John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), described very clearly what the fundamental difference is between these two budgets. The Republican budget, after we set aside every single penny of the Social Security surplus, and after we set aside $40 billion for medical care reforms and prescription drug coverage, and after we pay down $1 trillion in debt over 5 years, and after we fund critical needs and defense, $2 billion more for the unfunded mandate of special education costs, after we invest in veterans' health care, only then do we recognize the importance of letting Americans keep a little bit more of their own money. The Blue Dog budget just does not understand this. It is a minuscule tax cut over 5 years. Let us look at the difference, the difference in values here. This is the tax relief in the Republican budget and the marriage penalty. Now, we could pay down a little bit more debt if we wanted to keep penalizing married couples simply because they chose to get married, but that would be wrong. Repeal the Social Security earnings limit. We could pay down a little bit more debt if we wanted to keep punishing those seniors that want to be a productive part of the workforce, but that would be terribly wrong. We could keep taxing family farms and small businesses, send them to the IRS and the undertaker on the same day, but that would be wrong. We could decide not to give individuals health insurance deductibilities just like we give to big corporations, but that would be wrong. Sure, we could pay down a little bit more debt in addition to the trillion dollars in debt over 5 years, but that would be wrong. We fundamentally recognize that what we need to do is not just reduce the tax burden on citizens in this country, which is at an all-time high, but we need to make the Tax Code more fair through health insurance deductibility, eliminating the death tax, repealing the earnings limit, and expanding the opportunity to invest in IRAs and education savings accounts. The Republican proposal does just that. Reject this amendment that does not treat the American taxpayer fairly and support the Republican resolution.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. This is a budget proposal that highlights the vision and the priorities of the conservative Members of the House. It establishes a clear benchmark for fiscal responsibility, for commitment to our national security, and for lowering the tax burden on the American people. We pay down over a trillion dollars in Federal debt over the next 5 years. We offer tax relief for all Americans that makes our Tax Code more fair. We have a commitment to a strong defense that meets the priorities that have been outlined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we do not just set aside funds for Medicare or talk about Social Security. We make a commitment to real reform of these programs, to strengthen them, not just for today's beneficiaries, but for future retirees and our children as well. We set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, and this is an idea that while it seems somewhat new was first offered in the conservative budget 2 years ago. But we go further than that. We endorse proposals to let employees control a portion of their own payroll taxes, empower the individual to invest in their own retirement security, and give them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that that savings will be there for them when they retire. We invest in priorities. As I mentioned, national defense, which over 15 years has been allowed to decay year on year. We saw our first real increase in defense spending last year. This budget increases our defense priorities up to a higher level than any other budget offered in this session. We make a commitment to veterans' health care, $1 billion above last year's spending. And we make a greater commitment to special education, the largest unfunded mandate on the books today, than any other budget that has been offered before us today, over $2.4 billion in immediate additional funding for special education, and make clear that this is our number one education priority to fully fund the special education mandate. And once we fund these priorities, once we set aside the entire Social Security surplus, once we set aside funds to honestly reform and strengthen Medicare and provide prescription drug coverage, then we reduce taxes in a way that makes the Tax Code more fair for every American. We eliminate the marriage penalty entirely. We eliminate death taxes entirely, not because we are concerned about one income group or another but because we recognize that it is unfair to take 55 percent of what anyone in America wants to leave to their descendants whether they are rich or poor or otherwise. We eliminate not just the Social Security earnings limit, but we repeal the 1993 increase on the taxes on Social Security beneficiaries. We expand IRA savings opportunities, educational savings opportunities, and cut the gasoline tax, the tax increase imposed as part of the biggest tax increase in this country's history that raised the price of gasoline at the pump. We roll back that tax as well. Mr. Chairman, this is a budget that is committed not just to fiscal responsibility and lower taxes, not just to a real commitment to national defense; but it is committed to reform, reforming and strengthening Social Security and Medicare in a way that we recognize needs to be done on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of Members that are going to talk about the defense provisions, the increase for funding of defense that is in this bill, the billion additional dollars for veterans' health care that is in this bill, and the fact that it represents $187 billion in real increases, in investment in the men and women serving in our armed services over 5 years. That is an unprecedented investment as compared to any of the budgets on this floor, whether it is yours or any other budget. So I think that the commitment is there, it is delineated clearly in the resolution, and it is a substantial increase. And it is based on the recommendations of President Clinton's own Joint Chiefs that pointed out that there is an enormous unfunded mandate in operations and maintenance and in materiel and in procurement. That is where we are focused, on the technology and the resources necessary to provide adequate defense when we are deploying more military than ever before. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) who understands probably better than anyone else in Congress the scope and the nature of the unmet needs of our men and women serving in the armed forces.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for his supportive words about many elements in our budget, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), who understands that only in Washington and only in a Democrat budget is repealing taxes on Social Security beneficiaries called spending.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to emphasize that only in Washington do people fail to realize that improving performance by 1, 2 or 3 percent per year is not just realistic, but it is expected, year after year after year. Those that say it is unrealistic to achieve any reduction at all in overall government spending are the same ones that said we could not balance the budget in 1994, the same ones that said we could not pass welfare reform in 1996, the same ones that said it was unrealistic and unattainable to set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. They have been proved wrong time and again. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), who understands leaving spending on autopilot and taxing at a higher level than ever in the history of our country is no way to run the Federal Government.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about where we really were a year ago and who was making statements about setting aside the surplus, setting aside 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. It cannot possibly be more clear. The President's budget, which we had a vote on on this very House floor, only received two votes because he was spending 38 percent of the Social Security surplus. And it was the Republican budget that, for the first time ever set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. This year we are going to do it again for a historic third year in a row, set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, create a reserve fund for Medicare, not just prescription drug coverage, but honest reforms, as well. We are going to retire a historic level of the public debt, a trillion dollars over 5 years; promote a much fairer Tax Code; and make essential investments in defense, in veterans' health care, and in education. But the previous speaker spoke a little bit about retiring debt, and they are talking about this budget being reckless. Well, let us take a look and see how reckless this budget is and how reckless Republican budgets of the past several years have been, paying down over $50 billion in debt 2 years ago, 1998; in 1999, paying down over $80 billion of the public debt. Fiscal Year 2000, we are in the midst of it, we will pay down over $160 billion in debt. And in the budget we have brought to the floor here today, we are paying down over $170 billion in debt. $450 billion in debt retirement. And this is what the other side would term ``reckless''? I do not think this is reckless. This is historic. This is an unprecedented commitment to paying down debt. A trillion dollars in debt relief over 5 years in this very budget. This is reckless? I do not think this is reckless. This is an historic commitment to reducing public debt. And that means lower interest rates for every American on home mortgages and car loans and student loans. One to two percent lower interest rates on $100,000 home mortgage is $10,000 or $20,000 over a 20-year mortgage, $30,000 over a 30-year mortgage, money that never has to get sent to Washington, that the electorate never has to ask for us to return it back to them because we are in a charitable mood. Lowering interest rates, tens of thousands of dollars of savings for average American families. I do not think this is reckless at all. I think, instead, it is reckless to oppose tax fairness as the Democrat proposal has done; to oppose eliminating the marriage penalty; to oppose giving individuals health insurance deductibilities so that they can have a fair playing field with large corporations, that is reckless; to oppose repealing the Social Security earnings limit; to oppose expanding opportunities for retirement savings or education savings. That is reckless when we want to trap a family into leaving their child in a family school. This is a budget of responsibility. It sets the right tone on debt retirement and it strengthens our country.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have before us a conservative budget that sets the right priorities, represents a vision of a good number, a very large portion of the Members of this House. It starts by setting aside every single penny of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, a vision that was criticized when it was first offered 2 years ago in a conservative budget. It pays down $1 trillion in debt over 5 years. That is four times more than this budget contains in tax relief. It strengthens the national defense, and it provides support for real bipartisan reform of both Social Security and Medicare. Finally, it offers unprecedented support for paying for the unfunded mandate of special education that burdens cities and towns at the local level all over this country; unprecedented, meant to fully fund that special education mandate. After we have done all of these things, after we have paid down $1 trillion in debt, set aside for Social Security and done real reform on Medicare and Social Security, then we do cut taxes. We could pay down more in debt if we decided not to lift the tax increase on Social Security beneficiaries. Sure, we could pay down a little more debt if we did that; but if we did that, it would be wrong. We could pay down a little bit more debt if we did not think we should eliminate the marriage penalty, but penalizing a couple simply because they choose to get married is wrong. In the Democrat budget and in the Blue Dog budget, there was no real effort to deal with that serious problem. We could pay down a little bit more debt if we decided that individuals should not get to deduct their health insurance costs, like big businesses can. The final question I ask my colleagues is what hoops do the American people have to jump through to get a Tax Code that treats them a little bit more fair. I think we should support this resolution, and we should reject the notion that the American people cannot deal with their own money.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) would yield, I would say that while I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I cannot say I was here at the beginning of this process because, as he pointed out, it really began in 1995 with the change in majority control of this body. I think more than any other issue, Democrats lost control of Congress and Republicans took control of Congress on the fundamental commitment to change the way we look at this country's finances, to balance the Federal budget, to balance it in 7 years and to do it while cutting taxes. Critics at the time, the other side of the aisle at the time, said that is simply impossible; it cannot be done; it is a political gimmick; this is just a bunch of rhetoric. The Republican majority demonstrated over the next 2 years that they were serious, they were committed to this goal no matter how difficult at times some of the choices may have appeared. They put forward a balanced budget. They put forward a balanced budget that even included tax relief. The President vetoed that program but the American people spoke loud and clear over the ensuring 2 years, resoundingly supporting the goal of balancing the budget and in 1996 we had a Democrat President agree with a Republican-controlled Congress that we should and could balance the budget, and we should and could do it while cutting taxes. That was really the beginning of an enormous change in the way this country does its books. We passed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997 and we saw the first unified balanced budget in 1998, and even then the critics said, well, yes the budget has been balanced but Social Security is still being borrowed from. And it was last year that, again, the Republicans lead on this issue by stating clearly and unequivocally we are going to balance the budget without using Social Security. And, again, the President said it cannot be done. And here is an outline of exactly where the President was just 1 year ago; here is his budget. It sets aside 62 percent of the Social Security surplus, spent almost 40 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. The Republican budget, by contrast, said, no, Mr. President, that is wrong. We should set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. And in point of fact, there was another important turning point when, again, last year in the budget debate the President quite literally changed his mind. He agreed with the Republican Congress that we could and should set aside every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and that lead to really another historic achievement, the Republican-lead Congress passing legislation that balanced the budget without using Social Security for the first time in 40 years. Even during the budget debate last year, though, the critics still said no, it cannot be done. It will not happen. They said we were using certain projections; we were using estimates. The simple fact is, of course, we were and we are. We are putting together a budget that is trying to look forward 5 years. We are making estimates about revenue growth, estimates about how we will spend on Medicare and Social Security. We are trying to make the best possible projections. We have estimated less than 3 percent economic growth. I think that is realistic. Obviously, only time will tell. If we continue on the path that we began, first in 1995, and again with this historic achievement last year, then the economy will be better, the American people will be better off, and better off for a few fundamental reasons. My colleague from Georgia pointed out that we have begun not just balancing the budget without Social Security, we actually have begun paying down debt. This graph gives a very clear picture of how that process started, when it started, and where we are today. In 1998, paying back over $50 billion in the public debt; 1999, over $80 billion; and this current fiscal year, 2000, we will top $150 billion in debt repayment. Finally, with the budget we are working on now, we will take the 4-year total and a reduction in the public debt to over $450 billion. This is what those on the other side of the aisle might call fiscally irresponsible, but I think it is not just a step in the right direction, it is the fundamentally correct fiscal policy for the country at this particular time. Because by paying down this debt, we are doing an enormous favor to working families all across the country. We are helping to keep interest rates low. When interest rates are lower, the cost of a home mortgage is lower, the cost of a college loan or automobile loan is lower, working capital loan for a small business, all of those costs are lower. Over the life of a $100,000 home mortgage, that can mean $20,000 or $30,000 to a family, and that is money they do not have to send to Washington and hope that we return to them. It stays in their pocket. They can invest in their family's quality of life, their children's education or health care, or save it for a rainy day. So we have begun the process of paying down debt. And with this Republican budget that we will be debating on the floor tomorrow, it will pay down over $170 billion in debt. Now, we could cut spending further and pay down a little bit more in debt, but that is, obviously, a difficult task, to a certain extent, when we have such a sharply divided House of Representatives. We could decide not to return any money to working families and try to pay down a little more debt, but at the same time, I think it is important that we remember where that money came from. Moreover, I think we should pass tax relief, not because of a particular number, whether it is $4 billion or $8 billion or $10 billion, we should pass tax relief because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to eliminate the marriage penalty so a couple does not have to pay more in taxes just because they choose to get married. It is the right thing to give individuals health insurance deductibility. And my colleagues will talk a little more about the tax relief provisions dealing with education or retirement security, getting rid of the Social Security earnings limit. It is not a question of whether or not we have the exact right-on budget surplus, or some technical lingo to justify giving American taxpayers back their own money, it is a question of whether or not it is the right thing to do. And I fundamentally believe it is. Who would have believed back in 1995 that we would be paying down this much debt? Who would have believed back in 1995 that we would have set in motion a path not just to continue to retire debt but to pay off the entire national debt in 2013? Over the next 5 years, we are going to pay off over a trillion dollars in public debt, and, again, pay off the entire $3.6 trillion public debt by 2013. Now, someone could say, well, how do we know it will be 2013? Granted, this is a projection based on the budget we are putting together that looks forward 5 years, but it is realistic. It is based on an average level of economic growth that we have seen over the past 5 or 10 years. It is based on the spending projections that we have tried to put together over the next 5 years that invest in things like the national security, increase funding for Veterans health care and the National Institutes of Health as well. I think it is realistic, but whether or not we pay off the debt by 2013 or 2012 or 2015, I think what is most important is that we have the public debt being reduced. It is headed in the right direction. I view it like a home mortgage. You certainly do not try to pay off your home mortgage in one fell swoop simply because you might have a Christmas bonus or get a raise at work, but what you do is make every effort to achieve a constant payment against that home mortgage so you are reducing the size of the mortgage, increasing the equity and the home that you might own and, obviously, keeping your fiscal house in order so that your family, your children, might feel more and more secure at home. I think that is fiscally responsible. This is something we are able to achieve with historic tax relief in this budget. I think it is something that we can be proud of, which is exactly why this budget will pass this House and pass the Senate and set us on the right path for the fiscal year. I would like to yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, in 1998, when we balanced the unified budget for the first time, we paid off over $50 billion in debt. In 1999, we took that to over $80 billion in debt retirement. This year, fiscal year 2000, over $150 billion. The 4-year total, including the budget we are going to be debating on the Floor here tomorrow, is over $450 billion in debt relief. The budget that we will have on the floor, which covers the years 2001 through 2005, will have over $1 trillion in debt relief, even taking into consideration the $40 billion that we have set aside for Medicare reforms and prescription drug coverage, even taking into consideration the elimination of the marriage penalty, the health insurance deductibility for individuals, the small business tax relief package that has already passed this House. Taking into consideration all of those measures, we are going to pay down over a trillion dollars in debt in the next 5 years.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making clear that no matter how strongly we feel about issues of substantive disagreement whether it is tax increases or tax relief or spending or cutting spending, I do not think that the rhetoric, the language using the words like ``stupid'' or ``silly'' to characterize the behavior of other Members is ever appropriate to use on this House floor, whether you are a senior ranking member of a committee or whether you are a new Member of Congress like the principal sponsor of this legislation. I do not think I have heard so much hot air released at once since the Hindenburg went down. I would like to get back to the substance, to the process that brought us here in the first place. At the beginning of this year, President Clinton in good faith brought forth a budget proposal. He said we are going to set aside 60 percent of the Social Security surplus and we are going to spend 40 percent. And he laid out his priorities in that budget and he said, ``We're going to increase taxes.'' His tax increase was approximately $240 billion over 10 years. It was a detailed budget, as the President submits every year to Congress. The Republican Congress said, ``That's not right.'' And we put together a budget proposal that members of the minority did not support and that is their prerogative, but it was a budget proposal that said for the first time in 40 years we are going to set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus and we are going to do it while cutting taxes. And again the minority disagreed with that proposal, and the gentleman from Washington tried to describe some of the reasons they were against tax relief. Well, that is fine, too. But we advanced that tax relief proposal, to eliminate the marriage penalty, eliminate death taxes, give full health insurance deductibility for those that are buying health insurance and are self-employed, increase access to health insurance and the President vetoed that bill, as is his prerogative. But now we are at the end of the budget process and Republicans are holding firm to their commitment not to spend Social Security. We did it last year. We balanced the budget for the first time in 40 years without using Social Security. We can and we must do it again this year. That causes heartburn for a lot of members of the minority, feeling the pressure of having to control spending. We have talked about reducing spending across the board by 1 percent, allowing agency heads and department heads to root out waste and abuse, just 1 percent, one penny on every dollar, in order to balance the budget in 2000 without using Social Security. I believe we can do that. And the administration has indicated that they want to balance the budget without using Social Security, too. So we might have some common ground here. We will work with the administration to fund priorities if they can reduce spending elsewhere in the budget. But what about taxes? The administration has waffled on tax increases. The President seems to have backed off his proposal to raise taxes by $240 billion over 10 years. We had a vote, a legislative vote in this House last week where his tax proposals received zero votes. I think that was an important statement for the House to make. But today we can go on record as saying no tax increases for new government spending, no spending the Social Security trust fund, no tax increases. It is a simple, clear message to the American people. We have been firm in our commitment as the majority party to protect Social Security since the very beginning of this budget process. With the passage of this resolution and the continued statement on a bipartisan basis from all Members of the House that we should not be increasing taxes, I think the fiscal responsibility this year and next year will continue to result in a growing economy and a better quality of life for hard- working Americans.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1615, the Lamprey Wild and Scenic River Extension Act. This legislation seeks to fulfill the original intent of the 1996 Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act by incorporating a 12-mile river segment that runs through the Town of Epping, New Hampshire, under the Lamprey River's existing Wild and Scenic designation. H.R. 1615 helps to put the finishing touch on a 29- year effort to protect the Lamprey as a valuable and historic natural resource. The Lamprey is located in the southeast region of our State and continues to be among New Hampshire's important tributaries. As one of only two rivers to achieve Wild and Scenic status, it spans 60 miles and flows through six communities before emptying into the Seacoast Great Bay Estuarine Reserve. Over 300 species of plants and 150 species of birds inhabit its river banks as well as its neighboring marshes and forests, providing a diverse and scenic landscape. The Lamprey is also host to a large quantity of anadromous fish throughout the Great Bay watershed, which include Atlantic salmon, American shad, herring and sea Lamprey as well. Apart from its impressive ecology, the Lamprey has long been a popular recreational resource for swimming, fishing, hiking and cross- country skiing. The watershed region also houses several historically significant sites including the Wiswall Dam, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Realizing the importance of the Lamprey as both a natural and economic resource, several organizations and local entities have collaborated in efforts to ensure its stability and long-term preservation. For years, the towns of Durham, Epping, Lee and Newmarket have worked with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to ensure the safekeeping and quality of the Lamprey River. They have been joined by the Lamprey River Advisory Committee, the Stafford Regional Planning Commission and New Hampshire Fish and Game as well to ensure common-sense, local approaches to conservation. The coalition's hard work has led to State efforts to safeguard the river under the New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Program, and ultimately the 1996 Wild and Scenic River designation of the 11.5 mile portion of the Lamprey in Durham, Lee and Newmarket. Most notably, the Lamprey River Advisory Committee, whose members are nominated by each town in the area and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, has made significant strides in preserving and protecting the integrity of the Lamprey by implementing this river management plan. Two years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting with the members of the committee, touring the river's many scenic areas and historic sites and surveying some of the projects upon which the organization has focused its efforts. Although the National Park Service determined in 1995 that Epping's portion of the Lamprey met the criteria of eligibility for the Wild and Scenic designation, the town opted to wait until the initiative received broad based local support through a town meeting and vote. Last March, with the backing of the Board of Selectmen and the local conservation commission, the citizens of Epping voted by a large margin in support of the expanded Wild and Scenic River designation. At their request, I have introduced H.R. 1615 to enable this community of over 5,000 to build upon the success of the original Lamprey designation and to ensure the continued integrity of this important historic tributary. Again, I want to thank the members of the committee for their support in moving this legislation forward. I urge the passage of H.R. 1615.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution is about priorities. It is a broad blueprint of our spending priorities for the next year and the next 5 years. In fact, this particular resolution sets the tone for the next century. It will be the first budget blueprint for the next millennium. Our priorities are clear. First and foremost, we set aside all of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, the first time in our country's history that we will do that, making good on the commitment to take Social Security off budget. Second, we keep to the spending commitments of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, a bipartisan agreement, to control the size and scope of the Federal Government, keeping to our commitments not just to our constituents, but to the entire country. Finally, we state that, for those surpluses above the Social Security surplus, we ought to give that money back to American workers that are working harder, longer, earning more, being more productive. That is the biggest reason we have such a high level of revenues right now. The product of that hard work ought to go back to working Americans. Those are the right priorities for this country: strengthening Social Security, keeping to our spending commitments, and lowering taxes. The President's budget, instead, would spend 38 percent of the Social Security surplus. It breaks the budget caps. It raises taxes $100 billion. That is the wrong direction, as made so clear when we voted on this floor on the President's budget. He received only 2 votes for his spending priorities. These are the right priorities. It sets aside more for Social Security, pays down more debt, and does more to strengthen this country's economy.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that is debated on the floor of the House and in the other body, as well, represents a blueprint, a broad outline of our vision and priorities for the future. And as this is the first budget resolution of the 21st century, it ought to reflect our economic priorities as we move into the next century as well. Putting together that blueprint at the Committee on the Budget level, we asked some basic questions. First, what do we do about Social Security, one of the most important issues we will face this year? And as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has clearly described, we said, let us end the raid on the trust fund; let us set aside the entire Social Security surplus, 100 percent, exclusively to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. In contrast to the President's budget that only set aside 62 percent of that surplus, and he spent the other 38 percent. Then we asked the question: What do we do about spending and the growth of the Federal Government? And the answer to that question was: Let us respect the 1997 budget agreement, a bipartisan agreement that controls the rate of growth of government spending. It was put together through lengthy negotiations in 1997 and sets a limit on how large and broad the scope of the Federal Government should be. Third, we said: Well, what about taxes? And this is an important question, because today taxes are at an all-time high; 20.5 percent of our Nation's economy is being consumed by taxes at the Federal level. And we said once we have set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, if we have revenues higher than that we ought to give those back to the American people, because there are more of them working today than ever before. They are more productive, they are earning more, and they are paying more in taxes than they ever have before. Mr. Speaker, we set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, not 62 percent, as the President suggested. We adhere to the 1997 budget agreement instead of breaking it, as the President's budget does; and we provide for tax relief once we set aside the Social Security surplus, instead of raising taxes by $100 billion. It has been stated very clearly from the other side of the aisle when we make these comparisons between our budget resolution and the President's budget resolution: But we are not defending the President's budget. Do not force us to defend the President's budget. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is the leader of his party, the leader of the strongest Nation on Earth, and we cannot find a single Member from the other side to defend his budget blueprint, the blueprint that should set the economic priorities for the future of this country, that should set the economic priorities for the first year of the next century, and we cannot find anyone that is willing to defend that budget. We should support the principles that gave us the first balanced budget in 30 years, that strengthened Medicare, extended its solvency for another 10 years, and that gave the first tax relief in 16 years. Support the Republican principles that are embodied in this budget. Support this rule and let us move forward to economic prosperity.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating the budget. In putting together a budget blueprint, it is important to remember that the Federal budget is an outline of priorities. It is not a detailed specification of every single appropriation bill that we are going to pass over the next year. The Federal budget is $1.7 trillion. The budget blueprint is intended to talk about what our priorities are as a Congress for the next year. In trying to establish those priorities, the Committee on the Budget tried to answer three questions. First and foremost, what about Social Security and Medicare? Those on the other side have talked about these important issues; and we came back with the answer first we should set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, every penny of that trust fund surplus, to strengthen and protect Social Security and Medicare. As the debate goes on today, we will see time and again that we set aside more to preserve Social Security and Medicare than the President in his budget. We set aside every penny of the surplus for Social Security, not 60 percent as the administration suggested, because it is the right thing to do. Second, we wanted to set priorities about the size and scope of the Federal Government. And we thought it was appropriate that we keep to the commitments of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, a bipartisan agreement that set some control on the growth and scope of the Federal Government. Keeping those commitments again is an important part of the integrity of this budget resolution. And third, what about tax relief? Right now taxes in this country are at a peacetime high. They have not been this high since 1944. And we thought it appropriate that, after we set aside 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, we ought to give back the additional surpluses to the American workers in the form of lower taxes. This is about priorities, our priority of saving 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, against the administration's priority, if we can call it that, of only setting aside 60 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. Our commitment and priority to keep to the promises we made as part of the 1997 budget agreement. The administration's budget breaks those caps by $30 billion. Our commitment to lower taxes once we have ensured that we protect the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. The administration's commitment to raise taxes by $100 billion. That is the wrong direction for this country. In the end, this budget resolution pays down more debt, does more to protect Social Security and Medicare, and provides fair and honest tax relief. That is a set of priorities we can be proud of. It is a set of priorities that makes sense for the country. And that is why I am proud to support the budget resolution.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the constitutional principle that every American is guaranteed equal protection under the laws of the United States. As our Nation's chief executive, the President is charged to defend the Constitution and ensure a legal system that is untainted by perjury, by obstruction, and by witness tampering. These are crimes against the state and they strike at the heart of our judicial system and undermine its essential integrity. To defer accountability for these actions would be to hold the single individual above the law and outside the boundaries of our judicial system. Some Members who wish to avoid casting a vote on impeachment remind us that the President would still be subject to criminal prosecution and they have included this reference in a meaningless censure resolution. But this raises the troubling question, how can an individual that has committed an act that warrants a prison term be fit to serve as president? Others have argued that we should compromise principles in this case. But I say, if we cannot stand on principle in matters of truthful testimony, when will we ever stand on principle? In his actions, the President has undermined his oath of office and undermined the rule of law. I will support the articles of impeachment. I rise today before my colleagues, mindful of the difficult task before us and the strong emotions that mark the differences in opinion regarding the grave and solemn matter of Impeachment. Two hundred and twenty-two years ago our country was founded upon the fundamental principle that ``all men are created equal,'' and, therefore, that no individual is above the law. In applying our Nation's laws equally to all citizens, the integrity of the judicial system is protected by the requirement that all witnesses swear an oath to testify truthfully and fully before the Court. As our Nation's chief executive, the President is charged to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,'' the document which establishes this framework of justice for all. He carries a unique responsibility to protect the preeminent rights granted by our Constitution including the guarantee to a fair trial before a jury of one's peers and a legal system untainted by the corrupting influences of perjury, obstruction, or witness tampering. These very crimes, of which President William Jefferson Clinton now stands accused, strike at the heart of our judicial system and undermine its essential integrity. Against these allegations and during the past eleven months, the President has been given every opportunity to deal fairly and honestly with the American people and with the Courts of the United States. In public statements, in a sworn deposition, in grand jury testimony, and in written responses to the House Judiciary Committee, he has been called upon to provide a full and truthful account of facts pertaining to charges of obstruction of justice, tampering with grand jury witnesses, and perjury. He has failed at every turn. Instead, the President has lied to the American people, lied to the Federal Court, and lied to a grand jury about key material facts. Moreover, the President has offered no information or testimony contradicting the evidence of these crimes outlined in the Independent Counsel's Impeachment Referral and Judiciary Committee Report. And so we have before us, the matter of the Impeachment of our President. The constitutional standard for impeachment of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is a broad one by design. In the Federalist Papers, it is described in greatest detail by Alexander Hamilton, writing that ``The subject of [impeachments] jurisdictions are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Protecting the integrity of government and ensuring accountability of public officials were of paramount concern. Given the breadth and weight of documented evidence against the President on the substantive issues before the House, I am compelled to vote in favor of the Articles of Impeachment presented here today. The evidence documented in the Impeachment Referral and Judiciary Committee Report describes an extensive pattern of behavior designed to obstruct justice and mislead federal prosecutors. The President has displayed particular contempt for our legal system and the American people in several specific areas: In his deposition and testimony in the case of Jones v. Clinton, the President demonstrated a contempt for the judicial system by committing perjury and allowing a false affidavit to be entered into the court record. In his testimony before a federal grand jury, the President committed perjury. With full knowledge that subpoenas for physical evidence had been issued, the President participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice by encouraging witnesses to hide evidence. After he knowingly provide false testimony before the court, and identified Ms. Betty Currie as a corroborating witness, the President attempted to intimidate her into providing false testimony. The President repeatedly and unequivocally lied to the American People about matters under investigation by the Office of the Independent Counsel. These acts are not merely technical violations of Federal Law; they demonstrate a broad and consistent pattern of behavior designed to corrupt our system of due process. To withhold or delay swift and appropriate action would be to hold a single individual above the law; and, herein lies the tragic precedent which a vote against impeachment creates. A vote against impeachment holds a single individual to a unique standard, above all other citizens, and outside the boundaries of our judicial system. Some members who wish to avoid casting a vote for impeachment remind us that the President will still remain subject to criminal indictment. In fact, they have included reference to such prosecution in a meaningless ``censure'' resolution offered before the Judiciary Committee. This serves only to raise the troubling question: How can an individual who has committed a crime that may warrant a prison term be fit to continue to serve as President? To allow a public official to commit a series of felonies with impunity would constitute a violation of my own oath as a Member of Congress to uphold the Constitution. Moreover, it would send a clear and unacceptable message that each individual is entitled to their own personal interpretation of when it is acceptable to lie under oath and whether obstruction of justice or intimidating witnesses is appropriate behavior. Some have also made a dangerous argument that principles should be compromised in this case due to the nature of the underlying subject matter. But, if we cannot stand behind principle on matters of truthful testimony before our Courts, then when will we ever stand behind principle? As was stated so eloquently earlier today: the integrity of our democracy is ensured when even the most powerful public officials tremble before the law. And if we choose to establish a new standard that defers accountability for felonies committed to avoid personal embarrassment, then those who argue against impeachment should come forward with a list of all topics and circumstances under which America's elected Chief Executive may corrupt the judicial process, obstruct justice, and intimidate grand jury witnesses. The seven months of delay caused by the President's obstruction, and three months of Committee hearings have been difficult and unpleasant for every American. Creating a vague list of Presidential exceptions for perjury or obstruction of justice, however, may doom us to repeat this unsettling period in our Nation's history should future Presidents use President Clinton's unlawful actions to justify their own. Finally, what are the consequences for 270 million Americans who are still expected to respect the principles of due process and truthfulness under oath? No censure resolution or public criticism of the President can ever justify the fact that he would remain in office after committing acts for which other Americans would be subject to immediate prosecution--and for which over 100 Americans are currently imprisoned. In fact, many of the federal judges who have been impeached were removed from office specifically for committing perjury. What remains of the Constitution's delicate system of checks and balances when we decide to hold the executive branch to a different standard than the judicial branch? Given that the President has offered no contradiction of the facts presented within the Independent Counsel's Impeachment Referral and the Judicial Committee Report, it is fair to conclude that each of their allegations are true. The weight of the evidence supports the finding that the President of the United States committed not one, but a series of felonies, in an attempt to conceal evidence and information from federal investigators. The President has undermined the judicial process, shown contempt for judges and officers of the court, and failed egregiously to uphold his oath of office. The President should be impeached. Those who will vote to exonerate a President who has shown such contempt for our judicial system either discard the evidentiary record, or willingly betray their own oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. With all due respect to the gentleman from California, Mr. Speaker, that did not make much sense to me at all. While it is true that the Park Service could grant a waiver such that the town could begin work on the cemetery today, the requirement to replace that land remains. There would be still a full requirement to transfer ownership of two acres of land to the town. The town has worked over the last 2 years to identify a parcel of land appropriate for such transfer. They happen to be leasing two acres of land from the Coast Guard as we speak that is a very appropriate parcel for them to take ownership of. They wanted to work through the status quo and say, because we lease the land, because we maintain the land, because it is used for parks and recreation, would that fit our obligation under Land and Water Conservation Fund. And the government's response, after 7 months, was: ``No, you have to take ownership of the land.'' In and of itself, I think that represents the concerns of the town for the delays that might be inherent in the process. And anything we can do to move it along is appropriate for the town. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.