extend beyond 10 years. 
Unless they intend to pass a law that would somehow force people to 
turn in a debt which they own now, bonds which are in their hands, 
which we cannot do, it is simply not possible.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam Chairman, just to clarify that point, there are 
over $600 billion worth of 30-year notes out there, 10-year notes, 
notes that have not matured. They are being held by foreign banks, for 
example.
  What the gentleman is suggesting is that we would not pass a lot of 
laws that forced people to redeem those because in doing so we would 
have to pay a premium. That would come out of the pockets of taxpayers.
  Mr. TOOMEY. That is exactly right.
  Reclaiming my time, I would further suggest that since they said 
these bonds are the property of someone else, they could demand any 
price they choose. They could force the U.S. taxpayer to pay a 
ridiculous and absurd price, and, frankly, they could choose to offer 
it at no price whatsoever.
  So what we are doing, what the Republican budget does, it says, let 
us take all the available debt, everything that comes due, and as it 
matures, that is what we pay off.
  Let me go to the fundamental difference between our two plans. Really 
what it comes down to is the Democratic budget grows government 
dramatically and provides token tax relief for some, while the 
Republican plan provides responsible government growth, but meaningful 
tax relief for all.
  Let us remember that before we calculate the first dime of the 
surplus, we allow for $1 trillion of additional spending over the 
course of the next 10 years. We take all of the Social Security and 
surplus, Medicare surplus, and we put that money aside.
  As I said earlier, we pay off all the available national debt. It is 
only after we do all of that that we say, now, with what is still left 
over, let us provide a little bit of tax relief for the people who 
created all that money in the first place.

                              {time}  2100

  I do not know how we could not provide at least this plan, at least 
what the President has proposed, at least what the Republican budget 
proposal calls for. It is a modest tax relief plan. It is small 
compared to the tax relief Ronald Reagan proposed in the early 1980s. 
Let us not pretend that the tax relief in the early 1980s led to 
deficits or debt. The fact is tax relief in 1981 led to a doubling of 
Federal revenue by 1989. It was out-of-control spending that caused the 
deficits.
  This tax relief plan is not only small compared to the Reagan tax 
cuts, it is small compared to the Kennedy cuts of the 1960s. I have yet 
to hear my colleagues say that John F. Kennedy was proposing excess tax 
relief when in fact he did it when they did not have surplus.
  Madam Chairman, the fact is we have an abundance of cash. The surplus 
is enormous, and it is about time that we provided some tax relief to 
the people who earned it and created it. We understand that the men and 
women who earned this money have a right to decide how to spend it. 
That comes prior to our desires to increase spending which is what the 
alternative does. We also understand that freedom works. If we lower 
the tax burden and increase economic freedom, we will increase 
prosperity and opportunity. Wages will grow. Standards of living will 
grow. There will be more opportunity for more Americans. That is why it 
is important that we pass this tax relief measure, and we pass this 
Republican budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, in giving the lion's share of this budget to tax 
reduction, the budget resolution leaves little room for other 
priorities, including law enforcement. To talk about our budget which 
provides $19 billion more for law enforcement is the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano), the former mayor of Sommerville, Massachusetts.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I am troubled by the budget resolution's disregard of 
the funding needs of the Department of Justice. Time and time again I 
have heard the need to enforce our laws instead of passing new ones. 
How can we expect law enforcement when this budget cuts funding for the 
Department of Justice by $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2002. Based upon 
the budget submitted by President Bush, these cuts are to be largely 
applied to State and local law enforcement assistance. The highly 
successful COPS program falls within these targeted cuts.
  Although the President's budget proposal does not single out this 
important program, it does propose to redirect $1.5 billion in State 
and local grant assistance funding which does in fact fund COPS. 
Cutting the COPS program would undermine its success and harm local law 
enforcement throughout the country. Our police officers

[[Page 4720]]

across this country applaud this program. This is a program that has 
worked. We have seen crime drop since 1994. We are seeing our police 
officers going in and having community ties in our schools and working 
with the community itself. They have built up relationships with our 
schools and our students, and at this time when we see so much violence 
going on, especially with the recent shootings, this is not a time to 
cut these particular programs. This certainly is a time that we should 
be encouraging these programs. With our particular budget, we increase 
this.
  Madam Chairman, we have done a good job on reducing crime. We should 
continue with this program. We should guarantee that these programs 
continue, and we certainly should be supporting our police officers 
throughout this country.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Chairman, as you heard, I was the mayor of my 
community for 9 years before I came to this honorable body, and during 
that time the COPS program was passed and implemented. It started 
getting going in 1996. For a couple of years it was small money, and it 
really got going in 1996. From 1996 to 1998 in my community, we added 
eight additional police officers. In that same time period, we reduced 
crime by 29.2 percent. Maybe that is circumstantial, maybe it just 
happened to coincide with the COPS program, but I looked at my district 
which I did not represent then but I do now, and in my district in 
Massachusetts, we added 58 police officers in that time period, a 2 
percent increase, but we reduced crime by 21 percent.
  In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we added 363 police officers 
across the State, reduced crime by almost 14 percent. I just happened 
to look at the State of Texas, they added 9,000 police officers in that 
time period, a 20 percent increase, and they reduced crime by 7.5 
percent.
  In the whole country the same period of time, the COPS program helped 
add 115,097 police officers and crime was reduced 13.6 percent. Is all 
of this a coincidence? It just happened to be the same time period when 
the Federal Government got into the crime-fighting business on a local 
level. I think not.
  Madam Chairman, I think the additional police officers on the street 
with the Federal Government helping us fund them is what turned the 
tide, and I dare say we will be back here in a few years if we cut this 
COPS program making sure that we have more police officers on the 
street in every community in this country.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a new member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Chairman, my colleagues have talked about the 
foundations of this budget, paying down the national debt, letting the 
taxpayers keep more of what they earn, preserving Social Security and 
preserving Medicare, and improving education. But as a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services and a new Member from a district that is 
largely military oriented, I want to address what this budget does in 
terms of the military because for the last 8 years, our young men and 
women in the military have watched as the military has been hollowed 
out. It has been underfunded and overdeployed.
  Madam Chairman, I have talked to so many of those young people, and I 
decided that I would like to go to Congress to help rebuild our 
military and make America strong again; and that is exactly what this 
budget does. It adds almost 5 percent of new money to military 
spending, $5.6 billion for increase pay, for better housing, for health 
care for our military men and women. It adds $2.6 billion of new money 
for research and development. And that is important. That is a down 
payment on what is to come because our President has said that he 
believes, and I believe with all my heart, that we ought to let defense 
strategy drive defense spending and not the other way around. The 
President has ordered a top-to-bottom review of our military to decide 
what is the role of the military. What is our vision. It is a time of 
testing. It is a time of transition, and there is no sense spending 
money on technology that we are never going to use.
  Madam Chairman, once that review has taken place and our President 
and our leaders of the military have a clear vision of where they want 
this country to go, then I am confident that we in this Congress will 
give them the necessary resources that they need. And so it is on that 
note that I ask for support for this resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Both gentlemen have 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his great leadership and 
for his fundamental fairness throughout.
  Madam Chairman, I stand to express the great support on the 
Democratic side for fully funding our environmental commitments in this 
budget. We know that the Republican resolution underfunds the 
environment and in fact does not fund the commitment, the bipartisan 
commitment, the landmark commitment made 1 year ago to double our 
funding for conservation programs, preservation programs and recreation 
programs in this country.
  Many of us in this body supported CARA, legislation that passed 
overwhelmingly a year ago, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which 
would have tripled funding for these important preservation and 
conservation programs. We could not win support to pass that 
legislation into law, but in the interior appropriations bill last 
year, we struck a bipartisan agreement to double the funding, and that 
is a good, bipartisan compromise.
  Unfortunately, the Republican resolution before us today underfunds 
that commitment by 25 percent, and the Democrats feel that is 
unacceptable. We provide the full commitment, over $10 billion over the 
next 5 years. The Republican resolution underfunds that commitment by 
$2.7 billion. The Democrats also provide money for brownfield 
reclamation, $200 million next year, $2 billion over the next 10 years 
to reclaim and revitalize brownfields, those abandoned, polluted 
industrial sites across this Nation that should be reused with 
reinvestment for commercial, residential and retail possibilities. 
Every time we reclaim a brownfield, we save a greenfield from 
development. We need to fund those programs.
  Madam Chairman, we are very concerned on our side of the aisle with 
the broken promises from the President regarding the environment. He 
has blocked the rule that would stop the building of roads and logging 
in one-third of our national forests. He has revoked the rule to reduce 
arsenic in our water supply. We permit, under the rule that the 
President supports for arsenic and water, an amount that is 5 times 
greater than the standard of the World Health Organization, and that is 
unacceptable. He has broken his promise to curb carbon dioxide. We want 
to support the environment. I ask for support for the Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a former member of the Committee on the 
Budget. We have come to a very critical part of the debate, and that is 
why we are calling in one of our big guns.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I am not a big gun, but I do realize there is life 
after the Committee on the Budget, but there are pains I still have 
after 10 years. I just express my admiration for what the Committee on 
the Budget has done and the camaraderie from both sides of the aisle, 
but as I listen to this debate, I ask this question: Why would anyone 
think that they are more fiscally responsible when they want to spend 
more?
  Madam Chairman, I realize this is not a debate about tax cuts versus 
paying down more debt, this is a debate about spending more money or 
not. What our side of the aisle wants to do is spend 4 percent more. 
There are really three things you can do with the

[[Page 4721]]

surplus. You can spend it, and we are going to spend 4 percent more.

                              {time}  2115

  We can pay down debt. We are going to pay down $2.3 trillion worth of 
debt. We can reduce taxes. This is a debate of spend more or maybe have 
more in tax cuts.
  Now, I think that what has happened in the last so many years, we 
have had deficits from 1969 to 1998, 29 years of deficits, and those 
have ended. We have had 35 years of using Social Security reserve 
funds. We no longer have deficits. We no longer use Social Security 
reserves for spending. We paid down $500 billion of debt and, by the 
end of the year, $620 billion.
  What scares the heck out of me, though, is this is a steep line of 
587 to 635, which was last year; and it seems to me my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle think it should remain steep. All I have 
heard about is more spending. We are going to spend $635 billion now to 
go up to $661 billion, which is what the President wants, a 4 percent 
increase in spending. That is a lot of money.
  But we also wanted a tax cut, and it is a responsible tax cut. We are 
taking one-quarter of the surplus, and we are going to have a tax cut 
with it, one-quarter of the surplus.
  Someone said it is not going to the right people, it is going to the 
people who pay taxes. Five percent of the American people pay 50 
percent of the taxes, and 50 percent of the American people pay 95 
percent of the taxes; and they are going to get a tax cut with our 
proposal. I am eager to vote for it.
  People have then said, well, this tax cut is irresponsible. Kennedy 
had a tax cut that was twice as large as ours, and he did not have a 
real surplus. Reagan had a tax cut which was three times as large, and 
we had a deficit. We want a tax cut, and we have a surplus, and we only 
want to take a quarter of it.
  So this is the debate I look forward to having in the months to come. 
I hope that we do not make it smaller than the $1.6 trillion; and I 
hope it goes to the people who deserve it, the people who pay taxes.
  Again, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. It has been an interesting debate. I am happy we are on the 
right side on this one.
  We do not want more spending, at least not more than 4 percent. We 
want to return some of it back to the American people because they are 
the ones who pay the taxes. We do not want to make government larger 
than it already is. We want to make it consistent with our needs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) to discuss electoral reforms, which we 
provide $1.5 billion for in our budget resolution.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, we have a practice in this country of, when we find 
neighborhoods on the top of toxic waste dumps, we naturally respond to 
that emergency by buying out the homes to protect the people who live 
there. When floods wipe out communities, as they did in eastern North 
Carolina a couple of years ago, we respond by buying out property to 
protect residents and help them find safe places to live.
  Well, we have an emergency situation in our democracy today. It was 
all too evident in Florida in November. Error-prone voting equipment is 
an emergency situation that threatens us, and the Democratic budget 
proposes an immediate and an effective response.
  We want to provide emergency funds to buy out the punch-card voting 
systems that threaten the accuracy of and the faith in our elections, 
and we want to do it by the time of the 2002 elections. We also want to 
look at longer-term election reform.
  Now our Republican friends at my request have included language in 
their budget resolution urging Congress to deal with the problem of the 
replacement of error-prone equipment, but the Republican budget 
provides no specific funding for this. By contrast, the Democratic 
budget addresses this critical issue with a billion dollars this year 
and $500 million next year.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson), who can tell us more about why this funding is so 
critical. We appreciate her leadership on this issue.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, voting is the most fundamental right guaranteed by 
our Constitution. I came here feeling this term that this would be a 
high priority for both sides of the aisle.
  I have spoken with the President, and I have spoken with other 
leadership in this House. It is very appalling that there is no 
evidence of any funding to correct this problem with this Republican 
resolution.
  There is no way that we can stand here and say that we support a 
strong democracy when we are not willing to fund the whole system that 
the entire country experienced as a failure this past election.
  Just yesterday, I received a letter from someone in Iowa, talking 
about the difficulties which they had in Wapello County. He said that 
he was a precinct election committee member, and he had trouble getting 
up-to-date restoration information from the Iowa Department of 
Transportation through the Motor Voter Registration Program.
  This was not just one place in our country. Our democracy was 
threatened throughout the Nation. We are standing here tonight talking 
about this type and size of budget without having given any particular 
attention to this problem that simply threatens our sovereignty as a 
Nation. The world is watching, and we have not even attempted to 
address it.
  One cannot address a problem without designating some dollars. The 
Democratic proposal has $1 billion for 2001 and $500 million for 2002 
to replace these outdated machines so that every vote that is cast can 
be counted.
  I see no evidence of that in the Republican resolution, even though I 
asked the President personally about it. He told me that it would be 
there.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
from Texas. It is important, is it not, that, for the 2002 election, we 
be able to deal with this. Why should we wait. If we are going to deal 
with it, not have another election under these conditions, we have 
surely got to get the funding in this year's budget.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman 
will yield, what else, what else in this year's budget could be more 
important than preserving our own democracy?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has also been an 
outspoken advocate of election reform.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, it is interesting this last election that the elderly 
were denied access to vote. Disabled persons who I personally spoke to 
were indicating they were denied access to the voting polls. Military 
personnel were denied as well. In addition, students who had registered 
were denied as well. Inadequate procedures, people being denied the 
access to democracy.
  H. Con. Res. 83 already eliminates 9 percent of the Department of 
Justice budget. How can we emphasize the value and importance of the 
right, the fundamental right to vote unless we provide the Democratic 
alternative that provides $1 billion in 2001.
  Might I mind my manners to thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for his leadership, certainly thank the gentleman from 
Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for this time to debate, and thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  But I think it is important to note that one has to spend money, and 
there is $1 billion in the Democratic alternative in 2001 and $500 
million in 2002.
  The most important item, however, is the process of legislation 
cannot work without funding democracy. We must fund democracy, keeping 
Social Security and Medicare solvent. The

[[Page 4722]]

fact that there are people all over the country, California, Texas, 
Iowa, New York, Florida, there is clearly a case for election reform. 
One cannot do it without money.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the distinguished vice chair of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam Chairman, I think it is important, as we enter the 
closing minutes of the debate this evening, to review some of the 
arguments we have heard, review the main points of the budget proposal 
that is on the floor, because we have heard a lot of claims; and it is 
important that we have as many facts as possible straight.
  This budget pays down, first and foremost, more debt over a 10-year 
period than we have ever paid down in the United States, over $2 
trillion in debt. We heard some discussion about paying down $3 
trillion or $3.5 trillion, paying off every penny of the public debt 
over the 10-year period. The fact is that is simply not possible unless 
we force every 10-year-old in the country to sell their United States 
savings bonds and force every foreign bank to give up their 30-year 
Treasury bonds. That is just not going to happen. To suggest otherwise 
is being disingenuous about how we deal with our country's finances. So 
we pay down as much debt as we possibly can, lower the debt as a 
percentage of the GNP to a level not seen in over 80 years.
  We cut taxes for every American. We improve education. And we can 
manipulate the way we score a particular funding bill one way or 
another, but the fact is this has more funding for education than ever 
at the Federal level, an 11 percent increase.
  We strengthen national defense. We heard an argument earlier tonight 
from the minority side arguing that it was not doing enough for 
defense. How times have changed. The fact of the matter is we put in 
more funding for our national defense than our former Democrat 
President proposed when he left office at the end of his term. We have 
increased funding $5 billion, and we recognize that our President right 
now is conducting a top-to-bottom review.
  Of course we create reserves, funding reserves to modernize and 
strengthen Social Security and Medicare. We have heard critics on the 
other side say that somehow this is irresponsible to set aside money to 
strengthen these programs. How we have turned these arguments on their 
head.
  What is this really about? I venture that it is really about tax 
cuts. That really should not surprise anyone because the tax cut debate 
has been in the front of the newspapers: what kind of tax relief will 
we have, how can we make the Tax Code more fair, and whether or not we 
will support the President's proposal.
  The minority side does not support these tax cuts. They do not want 
to see Americans' taxes lowered. What is the reason? Well, if we just 
go back a few years, when I was first elected in 1996, they said, well, 
we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. Well, we balanced the 
budget. Then the argument was, well, we cannot cut taxes until we set 
aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. Done. We did that 3 
years ago. Then the argument was, well, we cannot support tax cuts 
until we have set aside every penny of the Medicare surplus as well. 
Well, we have done that as well.
  Then the argument was, well, we cannot cut taxes, of course, because 
we have not paid down the public debt. Well, we have paid off over $625 
billion in debt; and we will pay off another $2 trillion over the next 
10 years.
  We have balanced the budget, set aside every penny of Social 
Security, set aside every penny of the Medicare surplus. We are on 
track to retire $2 trillion in public debt over the next 10 years. And 
still the call is, well, we cannot support that tax cut.
  What is the real excuse? I think we heard it portrayed pretty 
eloquently from some Members on the minority side. The real reason is 
because we want to spend it. Because we want to spend it on every 
program that one can imagine.
  We have heard about a lot of programs at the Federal level that are 
good strong programs delivering benefits and services to those that 
need them. But if we triple funding for every worthwhile program at the 
Federal level, we will bankrupt this country. The American people do 
not want that; Members of Congress do not want that.
  We need to recognize that expanding the size of the Federal 
Government by 4 percent, it is about what the economy will grow, about 
what the average family budget will grow over the next year. I think 
that is reasonable.
  I think Congress should live within its means. We pay down debt. We 
set aside for national security, increasing the funding of the NIH and 
education. But at the end of the day, we need to recognize that we have 
collected more in money than we need to run government. It is your 
money, and we should give a piece of it back.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I would just alert the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that I have 4 minutes, and I plan to use 
that to close the debate tonight if that would be appropriate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, just quickly in response to the last gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), with respect to taxes, we all came together 
on a tax cut in the Balanced Budget Agreement in 1997, $270 billion, 
which I helped negotiate. Our budget resolution on the floor right now 
provides $910 billion out of the surplus, one-third of the surplus, for 
tax reduction.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt).

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I call my colleagues' attention once again to the 
inadequacies of the majority budget in the area of general science 
research. An increased commitment to scientific research is essential 
to future economic prosperity. The majority budget includes $22 billion 
for research. Now, that sounds good, but as this chart shows, that 
means that while in the past 3 years the NSF funding has increased 6.8 
percent, the majority budget offered this year offers no increase above 
inflation.
  The Democratic substitute would add $3 billion through fiscal year 
2011. Now, this is not fluff. These are necessary. This is the 
ingredient of a successful economy. President Bush's science adviser 
said this is essential to accomplish those things that the Republican 
majority says they hope to accomplish with their budget. As he puts it: 
``No science, no surplus.'' It is that simple.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from New Haven, Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the assistant 
minority leader.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is recognized for such time as may remain.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, a budget for America should reflect the 
values of America. It should be realistic. Above all, it should be 
responsible.
  It should balance the need for tax cuts for working and middle-class 
families against the need to provide a world-class education for our 
children, a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors, and 
strengthening our national defense. And most of all, America's budget 
should do nothing to break faith with millions of seniors who rely on 
Social Security and Medicare, so that they can grow old with respect 
and the dignity that they so richly deserve.
  But the Republican budget is neither responsible nor balanced. Based 
on inflated projections for economic growth, it places a nearly $2 
trillion tax cut that benefits largely the wealthy ahead of Medicare, 
Social Security, education, defense and agriculture. In fact,

[[Page 4723]]

Republicans spend more on a tax cut just for the wealthiest 1 percent 
than they spend on nearly every other need in the budget. And worst of 
all, the leadership budget raids Medicare to pay for this unfair tax 
cut. With accounting gimmicks to mask the fact that the numbers just do 
not add up, the Republican budget attempts to hide the fact that it 
raids Medicare to pay for a tax cut. This is just plain wrong.
  By dipping into Medicare money to pay for an irresponsible tax cut, 
the Republicans break faith with millions of our parents and 
grandparents who rely on Medicare to meet their health care needs. At a 
time when we should be strengthening Medicare, adding a much-needed 
prescription drug benefit to it, the Republican budget would 
shortchange seniors who have paid into Medicare their entire lives.
  In the end, what happens if all the budget projections are wrong, as 
they always have been in the past? We are back in a time of budget 
deficits, debt, higher interest rates, fewer jobs, less growth and a 
less secure future for our children.
  This is a time for prudence. This is a time to think about our future 
and not to repeat past mistakes. We should reject the Republican 
budget. We should support the Democratic alternative. We ought to 
provide tax cuts for working middle-class families in this country and 
not crowd out education and prescription drugs.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend from South 
Carolina for the debate tonight; the spirit of the debate. I think it 
was a good one. I think we talked about a number of issues that we 
needed to address.
  Again, I would just reiterate the six goals and a little bit of the 
arguments about them.
  Number one is maximum debt eliminations. My good friends and 
colleagues on the other side say, ``Pay more of the national debt.'' I 
think it is pretty clear from tonight that we can only pay so much. 
Chairman Greenspan says that, the Treasury Department says that, and 
just about every economist has come forward and said, at some point in 
time 30-year notes do not come due. How do we go out and collect them? 
We cannot without paying a premium.
  We can only pay a certain amount of the debt down. I think that is 
clear. We have the maximum amount of debt that is responsible to pay 
down.
  Number two is tax relief. We have tax relief for every taxpayer. My 
friends on the other side say, but, really, if we add this in and we 
add that in, and then we add this over here and put it all together, 
and then we multiply by seven, their tax cut is really bigger. Well, 
but it is not. Read the bill. The bill says $1.6 trillion of tax 
relief. That is what reconciliation says.
  I understand the folks back home sitting around the kitchen counter 
do not understand reconciliation, but we do. Let us not kid each other. 
We know the $1.6 is the maximum amount of tax relief we can have under 
this bill.
  Next is education for all of our children. What they say is, we are 
going to spend more. We can spend more. We can invest more. We will put 
more tax dollars toward education than the Republicans can. I am sure 
they can, and they have. And we have tried over the last few years to 
keep up, and so we have all put more money into education. I grant my 
colleagues that. The point is nothing has improved. Our kids are not 
reading any better. Schools have not gotten better. Our programs have 
not been reformed.
  So before we throw one more dollar at all of this, can we not at 
least talk about some reform? All right, fine, there is some advanced 
funding in there. The point is that from last year to this year, it 
will be an 11.5 percent increase. That is a pretty good increase, but 
with that has got to come needed reform.
  Next is defense. A colleague came forward and said they have more 
money for defense. They are going to put all sorts of money in. What 
are they going to spend it on? They say, do not spend it on an aircraft 
carrier. What do we put it in? How are we going to know what to invest 
in for defense until we do the top-to-bottom review? And I know my 
colleagues are cynical about that and are saying that they do not know 
if they can get it done.
  Quite frankly, I do not know if they can get it done either. But the 
point is somebody has to try, because just having a bidding war toward 
defense, eventually all we will be doing is shooting pennies at each 
other, and that will not give us a stronger defense.
  Health care reform. My colleagues talk about solvency in Medicare, 
but they make it a zero sum game. They say if we take a dollar out to 
reform Medicare, which is what we all voted on when we put the lockbox 
for Medicare away, we said it could be used for reform, it could be 
used for modernization, that is what we all voted for, except for a 
few, in H.R. 2, the Medicare Lockbox, the difference though is that we 
say it is not a zero sum game. If we take money out of the trust fund 
for Medicare modernization, that does not necessarily mean the solvency 
is diminished. It means that with that reform it can be extended into 
the future.
  And that is what we all want. Regardless of the scare tactics that, 
granted, only a few used tonight, it still, I think, is a shame.
  Finally, on Social Security, let me say we are not privatizing Social 
Security. I defy my colleagues to find the word ``privatized'' in this 
bill. Find it, then we will talk about it. It is not in there. We do 
not privatize Social Security in this. What we are saying is we are 
setting aside all of the Social Security Trust Fund, just as we have in 
a bipartisan way finally been able to accomplish over the last three 
budgets. I think that is something we ought to celebrate and not 
demagogue.
  Finally, let me just say that we do recognize that there are some 
concerns about forecasting into the future, and that is why we put a 
cushion into this budget. After we set aside all the trust funds, we 
set aside one additional trust fund, one additional reserve, of $517 
billion for that rainy day, for that cushion.
  We believe this is a responsible balanced budget, and we urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, the Joint Economic Committee has been 
granted the authority to control one hour of the budget debate since 
passage of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 authored 
by Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman Gus Hawkins. It is our duty 
to present views on the current state of the U.S. economy and provide 
input into the budget debate before us.
  I am proud to be here today to continue the tradition begun by 
Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins.
  The Budget before us is not one of which those two men would be 
proud. Rather than leading us down an economic path of balanced growth 
and full employment, the budget before us today has the real potential 
to dismantle great strides made in our economy during the past decade.
  Each day we anxiously watch stock market fluctuations highlight the 
fact that this budget is far too dependent upon highly imprecise 
economic forecasts. If the budget outlook weakens and this bill has 
already become law, the basic workings of government will be greatly 
hindered by returning to the days of budget deficits.
  My key concerns with the budget before us lie in three areas: (1) The 
$1.6 trillion in tax cuts are too large, are weighted too heavily 
toward those with upper incomes, and jeopardize our government's 
ability to continue necessary funding levels for other important 
national priorities such as educating our children, defending our 
borders, and caring for our sick; (2) The budget raids the Medicare 
Trust Fund. Baby Boomers begin becoming eligible for Medicare in 2011. 
The time for protecting Medicare's fiscal resources is now. The budget 
before us fails that test; and (3) Drugs are too integral a part of 
medical care today for Medicare to continue to serve seniors adequately 
unless we add a prescription drug benefit. The budget before us fails 
to dedicate any new dollars to a Medicare prescription drug benefit.


 a matter of priorities: tax breaks for the wealthy over other needed 
                               priorities

  A budget is essentially a statement of priorities and this budget 
makes abundantly clear

[[Page 4724]]

that the priority is tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of needed 
government spending in other areas.
  President Bush and his Congressional followers have crafted a tax 
plan that on the surface appears to have something for everyone in 
order to help spur the economy. However, upon closer inspection, it is 
quite clear that there are many children left behind with the GOP tax 
cuts, but a generous helping hand offered to workers who earn over 
$373,000 annually.
  First, I would like to dispel any notion that the GOP tax plan will 
actually help spur the current slowdown in the economy. The tax breaks 
proposed thus far will only help spur the economy if taxpayers see 
immediate relief and if the tax breaks are distributed equitably 
amongst all income groups. This will not happen under the tax plan 
passed by the Ways & Means Committee. The economic stimulus will happen 
when the tax cuts are fully phased-in. In order to control the 
exorbitant cost of the tax package, the Republicans can't allow the tax 
cuts to take full effect until 2006 or later. Are my colleagues 
predicting an economic slowdown five years from now?
  Even if the tax beaks were to take full effect much sooner, it is 
highly unlikely that the U.S. would see much economic stimulation. The 
bulk of the tax package benefits those in the top 1% income group. 
Workers in the 1% income group receive an average income of $1.1 
million annually and will receive an average tax break of $28,608 
annually. These folks will account for over thirty percent of the tax 
revenues lost. Meanwhile, those workers earning less than $27,000 will 
only see a meager tax break of $239 annually, comprising only six 
percent of the lost tax revenues. We cannot afford to spend trillions 
of dollars on a tax benefit that is concentrated on the wealthiest 
income-earners.
  The cost of these tax cuts eat up resources that could otherwise be 
used for important governmental programs that help many more people. We 
can and should be increasing our investment in education. President 
Bush has made education one of his highest rhetorical priorities. 
Unfortunately, this budget fails to follow through with the resources 
necessary to make great strides. In fact, it provides less than half 
the average increase Congress has granted Department of Education 
appropriations for the last five years.
  The budget before us today clearly demonstrates a lack of commitment 
to our children. Republicans reduce funds for the Child Care 
Development Block Grant (CCDBG) by $200 million in 2002 and freeze 
funds after 2002. The child care provided through the CCDBG is 
important to help poor families move from welfare to work. At the 
moment, the block grant only has enough money to serve 12 percent of 
the eligible children. We need more funding in this program, not less. 
As Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson said, welfare reform does not come 
cheap.
  The Republicans let Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
Supplemental Grants expire in 2001. Even worse, the Republican budget 
encourages states to divert the remaining federal funds to pay for 
state income tax credits for charitable contributions. These funds 
would otherwise provide critical welfare-to-work services. Democrats 
Boost Title XX Social Services Block Grant Funding in the Democratic 
budget would allow an increase to at least $2 billion in 2002.
  And those are only a few examples of important domestic spending 
arenas where this budget falls far short.


                          PROTECTING MEDICARE

  Measurements of the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund have been the 
long-standing mechanism by which we've measured the healthy of the 
Medicare program. Today, the Part A Trust Fund enjoys the longest 
solvency time period in the history of Medicare with insolvency now at 
2029.
  That should not be interpreted to mean all is well with Medicare. We 
all know that is not the case. In fact, starting in 2011, the baby boom 
generation will begin becoming eligible for Medicare benefits. That 
begins a major demographic shift with far fewer workers supporting far 
greater numbers of seniors on Medicare. Today the ratio is 
approximately 3.4 workers per Medicare beneficiary. According to the 
Medicare actuary, that number is predicted to drop to about 2.1 workers 
per beneficiary by 2029. All of this cries out for protecting every 
cent that we have in the Medicare Trust Fund and making changes to law 
to ensure that more funds go into the Trust Fund in the future. But, 
the budget before us does the opposite.
  Rather than protect the Trust Fund for the future, this budget takes 
$153 billion--and maybe more--directly out of the Medicare surplus and 
allows those dollars to be spent on a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit.
  There are those on the other side of the aisle who will argue that 
we've always dipped into the Medicare Trust Fund in order to finance 
current government spending and that this budget is no different. They 
are wrong. When we have used Medicare's surplus as a funding source in 
the past, we have always used surplus dollars on a loan basis--and paid 
back those dollars with interest to the Trust Fund. What the budget 
before us today would do is use those dollars to fund a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit--meaning that those dollars will forever 
disappear from their intended purpose of funding hospital care for 
future Medicare beneficiaries.
  America's hospitals are concerned about this Medicare raid as well. 
In a letter dated March 16, the American Hospital Association, the 
Association of American Medical Colleges, the Catholic Health 
Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National 
Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Premier, Inc., and 
VHA, Inc. all joined together to send a letter to Congress stating:

       While there is broad consensus that Medicare should include 
     a prescription drug benefit, we believe that this benefit 
     should be adequately funded; should not be financed through 
     trust fund reserves; and should not be combined with a cap on 
     the use of general revenue. Doing so will not only accelerate 
     the insolvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, but will 
     also jeopardize the ability of health care providers to meet 
     a rapidly increasing demand for services.

  Make no mistake about it. The dollars being diverted from the 
Medicare Trust Fund in the budget before us today will NEVER be 
returned to the Trust Fund. They are being spent elsewhere. And, that 
means that there are fewer resources dedicated to Medicare's future. No 
ifs, ands, or buts about it.


                  MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare beneficiaries 
will spend $1.5 trillion on prescription drugs over the next ten years. 
Medicare does not cover outpatient prescription drugs. None of us would 
belong to a health insurance plan that didn't include prescription drug 
coverage, but we continue to leave the seniors without any Medicare 
coverage of these necessary medical costs.
  It is past time for us to add a prescription drug benefit to 
Medicare. However, the budget before us today provides no new dollars 
for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Instead, it diverts needed 
dollars from the Part A Trust Fund into an account which is being 
labeled for use on a Medicare prescription drug benefit by the 
Majority.
  The Majority only makes $153 billion available over a ten-year period 
for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Most estimates indicate that 
an adequate prescription drug benefit could cost upward of $30 billion 
a year--and a good benefit would cost much more--$153 billion over ten 
is only a drop in the bucket. It is less than 1/10th the amount of 
money they are willing to ``invest'' in tax breaks which will have at 
best a questionable impact on the economy and less than 1/10th of the 
what CBO predicts will be spent on drugs for Medicare beneficiaries 
over the next 10 years. But, we know full well that lack of 
prescription drug coverage in Medicare is causing millions of seniors 
to choose between needed medications and heat for their homes, and that 
failure to cover these drugs also means increased health care costs as 
people forgo the most appropriate drug treatment because they cannot 
afford it.
  A portion of the $153 billion is dedicated to the President's 
``Immediate Helping Hand'' program. Unfortunately, that program is 
neither immediate or much help. It would provide grants to the states 
to enable them to cover prescription drugs for low-income seniors. 
However, the need for prescription drug coverage is not just a low-
income problem--it is a middle class problem. And, states have made 
abundantly clear that they do not want to take on the burden of 
covering prescription drugs for seniors. The National Governors 
Association states point blank that, ``if Congress decides to expand 
prescription drug coverage to seniors, it should not shift that 
responsibility or its costs to the states.'' The Immediate Helping Hand 
program has not been warmly received by Congress either. To consider it 
the method for moving forward on prescription drugs in the budget just 
simply doesn't make sense.
  Again, it comes down to priorities. If we were to delete the estate 
tax provisions in the budget before us, new estimates from the Joint 
Committee on Taxation indicate we would have more than $600 billion 
that could be dedicated to a Medicare prescription drug benefit and 
other important priorities. The Republican estate tax proposal helps 
some 43,000 decedents of wealthy people. A Medicare prescription drug 
benefit would help 40 million seniors and disabled people. Over 90% of 
the beneficiaries of the estate tax cut make

[[Page 4725]]

over $190,000 a year. The median income of Medicare beneficiaries is 
$14,500. Who needs more help?
  For all of the reasons outlined above--and many more I have not had 
time to elucidate--I oppose this budget before us today. It fails to 
appropriately prioritize the needs of our nation and could put us back 
in the economic ditch that the Reagan tax package created in the 
1980's, and from which we only recently emerged. During this time of 
unprecedented surplus, we should be shoring up the federal programs 
that people rely on, we should be increasing our investment in 
education, we should be improving the quality and availability of child 
care in our nation, we should be covering prescription drugs through 
Medicare, and doing much, much more. Instead, this budget squanders 
projected resources on tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the 
most well-off and puts at risk our ability to finance important 
government priorities now and in the future. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on the budget before us.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I rise in my capacity as the Ranking 
Democratic Member on the Resources Committee to point out that among 
the many worthy and valid reasons why this budget resolution should be 
defeated is the fact that it runs roughshod over last year's landmark 
bipartisan agreement on conservation program funding.
  This agreement, often referred to as ``CARA light'' but more formally 
as the Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement 
Program was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2001 Interior 
Appropriations measure.
  It seeks, in part, to keep faith with the original purpose of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund by providing for a dedicated stream of 
funds for federal land acquisition as well as for State land and water 
conservation grants.
  But it does more than that. Other eligible programs for the $12 
billion set-aside are those which support historic preservation, the 
Youth Conservation Corps, Payments In Lieu of Taxes, the Forest Legacy 
Program, and State Wildlife Grants among others.
  The pending budget resolution, as does the Bush Blueprint, would skim 
$2.7 billion from the $12 billion agreed to only late last year to help 
pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
  These are not touchy feely programs we are talking about here. These 
are programs that are extremely important to America and to Americans. 
They are endeavors that are part of our birthright and our destiny.
  For by investing in America, and our natural resource heritage, we 
are fulfilling what I believe is an obligation we have to future 
generations. And that obligation is that this generation, the current 
generation, will not consume everything and leave nothing to our 
children and our children's children.
  This budget resolution fails to meet that obligation. It fails to 
meet our obligations to this country in many other respects as well. So 
again, I urge the defeat of the pending resolution.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I wish I could say I was shocked and 
dismayed at the budget proposal the Republicans have put before us 
today. Unfortunately, I am not shocked. It is a typical Republican 
budget which slashes funding for programs that help the elderly, women, 
children and the public interest in order to give a fat tax cut to 
their fat-cat buddies.
  Allow me, if you will, to give a brief synopsis of this draconian 
document:
  Cuts funding for land conservation; Cuts the budget for environmental 
protection; Cuts funding for the Department of Agriculture, including 
the field offices which are there to help our farmers, the engine of 
America's prosperity since founding of our Republic. This budget also 
fails to provide any emergency income assistance for farmers; Cuts 
funding for NASA; Cuts funding for renewable and alternative energy 
research and development. This is the very research and development 
that could hold the answers to today's energy shortage; Cuts funding 
for the Army Corps of Engineers, the builders of America's 
infrastructure; Cuts Federal support for the railroads; Cuts funding 
for the Small Business Administration; Cuts funding for Community 
Development Block Grants; Cuts funding for the Department of Justice, 
the agency charged with enforcing our laws; Cuts funding for the Legal 
Services Corporation; and Cuts funding for the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission.
  Though that is the end of this year's cuts, it is not the end of the 
rascality
  Republican Christopher Smith, Chairman of the Veterans Affairs 
Committee, and Lane Evans, Ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs 
Committee, have stated that, ``$2.1 billion is the minimum needed to 
keep the promises made to care for those who risked their lives and 
answered this country's call in its hour of need.'' This budget falls 
$1 billion short of this minimum.
  The Budget only designates $135 billion for a prescription drug 
benefit and Medicare reform. I would note to you that Representative 
Billy Tauzin said, ``everybody knows that figure is gone.'' 
Additionally, CBO estimates that last years Republican prescription 
drug bill would cost well over $200 billion today.
  Now that I have told you what this scandalous budget does not do, I 
will tell you what it does do.
  Raids Medicare Part A's trust fund
  Threatens the solvency of Social Security and Medicare
  Mortgages our future based on a riverboat gamble. Make no mistake, 
the projected surplus is only a prediction 10 years into the future.
  This disgrace of a budget grossly underfunds programs which deserve 
full funding and which the American people have told us time and again 
are important to them.
  You may ask why the Republicans have created a budget which does not 
reflect America's priorities, why they have produced such a dim-witted 
``financial plan.'' I will be happy to tell you why. Because they are 
determined to give a massive and fiscally irresponsible tax cut to 
their fat-cat buddies. Do not be fooled, it is not working families who 
would benefit from this tax cut, it is the top 1 percent.
  I would ask you to vote against this outrageous plan.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican Budget Resolution and to urge my colleagues to support the 
more sensible Democratic alternative.
  The Republican Budget Resolution before us calls for a massive $1.62 
trillion tax cut. I am troubled by this for a number of reasons. First, 
the House is already on track to exceed this figure.
  The Ways and Means Committee has already reported out two bills that 
cut taxes by almost $1.4 trillion. The Committee has yet to consider 
the remaining pieces of the President's tax cut plan, most notably the 
estate tax repeal--which the Wall Street Journal today reported would 
cost an astonishing $662.2 billion if made effective immediately.
  This brings the price tag to over $2 trillion without providing funds 
for making the Research and Development tax credit permanent or 
allowing non-itemizers to deduct charitable contributions--both of 
which are included in the President's plan.
  Secondly, I have serious concerns about pinning such a large tax cut 
on a budget surplus that may never materialize. Predicting so far into 
the future is fraught with uncertainties, especially in an economic 
downturn like we are currently experiencing. Would any reasonable 
person plan a vacation relying on a weather forecast for year 2009 or 
2011?
  Furthermore, the American people have been told that the tax cuts are 
necessary to stimulate our economy right now.
  Well, Madam Chairman, your budget plan totally fails in this regard. 
Taxes are cut by $5.8 billion this year, or 50 cents per day per 
taxpayer--hardly a drop in the bucket of a $10 trillion dollar economy. 
This budget resolution directs that two-thirds of the benefits be 
withheld for 5 years.
  An economic stimulus plan has been developed by our colleagues in the 
other body which calls for an immediate $60 billion tax cut for this 
year. This plan would achieve the goal of pumping up the economy.
  Finally, I would like to call attention to a serious flaw contained 
within the Republican Budget Resolution. This budget diverts $153 
billion away from the Medicare Hospital Insurance fund under the guise 
of a yet-to-be-determined prescription drug benefit. However, this 
money is being raised to pay hospital costs for current and future 
beneficiaries--it can't be spent twice. The resolution also earmarks 
another $240 billion in Medicare HI surpluses to a contingent fund. We 
cannot allow the Medicare Trust Fund to be used for other purposes 
because it will dramatically shorten the solvency of the Medicare Trust 
Fund. Our Democratic Budget locks away the current surpluses in both 
the Medicare and Social Security.
  Madam Chairman, Congress must be prudent and cautious when developing 
budgets based on less-than certain surplus estimates. We have the 
resources to give a responsible tax cut to the American people and the 
Democratic plan does just that. I urge Members to reject the Republican 
Budget Resolution and support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, today, Congress is debating the 
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution, a document that is sadly, 
fraudulent.
  Common sense dictates that budget forecasting should be realistic and 
conservative. The document before us today is neither. The projections 
used in this document are not only

[[Page 4726]]

widely optimistic, but also prone to extreme error. If the 
Congressional Budget Office used the same economic assumptions that the 
Social Security Trustees use when forecasting the future financial 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare, the two largest government 
programs, there would be no surplus. Despite this fact, the majority 
has pressed ahead with a financial plan that leaves no room for error, 
leading us down a fiscally dangerous path.
  The Majority has based spending decisions on unrealistic spending 
assumptions. Four years ago, I watched this Congress engage in much 
backslapping and self-congratulating after passing the last Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997. Almost immediately, Congress began to wink and nod 
at spending limits imposed in that bill, tortuously bending and 
breaking the rules in order to claim spending limits had been honored. 
Two years ago, Congress dropped the charade, shattering spending limits 
and effectively giving up on the 1997 act. Now we are again holding 
down spending to unrealistic levels. Even the Republican Chairman of 
the Senate Budget Committee has already stated that the spending limits 
in the legislation are not feasible.



  The document before us today drastically underfunds critical health, 
environment, and veterans programs. As our country is facing what the 
President and GOP claim is an energy crisis, they have proposed cutting 
funding for the Department of Energy by 7 percent. Energy conservation 
programs, the only truly feasible solutions for helping us address the 
short-term energy problems, are cut by nearly 10 percent. President 
Bush has repeatedly called for improved spending on America's veterans, 
yet he under funds VA programs by one billion dollars. Finally, this 
budget resolution cuts funding for environmental programs by 11 
percent. While this is consistent with the Administration's anti-
environmental actions, it threatens the important progress we've made 
in environmental policy over the last decade.
  The budget resolution before us is not a financial blueprint, but 
rather a tax cut dressed up as a budget outline. All of the optimistic 
surplus assumptions and draconian cuts in needed programs are simply a 
charade to allow the President and my Republican colleagues to claim 
they can cut taxes and balance the budget. But they cannot. This 
document does not protect the Medicare trust fund and triple counts the 
Social Security Trust fund in order to fit the President''s tax 
proposal. The tax cuts described in this resolution are heavily tilted 
to those who need help the least and premised on questionable economic 
forecasts.
  Since coming to Congress in 1996, I have based my fiscal policies on 
five basic principles:
  1. Fair tax relief for working Americans.
  2. Honoring our promises to Social Security and Medicare.
  3. Paying down our $6 trillion national debt.
  4. Avoiding future funding shortfalls.
  5. Funding commitments to our children, seniors, veterans, and the 
environment.
  I believe these are important goals that most of my colleagues share. 
Unfortunately, the document we are debating today accomplishes none of 
these principles. Oregonians have repeatedly told me they want to see 
budget and tax policies that are fiscally prudent and deal with for the 
challenges our country faces. This resolution doesn't and I oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired. 
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, March 22, 2001, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nussle) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Biggert, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the subject of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, had come to 
no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________