Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity that only comes around every few years, and that is an opportunity, as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) suggested at the Committee on Rules when we met just a little while ago, to have a watershed budget, kind of a real opportunity for taking a fresh look at where we are as a country; where we are as a Federal Government; what are our priorities; what are our values; what are our principles as we move forward. As we look into this century, we have accomplished so much on this threshold and yet there are so many challenges that face us, but just to give us a little bit of a threshold to work from, let me suggest that, Mr. Chairman, we are about to debate the fifth straight balanced budget, and that in and of itself, I believe, not only is a real treat but a real accomplishment. We have built that budget. We have built that accomplishment in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats struggling and arguing and sometimes even fighting to come up with the priorities that shape our country's future. We did not do it alone, and we did it together along the way sometimes; sometimes not. But I think we all have a lot to be very proud of as we stand on this threshold and look forward. Probably the people who deserve the most credit, as we stand on this threshold, are the people that are watching at home, balancing their checkbooks around their kitchen table, making the decision about where their kids are going to college, getting that Visa bill in the mail and going, oh, man, not again, or finding out that the energy prices just went up yet again and how that is going to have to take away from some of their other priorities. So as we struggle through that which we think is so important here in Washington, D.C., let us be ever mindful of the kitchen-table conversations that are going on around America tonight, and those kitchen-table conversations, while maybe not having as many zeroes as the zeroes we are going to talk about in this particular budget, are just as important, if not more important, to the future of America. As we build this budget, we build on a very solid foundation. And we decided in order to continue that solid foundation far into the future that we had to adopt six principles that would guide our deliberation, that would guide the decision, that would guide the blueprint as we move forward. The first is that we would try and have maximum debt elimination. We as a country recognize, whether one is a farmer in Iowa or whether one runs a small business in upstate New York or whether one is a senior down in Florida or South Carolina, balancing their checkbook and making ends meet they know that debt can kill them; they know that running up too much and having too much indebtedness makes it pretty difficult for one to make the decisions that face them every day. We as a country are no different. By building up a national debt, by not living within the means of the revenues that we get from the hard-working Americans across this country, we have built up over a number of decades a huge debt held by the public, and one of the goals in this budget was to eliminate as much of that as possible; and we accomplish that in this budget. Over the course of the next 10 years, we will pay down the most amount of debt held by the public that this Nation has ever experienced; and, in fact, by the end of this period of time, we will pay back all of the debt one can possibly pay and still be responsible as a Nation. Sure, there will be a little bit of debt left over that needs to be carried because it either has not matured yet or we would have to pay a high penalty or a high premium in order to recoup, but the bottom line is that we will turn over to our children and our grandkids almost a debt-free nation. Second, maximum tax relief for every taxpayer. We want to make sure that everybody who pays taxes gets a little bit of tax relief. Why do we do that? Because we are running a tax surplus. After all the bills are paid, after all the debt is paid down, after we meet all of the priorities of a country that has many, we have a tax surplus that has been growing. In fact, it has been growing so large, it is now the largest, if we look at it with regard to our economy, our gross domestic product, it is the largest that we have ever carried as a Nation and we need to reduce that tax burden for every taxpayer. There are some other priorities that we wanted to include in this budget. First we wanted to improve our education for our children. We have elected a President of the United States who has demanded that no child in this country should be left behind, and we take him up on that offer by continuing some very large increases in spending, but also demanding reform for our Nation's education system, recognizing that the soft bigotry of low expectations within our system, as the President has dubbed it, is something that needs to be broken, needs to be changed and more local control with high standards needs to be what we need to usher in in this new education era. Next is a stronger national defense. We live in an ever-changing, ever more dangerous world, one that cannot be paid for, cannot be bought, cannot be invested in without rethinking our national defense. The President of the United States, from that podium right back there, challenged us and said the money should not determine the policy but yet the policy should determine how much money we spend. He charged Secretary Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, with coming forward with a full review, top to bottom, of our Nation's defense, and suggesting that we should not just put in some extra money because it sounds good, add some more money because the industrial defense complex needs to have that money to run, to just put in some more money because we have defense hawks around here or because it is expected as a Congress in order to add those dollars, but to say, no, first let us do a top-to- bottom review before we make the decision about how much money to spend. And that review is ongoing and we build that into our budget. Next is to reform and modernize our Medicare system. We recognize certainly coming from a rural area, as I do, that Medicare is what we depend on. Health care in rural America is Medicare. We have a growing and a very aging population that needs this reformed and modernized to meet the new needs of their generation. Back in 1965, modern prescription drugs and other procedures maybe were not contemplated. They are today, and our Medicare system needs to provide for that. That is why in this budget we provide for prescription-drug modernization, as well as other modernizations, so that we can extend the life of Medicare far beyond its current existence. Then finally, a better Social Security system for our seniors today and for tomorrow; not just for today, but for tomorrow, recognizing that in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have set aside the entire surplus from the trust fund of Social Security and recognizing that while that answers the question of Social Security today, it does not answer the question for my generation or for generations to come. So in this budget, while we continue the practice of setting aside the entire Social Security Trust Fund, putting it in that lock box, what we also do is we say, we want reform, we expect reform, we support the President's call for reform, and we move forward toward reform in this budget. We believe that discretionary spending overall should be kept in pace with the economy. So as the President has suggested, we say that our government should not grow any faster than the family budget, should not grow any faster than the economy as a whole, so we limit the growth of government to the rate of inflation; and we believe that is a responsible way to move forward. Finally, what we say is that after all of these priorities, after all of these goals are met, there is still money left over. After we pay for education, after we pay for our national defense, after we pay for our environment, after we pay for Medicare, after we pay for prescription drugs, after we set aside all of Social Security, after we pay down the national debt to the lowest point in over a century, there is still money left over, and whose money is that? It is the people who are balancing their checkbook around their kitchen table and they deserve a refund, they deserve their money back, they deserve to make those decisions that they want to make for their families and their own communities. And it is for that reason that we provide tax relief in this budget. How does the surplus add up? Well, because of the projections that the Congressional Budget Office puts forward, we believe that there will be $5.6 trillion worth of surplus over the next 10 years. What do we propose to do with that? We propose to pay down the debt by setting aside all of Social Security. As we know, when our FICA taxes come in, they pay for benefits. Those that are left over usually get rolled into Treasury notes. Well, we are able to not only pay down that debt because we are getting more surplus; but we are also able to, as a result of this, set aside for debt service, for a contingency reserve, and for Medicare the entire amounts to allow not only for reform, but for a rainy day. We have a contingency reserve over the course of this next 10 years of $517 billion as a cushion. We recognize that the projections are not always very accurate. We believe these are very reasonable and very conservative projections; but we recognize that it may not hit exactly where we say, even though over the last 6 years they have come in larger than expected. But we still set aside over half of $1 trillion in addition to Medicare, in addition to Social Security, in addition to paying the debt service; and we still set aside half of $1 trillion to deal with that which we know is coming in the future: a farm crisis, a national defense review that may require additional spending. We believe that this is a responsible budget, one that should be supported not only by my colleagues, but should be supported by the American people as a solid foundation to build upon, but also one that is flexible enough to deal with the contingencies and the concerns of the future. We have a good budget, it is a realistic budget, it is an enforceable budget. Support the budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, Section 213(b)(1) of the conference report on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 (H. Con. Res. 290) authorizes the Chairman of the House Budget Committee to reduce the revenue aggregates contained in the resolution if the July report of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates larger on- budget surpluses than those published in the agency's March report. CBO substantially increased its estimates of the surplus in its July report. Accordingly, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the revenue aggregates for fiscal years 2001-2005 to reflect a portion of that increase in the surplus. Revised Appropriate Levels of Federal Revenues in the Congressional Budget Resolution [In billions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Federal Fiscal year revenues ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2001....................................................... 1,496.9 2002....................................................... 1,519.8 2003....................................................... 1,572.1 2004....................................................... 1,619.1 2005....................................................... 1,680.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the application 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 202 and 203 of the conference report accompanying H. Con. Res. 290, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2001 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2001 through fiscal year 2005. This status report is current through February 27, 2001. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, revenues, the surplus, and advance appropriations with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 290. This comparison is needed to implement section 311(a) of the Budget Act and sections 202 and 203(b) of H. Con. Res. 290, which create points of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2001 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays of each authorizing committee with jurisdiction over direct spending programs with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations for discretionary action made under H. Con. Res. 290 for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal 2001 through 2005. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to enforce section 11(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2001 with the revised ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. This comparison is also needed to implement section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table compares discretionary appropriations to the levels provided by section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Section 251 requires that, if at the end of a session discretionary spending in any category exceeds the limits set forth in section 251(c) (as adjusted pursuant to section 251(b)), there shall be a sequestration of amounts within that category to bring spending within the established limits. As the determination of the need for a sequestration is based on the report of the President required by section 254, this table is provided for informational purposes only.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the allocation for the House Committee on Appropriations. The allocation for fiscal year 2001 printed in the House Report 106-761 is increased to reflect $8,303,000,000 in additional new budget authority and $4,392,000,000 in additional outlays for emergency appropriations, as detailed in the following table: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subcommittee (Purpose) Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agriculture, the FDA and Related $3,563,000,000 $3,088,000,000 Agencies (Primarily for the Commodity Credit Corporation Fund). Defense (Primarily for the repair of 249,000,000 185,000,000 U.S.S. Cole)....................... Energy and Water Development 214,000,000 133,000,000 (Primarily for nuclear nonproliferation).................. Foreign Operations (Primarily for 467,000,000 55,000,000 debt restructuring and international disaster assistance). Interior (Primarily for Wildland 1,689,000,000 710,000,000 fire management)................... Legislative Branch (Primarily for 52,000,000 36,000,000 the FHA general and special risk program account)................... Transportation (Primarily for 718,000,000 193,000,000 federal aid highways).............. Treasury, Postal Service and General 55,000,000 ................ Government (For the Counterterrorism Fund)............. Veterans, HUD and Independent 1,296,000,000 -8,000,000 Agencies (Primarily for FEMA disaster relief)................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Those allocation adjustments will change the allocation of House Committee on Appropriations to $609,656,000,000 in budget authority and $636,827,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2001. The aggregate total will increase to $1,537,861,000,000 in budget authority and $1,506,048,000,000 in outlays. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski or Jim Bates at extension 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that character can be best defined by doing the right thing when no one is looking. I love that phrase. Because around here in Washington, D.C., particularly in Congress, there are a lot of people looking out there and it is easy to play to the camera and it is easy to play for the politics and everything else and there is often very few moments in time when we get to be on our own or dealing maybe one on one with a colleague. I have had that opportunity with our chairman. And I have to report to my colleagues that he is a man of very high character. I have never seen him do what I could refer to as the wrong thing, infuriating as that might be at times. I tried to coax him into violating maybe some of his own principles, maybe some of his views, political or personal views, on a couple of different items. And he beat me every single time. But he was always fair about it, even though he was tough. He was always forthright, and he always gave me a heads-up. And I respect him for that. I just come here today to say that, while there are a lot of people who are leaving this particular Congress, he is one who ranks up there as one of the ones that I will miss the most. Around here in Washington and Congress, many people come and go it seems. The beauty of our system is that, almost like sticking your finger in a pool of water, as soon as it removes, it fills in. There will be a new chairman. There will be another representative from his district in Texas. But the ripples on the water that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has left for freedom in this country will ripple on for a very long time. And for that I am grateful. I know his family is grateful. All of America should be grateful. I bid him adieu.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to bring special attention to someone who has been a great asset to my District and me for the past nine years. After nine years of service and dedication to the people of Iowa's Second District, my District Representative for Clayton, Dubuque and Jackson counties has announced her retirement for the end of this year. Kathy Reed has been a loyal and dedicated employee, and someone I am proud to have worked with over the years. Kathy has been no ordinary District Representative. Everyone who comes into contact with Kathy takes an immediate liking to her. Her extraordinary sense of humor has helped her through some difficult times on the job. Once, on a hot July day Kathy and I were scheduled to tour an agriculture processing plant. Afterward we were scheduled for several meetings with my constituents. Needless to say, the hot weather mixed with the aroma of the plant did not make for a good combination. Kathy's remarkable sense of humor allowed her to get through the experience and the potential embarrassment when we left the plant to attend our next meeting. You might say we left the plant, but the plant did not leave us! Kathy is one of those rare people who when people see her walk through the door they immediately have a smile on their face. Rarely is she greeted with just a handshake or a simple hello. More often than not the people in the community greet her with a hug. She has a true gift for connecting with people. Not only will the people of the Second District miss Kathy, but her co-workers and I will especially feel her absence. Some on my staff have had the privilege of working with Kathy for the entire past nine years, and some have worked with her for a much shorter period. Regardless of the amount of time spent working with Kathy, everyone on my staff is able to agree on one thing. Kathy always brings out the positives in any situation and is able to find a silver lining in even the most negative circumstances. For the past several years Kathy has undertaken a project to help her co-workers and me remember the positive aspects of our job. Each month Kathy compiles all the ``thank you'' notes, e-mails and messages that come to all of my offices. She then forwards them to all her co-workers and me. This is a good example of this facet of her personality. It can be easy to let the negative comments and situation influence us, but every month the ``thank- you's'' have reminded us of the positive impact our work can sometimes have on the people of the Second District. Kathy Reed will indeed be missed by not only the people of the Second District, but especially by her co-workers and me. I wish Kathy nothing but the best as she enters this exciting phase of her life. She and her husband Chuck plan to travel the country and spend plenty quality time with their children and grandson. I am truly sad that she will no longer be a part of my organization, but I am proud that she was with me for nine years, and I am honored to call her my friend.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we are hopefully coming to the end of our legislative session for the year and for the 106th Congress. That will be a happy time for a lot of people because it means we get to go home to our families, to our districts for the election, but there are some people who are not going to be returning, and the subject of my special order involves one of my colleagues and very good friends who will no longer be a Member of this body after this session closes. He shares a distinction with a number of Members who came to the United States Congress to work on deficit issues, on budget issues. He came from the great State of Ohio with a mission, and that was even if he was the only one standing in the well to balance the budget all by himself, he was going to get that job done. That man's name was John Kasich. Tonight, the subject of this special order is to pay tribute to John Kasich, the representative from Ohio, as well as the distinguished Budget chairman for the last 6 years. General Leave

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members who would have liked to have been here tonight to express their gratitude, maybe even a few remembrances, a couple of stories, but there just is not time and, of course, with this late hour it probably seems even less appropriate. It is something that ought to be done in, quote-unquote, prime time for someone as important as John Kasich, but let me just give a couple of quick points and then I will conclude. Number one, there are going to be a lot of people including the very distinguished Speaker pro tem who is sitting here today who will also share the distinction of no longer being here after this session. We bid him at the end of this session farewell. He has been a true champion on many of the issues that John Kasich has been fighting for. But there will be a lot of Members, Mr. Speaker, a lot of politicians, a lot of candidates in the future that say I balanced the budget, or I was there to help get it done, but there will be one person who will probably, above all other people, and my guess is that that will be shared in a bipartisan way from both sides of the aisle, who stood just a little bit taller than the rest of the politicians and Representatives and Senators and Presidents, and that is John Kasich. He wrote his first budget in 1989. Now, you have got to remember back to what this was like. Here he is a junior Member of Congress coming in and having the audacity to say, I can write my own budget. This is something that was reserved for the President of the United States, for the majority party only, maybe for the Budget Committee but certainly not a junior member to come in and say, ``I can do it better than you can.'' And almost like the movie ``Dave'' that maybe some Members have seen, he went through line item by line item and outlined exactly what that budget ought to look like. Well, I was not here in 1989. Maybe I would have helped support him. My guess is the Speaker pro tem would have as well. He only got about 30 votes for his first budget. But from that seed grew a very mighty vision for the future. He took that seed and not only became a leader, took over the Budget Committee and then with the rest of us in 1995, 1996 and 1997 worked as hard as he could to bring that vision to a reality. My daughter Sarah and my son Mark are the recipients of his leadership in a number of different ways but probably most importantly because as we have balanced the budget, we have been able to now reduce by putting 90 percent of that surplus toward the national debt, we are going to be able to let them know that by the end of this year we have reduced the national debt by $354 billion. Can we do better? You bet we can. We are going to continue that work if we have the honor and the ability in the majority to go on next year, and there is more work we need to do, even though John Kasich will not be here. But he has laid a foundation that is second to none. The Members of the Budget Committee as well as the Members of the Ohio delegation led by Ralph Regula, the dean of the delegation, wish to express our gratitude on behalf of all of us in Congress for the great leadership that John Kasich has provided. He will go on with his two twin daughters and his wife Karen to bigger and better things, we have no doubt. As the old adage around here goes that only Members seem know, that as soon as you are a former Member, you are forgotten. That may be true for some, but my guess is that John Kasich's legacy will ring true in this House of Representatives for many years to come. I count him as one of my friends. I count him as a mentor. He will be sorely missed. We respect his tenure.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order involving Chairman John Kasich.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, I was unavoidably detained by weather problems in the Midwest and missed rollcall vote #541-#543. Had my votes been recorded, they would have been in the following manner: Rollcall Vote #541 (On agreement to H. Res. 634) ``yea''. Rollcall Vote #542 (To suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 414) ``yea''. Rollcall Vote #543 (To suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4271) ``yea''.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) who has been a strong advocate and supporter of this legislation, who has held hearings. As my colleagues can tell by his opening statement here today, as well as the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the ranking member, they know quite a bit about this very small, yet very significant historical monument in northeast Iowa. This year we have the opportunity to expand this monument and preserve more mounds. This is a project that the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation has put together. It is a plan to purchase 1,000 acres, as has been said. This parcel of land that we talk about today has been sought after by the National Park Service since the Monument's establishment by proclamation by President Truman back in 1949. So this has been a long time in coming. This is a very significant day. Anthropologists estimate that there were thousands of these Indian burial mounds built on the North American continent. However, effigy mounds are primarily located today in northeast Iowa, southeastern Minnesota, and western Wisconsin. They were constructed, by some estimates, over the course of the last 2,500 years. The mounds inside the Effigy Mounds National Monument are a representative and very outstanding example of a significant phase of prehistoric American Indian mound-building culture. The tract that we talked about here today would be a valuable addition to the monument because not only of its natural beauty and historical significance, but this tract is known to contain four additional mounds, two linear forms as well as two bears, the outline of a bear. It includes not only endangered plant and animal species along the Yellow River, but additionally, and interestingly enough, this property was the site of Iowa's first sawmill, which was powered by water and managed by none other than Jefferson Davis. I believe that expanding the Monument's current boundaries to include the Ferguson-Kistler Tract would be a wise step. Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of private lands and private ownership. Iowa has less than 2 percent of its land in other than privately owned hands. We do not come to this floor without concern for private property, and that is why this bill has been crafted for willing sellers only. But we have willing sellers. This is a strong piece of legislation to enhance the beauty and historical significance of this park. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3745. I thank the committee and the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for their diligent work on this.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to answer the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill. Now, the gentleman has a long and very stellar career in this Congress and I know the gentleman knows full well the difference between a resolution, a proclamation, and a bill. Because a bill can become a law. That law can be changed, the gentleman is correct, but it is a law and it is a law that must be followed by the Treasury. It is a law that must be followed by the Congress. It is a law that must be followed by the President unless or until that law is changed. And that law can be changed in the fall, the gentleman is correct, but it will be a change of law and a change of priority. It will be the juxtaposition between spending and Social Security. If they want to spend more money, they can. If the Congress wants to spend more money, it can. Certainly it can raise taxes. It can dip into Social Security. It can decide not to do any debt reduction. But we are deciding today that that choice must be made instead of waiting, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) pointed out, until the very end of the day on the very last legislative opportunity to see if there is any money left over. We are saying it is a priority. And interestingly enough, not only are the Republican majority joining together today to say it is a priority but last month 419 Members of this Congress, including the very respected gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the very respected gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), joined with us in that tact. Now, I understand that there might be some ridicule on their side because they have never been in a position to reduce debt. We believe it is an important priority. We appreciate the fact that the gentleman joined with us in this regard, and we would hope that they would be slightly more enthusiastic as a look at a possible third debt reduction bill in the fall. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4866) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 103(b)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the public debt and to decrease the statutory limit on the public debt, as amended.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4866.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, last month, H.R. 4601 took the first step toward eliminating the national debt by the year 2013. That bill set aside additional non-Social Security surpluses for fiscal year 2000 for debt reduction by depositing the money in a newly created public debt reduction payment account in Treasury. Money deposited in this account would be taken off budget and could not be used for any purpose other than paying down the publicly held debt. The bill passed an overwhelmingly 419 to 5. Well, what a difference a month makes. Since then, as my colleagues may recall, the budget surplus for this next year was going to be about $180 billion, the Congressional Budget Office has announced that that now is going to rise to a level of $268 billion. So today, H.R. 4866 would build on that progress of H.R. 4601 by depositing into the account an additional $25 billion out of the non-Social Security surplus for the fiscal year 2001. A debt reduction payment account has already been established from Treasury. The account is not part of the budget. So any cash, any money that we put into that would be taken outside of the budget. Twenty-five billion dollars of the non-Social Security surplus is automatically deposited into this account if this bill is passed. The statutory debt limit will also be reduced by an equivalent amount. Once the money is deposited into the account, the Treasury must use the money to reduce the public debt. The money cannot be used for any other purpose. Thirty days after the end of the year, after the end of fiscal year 2001, Treasury has to submit a report detailing to Congress the amount of money that was deposited into the account, the amount of the public debt reduction, and the exact Treasury securities that were redeemed with those funds; and this information is verified by the GAO. Let me just give those people at home that I know watch what happens here with a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of concern, let me give them a thumbnail sketch of what we are talking about here today. The budget, when we passed it in April for fiscal year 2001, was going to have a surplus of $180 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has now reestimated that surplus to be $268 billion. Now, let me tell my colleagues what we have planned based on this bill and based on our budget for how that money should be used. First of all, $166 billion of that is Social Security. It is taken out of the budget under our budget plan. It is taken away. Nobody can touch it. We have done that now for the third consecutive year. We have had the opportunity to take Social Security completely out of the budget. The Medicare surplus, the Medicare Trust Fund surplus, $32 billion, is taken outside of the budget. Nobody can use it for anything else, as it was used in the past. The debt that we are reducing is $25 billion. All right. There will be tax relief of about $5 billion to $6 billion. Let me give my colleagues some of the percentages. The debt reduction of this bill alone represents 83 percent of the budget surplus going to reduce the national debt. We have the opportunity today to pass on to our kids a little less debt than we did the day before. The tax cut by relationship is only representing about 2 percent of that particular budget. This is the second bill in a row to reduce the national debt, and there is still the opportunity to have a third bill in the fall to, again, make another principal payment toward the national debt. Now, it is not going to be very glamorous to do this, and there is going to be a lot of people who run down here to the floor and say, oh, well, this would automatically happen. Yes, sure. For the last 40 years, it has not automatically happened. Nobody reduced any debt during that period of time. If someone wants to believe this is automatically going to happen, I have got some swamp land someplace to sell to them. This is prioritizing how the surplus ought to be used, national debt number one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is interesting that both of the gentlemen who just spoke voted for the bill that they ridiculed. They rush here down to the floor and they say, oh, what a bad bill; oh, it is just theater; oh, we cannot stand it, and then they vote for it. Boy, that is political will. Boy, that is courage. This is the Democratic magic show. Do not look at what we are doing; look over here. Look over here. We want people to look over here; do not look at what we are working on. Look over here. Let us talk about everything else but the facts that we are reducing the debt. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) who is the author of the original legislation to set aside this money for debt reduction.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) toned down his rhetoric momentarily from ridicule to wonderment and to questioning. He wants to know why we are doing this at this point. He thinks it is because maybe we do not trust ourselves. Well, first and foremost, I would say to the gentleman it is because many of us have been good observers of Congresses over the last 40 years and how we got into that situation and how Congresses and Presidents have this tendency to spend money when it is left on the table. So that is number one is that we are good observers. It does not matter which party it is. It happens to have been during those 40 years that the Democrats were in control almost all of that time. But the point is that we are good observers. I think experience is a good teacher, and we have learned from those experiences. And that is the first reason. But the second reason is an issue of priority. It is an issue of choices. Instead of a budget that waits until the end of the year to set a priority, which, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget pointed out, is exactly the current process, if, and I put that word out there in big letters, if there is money on the table at the end of the year, there is a mechanism to pay down the debt. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is correct, it is automatically then paid down by Treasury because they have nothing else to do with the money, if there is money left over. The problem is that there has almost never been money left over. And, in fact, there has been money that was needed to be borrowed. That is how we got into the national debt in the first place. So it is a matter of almost like a family with their budget laying out in front of them deciding that the Visa bill has to be paid first before they look at something new to do, before a new family vacation maybe is taken, before they put on a new addition to their house, before they try something new as a new priority, new spending, new indebtedness of any kind, they say it is a priority to pay down the mortgage, it is a priority to pay down the national debt. And so, instead of waiting until the end of the year to say if there is money left over, we are saying there is money left over, this is a priority, this is a choice that the Congress is making. And if at the end of the year, the President and the Congress decide to do something different, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) pointed out very correctly, if we decide to do something different, then the American people know that that choice was made. It was a choice between new spending and Social Security. It was a choice between new spending and Medicare. It was a choice between new spending and debt reduction. It was a choice between tax reduction and debt reduction. That is a choice that we can go home and explain to our constituents. This is a choice that we can explain to America. This is a choice that is responsible in the area of budgeting. I believe it is those choices that need to be made. It is for that reason that we come out here with a bill that we believe is important. No, it is not maybe the most important legislation that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has ever seen, but we believe it is an important priority; and it is for that reason that we bring the second bill of debt reduction. And if in the fall, as the gentleman stated, there is more money, we can bring a third bill for debt reduction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I understand that the minority will try and stop us to reduce the taxes on the American people and to reform those taxes, but we will try and stop you from dipping into the Social Security trust fund yet again, the Medicare trust fund yet again, to add to our debt, to add to our deficits as you did for 40 years. We will and we will succeed. But there is one factor that you left out and that is the fact that the Congress is not the only one in control. Every eighth grade government student knows that the President has to sign the law. I hope he signs this law; and I hope we reduce the debt for my kids, for your kids and grandkids and for all of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Rural Health Care Coalition, one of the first things that I looked at in the draft of this particular prescription drug bill was whether or not it provided seniors choice, whether it provided them access, security and affordability. First of all, on choice, the seniors that I represent in Iowa, they want to know that they are going to have choices in this particular bill. They are tired of a one-size-fits-all government program called Medicare that tells them exactly what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and takes the decision making away from doctors. This bill gives them a prescription drug plan to choose from. Second it provides access. In rural Iowa, one has a real concern about whether or not the local pharmacy is going to be involved. This particular bill gives them access to their local pharmacies. Finally, security and affordability, all rural seniors will be guaranteed a prescription drug benefit just like they are guaranteed drug benefits under all other Medicare benefits, and that once they reach $6,000, they will be held harmless. This is the bill for rural Iowa, for rural America. Please support this bill. Support H.R. 4680 for two important reasons. i. prescription drug benefit H.R. 4680 provides rural seniors with choice: All seniors will have at least two different prescription drug plans to choose from. Rural seniors have to rely too much on Washington bureaucratic ``one- size fits all'' solutions to their health care. This bill provides rural seniors with the ability to adapt drug coverage to meet their individuals needs, not to adopt coverage dictated by bureaucrats that don't fully understand the uniqueness of rural health care. H.R. 4680 provides rural seniors with access: All rural seniors will have access to their local pharmacies. Pharmacists play a vital role in the delivery of health care to rural seniors. This relationship will not be compromised under this bill. Medicare must require plans to provide access to ``bricks and mortar'' pharmacies. Seniors who choose to receive their drugs through the mail will still be able to under this bill. Medicare will work to ensure prescription drug plans provide seniors with the balanced benefits of being able to both consult with their local pharmacist face-to-face and receive their medications directly in their mailbox. H.R. 4680 provides rural seniors with security and affordability: All rural seniors are guaranteed a prescription drug benefit, just like they are guaranteed all other Medicare benefits. All rural seniors will have the security of full catastrophic coverage once their drug bills reach $6,000. Because of the market-based approach, all rural seniors will be provided with negotiated drug coverage savings. ii. medicare+choice The BBA took steps to provide rural America with health care choices. However, these choices have been slow in reaching rural communities. Because the delivery of health care in rural areas tends to be more efficient and wage rates in rural areas are typically lower, the Adjusted Average Per Capita Cost (AAPCC), the measure at which managed care plans are reimbursed under Medicare, for rural counties is less than other counties. As such, rural areas have difficulties in attracting health care competition. In order to alleviate the discrepancy in AAPCC payments, the BBA: (1) established a national floor payment, and (2) changed the formula used to calculate the AAPCC to a blended rate of 50% local cost and 50% national average. Unfortunately, annual Medicare updates have not provided enough funding to fully fund the blend. H.R. 4680 addresses these problems by: (1) raising the national floor payment to $450; (2) eliminating the budget neutrality factor to fund the blend; and (3) allows plans below the national average to negotiate for a higher AAPCC. H.R. 4680 takes a good step in the right direction towards stimulating health care competition in rural America.