John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the members of the Committee on the Budget, the conferees, for putting together what I think is a very strong budget proposal, the most realistic and certainly the most enforceable budget resolution that we have had come through this body since I have been a Member of Congress. It does not include everything that every Member of the House would like to see in a budget resolution, but I think it reflects real balance and a real sense of priorities. We will balance the budget with this resolution for the fourth year in a row. That is a historic achievement in and of itself. And we are doing it without using any of the Social Security surplus. Members on the minority side can find fault with just about any document that comes to the floor, but let us step back and at least recognize that we are doing the right thing for the American people by balancing the budget, by setting aside funds for Social Security, and by paying down debt. Balancing the budget for 4 consecutive years, that is something this House should be very proud of. We control the growth in government spending. We increase discretionary spending by about 4 percent. There are many that would like to see government explode, 8, 10, 12 percent growth in spending. That is not sustainable. It would be nice to be able to fund every program, to double the funding for every program we have at the Federal level, and go home and tell the American people we are spending money on good deeds; but the fact is that is not sustainable. It is not fiscally responsible and this body has refused to do it. Four percent growth, that is about what the average household budget will grow this year. We have cut taxes. It is a compromise. The President proposed a $1.6 trillion tax cut. We have compromised at a little bit more than $1.3 trillion. It is realistic to expect that after we have increased the size of government, after we have set aside for Social Security and balanced the budget, after we have funded important priorities, we give what is left over back to the American taxpayer that sent it here in the first place. We have balanced the budget, controlled the growth in government spending, cut taxes to make the Tax Code more fair, and we have funded the right priorities: an 11 percent increase for education; more funding for men and women in uniform; increased funding for basic scientific research. This reflects a compromise, sure, but it also reflects a budget that we should all be proud of that sets the right priorities for the country and continues the process of retiring debt and keeping our economy strong. If one wants to explode the size of government, this is not for them. If one is opposed to tax relief, this resolution is not for them. But if one wants to set the right priorities, lower taxes and keep our country going in the right direction, I ask my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and recognize our guest Chaplain, His Eminence Archbishop Michael of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. As the Archbishop of Cleveland, His Eminence helps to oversee administration of the Metropolia and is widely recognized in the Orthodox community, both here in the United States and abroad, for the rapid growth of his church. He is also one of the youngest Archbishops in the country, a reflection of His Eminence's vision, energy and leadership skills. He is a gifted writer and works closely with His Beatitude, Metropolitan Stephan, on several health care initiatives for the indigent, both here and abroad. At a time when the messages of religious tolerance and religious liberty are more important than ever, we are pleased to hear the words of a spiritual leader whose faith and church have overcome great adversity in the 20th Century to establish a foundation of strength today. We welcome Archbishop Michael and wish him continued success.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, we are collecting almost 21 percent in taxes.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina indicated that the Federal spending is 18.3 percent of GNP today.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where to begin. First and foremost, it is interesting to sit in the Chamber today, to sit in the Chamber today and hear so much happiness and joy over something that has been done in the other body. I do not think I have heard this much excitement about legislation in the other body since I have been a Member of Congress, though admittedly, that has been for only two terms. There has been a lot of discussion about education. Education is important. The chairman of our committee just talked about the instruction here to provide the maximum feasible amount for education. I am all for good and I am opposed to evil; and I think it is nice that we have a motion to recommit conferees that says, let us provide more money for good things. They did not actually write in ``less money for bad things,'' but they might as well have. But the fact of the matter is, if we go through what we passed on the floor here, what came out of our Committee on the Budget, I think we do have a very strong budget resolution. That is one of the reasons, for anyone listening to this debate, that we see so many numbers being thrown around: $1 billion here, $1 trillion of this, $10 billion here, 5 percent, 18 percent. Because when we are not really able to argue about good policy reform and good legislation, we try to blind people with numbers. I make that comment as a former engineer who maybe tried once or twice to do the same, but I do not think it is appropriate for the floor of the House. Let me talk a little bit about what is in the budget resolution that came out of committee. First, overall, we increase the size of the government by about 4 percent, increase discretionary spending 4 percent. I think most Americans looking at this blueprint would say well, we are going to increase our household budget by about the level of inflation. We are not going to live beyond our means. There is no reason whatsoever that this Congress or any Congress should force Americans to live beyond their means, should collect more in taxes than we need, or should spend at 6 or 8 or 12 percent increases per year, because everyone here knows that is the quickest way to drive us into deficit. A 4 percent increase in government, I certainly understand for a lot of people in this Chamber that is not enough government. Increasing spending 4 percent is not nearly enough government for some people here. But I think for most Americans to have the government grow by 4 percent or 5 percent would be plenty. What do we do on the debt? We pay down $2 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. Everyone wants to see us retire public debt. We are paying it down at a record level. We have not heard much discussion about debt repayment in the debate tonight, and that is because the focus is on more spending. We are not going to be able to pay down $2 trillion in debt if we just start allowing the budget resolution to spend more and more and more. We heard a discussion about education. We are increasing funding for education by 11 percent, as the chairman described, 10 percent for K through 12, tripling funding for literacy. We have committed in the House budget resolution to a record increase in special education funds, which is the largest unfunded Federal mandate that I know of on the books. But for some on the other side, it is never enough. It is all about resources, resources, resources. How many times did we hear that word tonight in talking about education? It is about resources, resources, resources. If money was the answer to improving education, then we could go to those school districts in the country that were spending the most on education, some of them perhaps here in Washington, DC., some perhaps in New York City, and there we should find the best schools in the country; and we do not, because it is not all about resources. It is about how we deliver the education, it is about how we structure the competition, it is about the needs of the student and whether or not they are being met at the local level. So much discussion has been held about resources; but there has been no discussion about reform tonight, no discussion about accountability and standards and all of the keystones that are in the President's reform bill, and certainly no discussion about the importance of giving those students in the failing schools in this country, so many of them in economically depressed areas of America, give those students a chance to get out of those failing schools, give them the economic power of a grant of school choice, and let their parents take them to a school that is safe, that is reliable, and that can deliver their children with the education that they deserve. Education accountability and education choice is something the other side does not want to discuss because, one, it means empowering families to make a real decision; and two, because it means attacking a base, a status quo base that wants no competition in the public schools, no public school choice whatsoever. I think that is outrageous. I think it is outrageous for people, certainly not all the opponents of school choice, but for many of them in the Senate and some here in the House who send their children to the best private schools in the country, to then come and say, well, we certainly do not want someone in a public school to have the power of choice, to take their child out of a failing school and give them an education and a safe setting that they deserve. But we hear about spending. It is all about spending. That brings us to the other portions of this motion to instruct, to provide the cost of coverage for prescription drug benefits, not within the hospitalization trust fund; in other words, to pay for Medicare, but do not pay for Medicare with Medicare taxes. That does not make sense to me. I do not think it makes sense to most Americans. I would love to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. I voted for legislation on the floor last year to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. But we have in the instructions here, if we add a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, we do not take it out of the Medicare Trust Fund. Why would anyone want to do that? I think there is one answer that I can think of. It is because they do not want to cut taxes. It is because they want to increase the size of government. It is because they want to find any excuse not to have to support tax relief. Three years ago, 4 years ago, when I first came to Congress, they said, we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. We enacted balanced budget legislation in 1997. Then they say, well, we cannot support cutting taxes because we have not started paying down the debt. And we started paying off the Federal debt. Then they said, we cannot support any tax cuts until we set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. We did that. Now tonight we are hearing, well, if we set aside the Social Security surplus, let us also set aside the Medicare Trust Fund surplus. We have actually done that in this budget, so now they are trying to find ways to force spending even higher, to drive us back to a point where, for some reason, we are not giving back that tax surplus to Americans. I think that is unfortunate. Some people will look for any opportunity to vote against the tax cut. In the end, that is because there are some for whom this is not nearly enough government, and only by keeping all of the revenues that are coming into Washington in Washington will they have the resources to increase the size and scope of government to an untenable level. I think that is unfortunate. Taxes today are higher than they have been at any point since World War II. Almost 21 percent of our economy is consumed in taxes. We wake up, we are paying energy taxes; we go to work, we are paying gasoline taxes; we make a phone call, we are paying 3 percent in telecommunications taxes that were put in place in 1899 to fund the Spanish-American war; of course, we pay income taxes; we pay Medicare taxes; we pay Social Security taxes. There is very little in our life that is not taxed today, and when we are collecting more in taxes than in our history, and after we have paid for all of the essential operations of government, expanded discretionary spending 4 percent, invested in education and national defense, added $2.8 billion to the National Institutes of Health, if we have money left over, we ought to give it back to the American taxpayer by letting them keep more of what they earn every week. We do not say it nearly enough, but the reason we have record tax collections is because Americans are working more productively and harder and more efficiently, earning more. We ought to send a little bit of that back. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct. It is all about the size of government. It is all about trying to keep it here in Washington. But I say when we take money out of Washington and give it back to families, we are making Washington a little less important and we are making those families and those American workers more important. That is what I came here to do.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question; and it will be a short one.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, what is the justification for collecting so much more in taxes than the Federal Government is spending?

Mr. SUNUNU. I know what the difference is. What is the normal justification for collecting so much more in taxes than we spend in government?

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to distill the facts, to clarify, to try to cut through some of this fog, as the Members from the minority have suggested, and I just want to review where we really are in this budget debate and talk about this alternative and where it falls short. The Republican budget proposal pays down as much debt as we can over the next 10 years. I am not arguing that it pays down too much. I do not think we should spend too much time to talk about whether we should pay down $2.4 trillion or $2.5 trillion. The fact is, we have paid down $600 billion in debt. We will keep paying down debt, and this sets aside funds to do it throughout the 10 years of this budget proposal. Of course, we have tax relief. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) pointed out, we give 25 percent to 28 percent of the surplus back to the taxpayers. I will talk more about that in just a moment. We strengthen funding for education and for national defense. Of course, we set aside funds for Social Security and Medicare. The suggestion was that creating reserve accounts for Medicare or reserve accounts for Social Security was somehow part of a conspiracy or it was risky. I think that is ridiculous. We have never created a reserve account like this in the history of our government. I think it makes common sense. Any one that does a budget at home understands that simple fact. Is the difference between these two budgets about agriculture? I do not think so. We could take a guess at a funding level for agriculture, but I do not think that is good policy. We allow the budget chair to come back and make amends and address agricultural issues as they come out of committee. Is this about defense spending? I do not think so. We make sure that once we have a review from Secretary Rumsfeld we can deal with those needs in an immediate way and treat the men and women in our Armed Services with the equipment and the resources they need. What is the difference and the distinction really about? It is about taxes. Clearly and simple, it is about taxes. We put roughly 28 percent of the surpluses back in the pockets of working men and women across the country. We cut taxes for everyone that pay income taxes. Twenty-eight percent of the surpluses, does this alternative give 28 percent of the surplus back? No. Does it give back 25 percent? No. Does it give back 15 percent of the surplus? No. How about 10 percent? It does not even do that. It gives back less than 10 percent of the surplus to the men and women who are being overcharged today. Why? What is the excuse? I could not tell you exactly what the excuse is. But the minority and, in particular, those that crafted this budget today have found every reason under the sun to oppose budget resolutions that contain tax relief in them. First, they said you cannot cut taxes. We have not balanced the budget; that was just 4 years ago when I was first elected to Congress. We balanced the budget, and we did it while cutting taxes. Then they said we cannot support the tax cut in your budget resolution, because we have not set aside every penny of Social Security. Three years ago, we did just that. Then they suggested you have to set aside Medicare. We did that. Now, they are saying we have to pay down every penny of the debt. What is the excuse now? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this excuse for a budget alternative and support the Republican platform.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, we are considering a Democrat alternative right now, and I think it is important to review the budget that is on the floor and to make some fair contrasts, because there are a lot of claims that are being made. Mr. Chairman, we just heard one about retiring even more debt than is in the Republican budget proposal. We are going to retire $2.3 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. That is more debt than has ever been retired in the history of our country. We have paid down about $625 billion in public debt. I think what we are hearing is in many ways an esoteric argument whether we can pay down $2.3 trillion or $2.5 trillion or $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years, and that fog is being sent out in order to create an argument against cutting taxes. I understand that there are some of my colleagues in this Chamber that have no interest in lowering the tax burden on the average American. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) made clear the tax proposal in this budget gives back 28 percent of the surplus to the American taxpayer, and there are a lot of my colleagues in this Chamber on the minority side who think that is too much money to give back to the American people. They do not want to cut income tax rates in order to encourage economic growth; they do not want to repeal the death tax or eliminate the marriage tax penalty. There are probably 150 or 180 Members of this Congress that did not vote to repeal the marriage tax penalty when it came before us last year. That is unfortunate. Ultimately those colleagues are looking for an argument to be able to continue to stand to oppose tax relief and keep that money in Washington in order to increase the size and scope of the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, do we set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus? Of course we do, and so does the Democrat alternative. My colleagues recognize that is the right thing to do. We also set up a reserve for Social Security and a reserve for Medicare. It has never been done in the history of our country, but it makes sense, and it is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day we come down to a whole series of excuses why we should not cut taxes until we balance the budget. Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago the same Democrats that are opposing this budget resolution said we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. Three years ago they said we cannot cut taxes until we set aside the Social Security surplus. We did both of these things. We set aside the entire Medicare surplus; and now what we see is we cannot cut taxes because we cannot predict the future, and there is some uncertainty as to what the level of economic growth will be next year or the year after that. Mr. Chairman, of course on that reasoning we will never cut taxes, and I think for some of my colleagues on the minority side, that is the ultimate goal. Leave the money here in Washington. I think that is unfair. I think we should support what is a balanced budget proposal to pay down debt, cut taxes and fund the right priorities.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), Chairman of our Committee on the Budget for yielding the time to me. Madam Chairman, I think it is important that we step back. We have heard a lot of rhetoric here. And as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) pointed out, most of it is designed to scare people. I think that is unfortunate, because we have an historic opportunity to use record budget surpluses to do the right thing for the country; to put together a strong budget; to make the Tax Code more fair. I think we should step back and talk about what is in this budget rather than listening to speculation and scare tactics. As the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) indicated, we pay down more debt over the next 10 years than has ever been paid down by any country in the history of the world, over $2 trillion in debt retirement keeping interest rates low. Of course, we cut taxes. We have heard a lot of speculation that it will be a $2.5 trillion dollar tax cut, and it is very interesting to see Members on the other side advocating for reform of AMT, which is not even part of the President's proposal. The reason is because they are putting up a strawman that they might debate against, when they know full well the way budgets are written, it allows for $1.6 trillion over the 10-year period and no more. We improve education, strengthen our national defense, and, of course, we have health care reform, Medicare modernization. For the first time in our country's history, we are creating a reserve fund to support reforms, modernizations for Medicare that were designed 35 years ago. Somehow the minority wants to portray this as being risky. Suddenly it is risky to set up a reserve fund, something we have never done in this country. I think not. Of course, Social Security. Let us take a close look at how we are dealing with Social Security in this budget. First and foremost, we are setting aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, something I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be pleased to know. It will be the third year in a row that we have done this. It is important to reflect on the fact that it was the House Committee on the Budget 3 years ago that first proposed the idea of setting aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. We protect that surplus. It is shown very clearly. We will use much of those revenues that are coming in to do the right thing for the taxpayer and retire a record amount of debt, but we also set up a reserve account for Social Security. In addition to that reserve for Medicare, we set up a reserve for Social Security in order to pay for a bipartisan bill, reforms, modernization, initiatives that will strengthen that program. We do not prejudge what that fund will or will not be used for. But we know it will be there when we can get a bipartisan bill like the Kolbe-Stenholm bill that has been introduced or some other piece of legislation. We know we will have the funds to strengthen Social Security. Is there tax relief in this bill? Yes. Right here, $1.6 trillion. Not 2, not 2.5, not 2.8. It is very clearly written in the budget resolution making the Tax Code more fair for all Americans. Even after we do all this, we still have money left over in a contingency reserve. That is not risky. It is fair, it is balanced, and it makes common sense. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam Chairman, I think it is important, as we enter the closing minutes of the debate this evening, to review some of the arguments we have heard, review the main points of the budget proposal that is on the floor, because we have heard a lot of claims; and it is important that we have as many facts as possible straight. This budget pays down, first and foremost, more debt over a 10-year period than we have ever paid down in the United States, over $2 trillion in debt. We heard some discussion about paying down $3 trillion or $3.5 trillion, paying off every penny of the public debt over the 10-year period. The fact is that is simply not possible unless we force every 10-year-old in the country to sell their United States savings bonds and force every foreign bank to give up their 30-year Treasury bonds. That is just not going to happen. To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous about how we deal with our country's finances. So we pay down as much debt as we possibly can, lower the debt as a percentage of the GNP to a level not seen in over 80 years. We cut taxes for every American. We improve education. And we can manipulate the way we score a particular funding bill one way or another, but the fact is this has more funding for education than ever at the Federal level, an 11 percent increase. We strengthen national defense. We heard an argument earlier tonight from the minority side arguing that it was not doing enough for defense. How times have changed. The fact of the matter is we put in more funding for our national defense than our former Democrat President proposed when he left office at the end of his term. We have increased funding $5 billion, and we recognize that our President right now is conducting a top-to-bottom review. Of course we create reserves, funding reserves to modernize and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. We have heard critics on the other side say that somehow this is irresponsible to set aside money to strengthen these programs. How we have turned these arguments on their head. What is this really about? I venture that it is really about tax cuts. That really should not surprise anyone because the tax cut debate has been in the front of the newspapers: what kind of tax relief will we have, how can we make the Tax Code more fair, and whether or not we will support the President's proposal. The minority side does not support these tax cuts. They do not want to see Americans' taxes lowered. What is the reason? Well, if we just go back a few years, when I was first elected in 1996, they said, well, we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. Well, we balanced the budget. Then the argument was, well, we cannot cut taxes until we set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. Done. We did that 3 years ago. Then the argument was, well, we cannot support tax cuts until we have set aside every penny of the Medicare surplus as well. Well, we have done that as well. Then the argument was, well, we cannot cut taxes, of course, because we have not paid down the public debt. Well, we have paid off over $625 billion in debt; and we will pay off another $2 trillion over the next 10 years. We have balanced the budget, set aside every penny of Social Security, set aside every penny of the Medicare surplus. We are on track to retire $2 trillion in public debt over the next 10 years. And still the call is, well, we cannot support that tax cut. What is the real excuse? I think we heard it portrayed pretty eloquently from some Members on the minority side. The real reason is because we want to spend it. Because we want to spend it on every program that one can imagine. We have heard about a lot of programs at the Federal level that are good strong programs delivering benefits and services to those that need them. But if we triple funding for every worthwhile program at the Federal level, we will bankrupt this country. The American people do not want that; Members of Congress do not want that. We need to recognize that expanding the size of the Federal Government by 4 percent, it is about what the economy will grow, about what the average family budget will grow over the next year. I think that is reasonable. I think Congress should live within its means. We pay down debt. We set aside for national security, increasing the funding of the NIH and education. But at the end of the day, we need to recognize that we have collected more in money than we need to run government. It is your money, and we should give a piece of it back.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam Chairman, just to clarify that point, there are over $600 billion worth of 30-year notes out there, 10-year notes, notes that have not matured. They are being held by foreign banks, for example. What the gentleman is suggesting is that we would not pass a lot of laws that forced people to redeem those because in doing so we would have to pay a premium. That would come out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 444, I was detained in a Budget Hearing on Social Security. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in support of this legislation honoring Alan Shepard, a true American hero and America's first man in space. Alan Shepard was born and raised in Derry, New Hampshire, and he is certainly best known for his historic flight on Freedom 7. But that was only one of a long line of historic achievements for this great American. He was a Navy veteran. He was a test pilot. He was a pioneer in America's early space program. He was chief of NASA's Astronaut Office. He was the space craft commander on Apollo 14. He was one of the very few select individuals who have walked on the moon. In fact, his time set a record for the longest lunar visit, over 33 hours. His achievements were recognized by NASA, by organizations across the country and across the world. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Today, it a great source of personal pride to rise in support of the people of Derry, New Hampshire who seek to recognize this great individual whose service and dedication has brought pride, not just to New Hampshire, but to our entire Nation. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think it is inappropriate to suggest that this is a debate between soft drink manufacturers and even sugar growers for that matter. This is a question of taxpayer interests. I think there is no question, this program just does not serve the interests of the taxpayer and the interests of the consumer. I have heard two particular points made in the recent debate that I would like to address. One is the argument that, well, this is really about fair trade and that somehow, because other countries are penalizing their consumers or subsidizing their farmers to the disadvantage of taxpayers, that it is all right for us to do the same. I do not think that argument ever holds water. Just because another country is engaged in a policy that makes no economic sense or that penalizes consumers or that distorts markets does not mean that the United States should engage in that same foolhardy policy. Fair trade is about lowering barriers to imports and exports. We do that in order to benefit our own consumers, American consumers that should have every right and opportunity to purchase products on the world market that improve their quality of life, that enable them to be healthy, to be successful and to live the kind of existence they want for themselves and their families. The second argument that was made suggests that this is somehow protecting one class versus another. I think that that is wrong as well. There was a suggestion that this is about price volatility. The importance of the program is to maintain price stability. How is it ever in the interests of any American to maintain prices at an artificially high level and to then go back to the consumer and say, you see, we are protecting you from changes in price by keeping it really high so that you are penalized every time you go to the supermarket, every time you buy a product, but you are penalized at a very consistent level. I think that is a foolish argument to make and one that most Americans are going to see through. We accept the fact that prices are going to go up at times; they are going to go down at times. But the key to true economic productivity is a fair and open competitive market, and that is what America is known for. That is at the heart and soul of the strength of our economy. $1.9 billion in overpayments that consumers are being forced to handle every year, that is bad for the consumer. $100 million or more in direct taxpayer subsidies this year alone. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has suggested that may go as high as $500 million in direct taxpayer payments, the bulk of which are going to very large, very successful, very profitable agricultural concerns. I do not think the sponsors of this amendment bear those concerns any ill will. This is not about penalizing an industry. It is about being fair to taxpayers and consumers. Last, but certainly not least, our environment. Do we really want to perpetuate a program that does such tremendous damage to the environment? Whether it is the Everglades in Florida or sensitive environmental lands in Hawaii or anywhere else in this country, we certainly should not engage in policies that damage the environment all the while distorting markets and taking money from both consumers and taxpayers. I applaud the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. SUNUNU. I want to address the point that somehow the new farm policy is to buy and sell to manipulate the price of the commodity sugar in the market. I think that is a very dangerous precedent to set. We should not be manipulating prices in the sugar market or candy or grain or beef or oil for that matter. Price controls do not work.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just to be clear, that is a direct transfer of money from the American consumers to foreign corporations.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment from the gentleman of California (Mr. Campbell). In the amendment and in his underlying legislation, which has strong cosponsorship from both sides of the aisle, he asks a fundamental question: Should anyone in this country be held without being given the opportunity to face their accuser and to review the evidence that has been put forward against them? The simple answer is no. This is brought forward by the concern that we all share for the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and for the fundamental concern that we all share for the rights of due process. The cosponsors of this legislation, and I would assume the range of Members that will vote in favor of this amendment, do not agree on many issues. They come from the center, the left, the right, and from all different perspectives on the issues of crime and punishment and how we view our own role as Federal legislators in dealing with crime and punishment. But we share one fundamental value, and that is to protect the integrity of our judicial system, to protect the integrity of the fifth amendment, which should protect everyone in this country from being held without due process. We do not make judgments on their guilt or innocence of those that are being held, but we make judgment on the right or the wrong of preventing them from reviewing the evidence that has led to their incarceration. I think the gentleman's amendment is modest, but it makes a principled point that no one should be held without being able to face their accuser. I am pleased to support the amendment and pleased to support the underlying legislation as it moves through the committee process.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Manchester VA Medical Center, located in New Hampshire's First Congressional District, on the occasion of the Hospital's 50th birthday, July 2, 2000. This outstanding facility continues to provide exemplary health care to thousands of veterans who have served America with distinction and honor. As the hospital celebrates its 50th year, I hope we will also take a moment to reflect on the service and sacrifice of those service men and women. The devoted staff of the Hospital, including Public Relations Director Paul Lamberti who provided me with an extensive historical background of the Center, also deserves special thanks and appreciation for their dedication to the health care of our veterans. The establishment of the Manchester VA Medical Center began at the conclusion of World War I with the World War Veterans' Legislation Subcommittee on Hospitals' recommendation that the New Hampshire project be funded. Congressman Fletcher Hale followed suit with legislation seeking Presidential approval for the construction of a facility to treat veterans throughout northern New England. Specifically, the measure called for ``a modern, sanitary, fireproof, two-hundred bed capacity hospital plant for the diagnosis, care, and treatment of general and medical and surgical disabilities and to provide Government care for the increasing load of mentally afflicted veterans regardless of whether said disability developed prior to January 1, 1925, at a cost not to exceed $1,500,000.'' Final legislative approval came in 1945, and in 1946, after the end of World War II, the United States Government acquired a parcel of land, previously owned by Governor Frederick F. Smyth, that would become the site for the Hospital. Smyth served from 1866 to 1880 on the Board of Managers of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers and was well acquainted with the needs of veterans everywhere. The Smyth Tower, the replica of a famous Scottish lookout, can be found on the grounds today. The structure was erected by Smyth in 1888 and is named as an Historic Site on the National Register. Construction of the VA Medical Center began in 1948 and two years later, on July 2, 1950, the VA Medical Center was officially dedicated. In the following decade, staff attended to the health care needs of approximately 23,500 patients. The VA Medical Center joined with Harvard Medical School to become a training facility for surgical residents in the late 1960's and has remained an active teaching hospital for Harvard and Dartmouth Medical School residents. Through the years, students aspiring to become nurses, dentists, physical therapists, physician assistants, occupational therapists, optometrists, medical assistants, dieticians, and pharmacists, have found a diverse clinical experience there. Recognizing the need to address the long-term residential health care need of aging veterans, the Hospital dedicated a Nursing Home Care Unit in the late 1970's. Expansion continued in 1977 with the groundbreaking for a new Ambulatory Care wing. Outpatient care became an important priority in the years that followed. Those patients requiring specialty care were previously required to travel to other VA hospitals in the region to receive care. After determining veterans should not have to travel long distances for their care, the staff formed specialty clinics including Orthopaedics, Optometry, Audiology, Neurology, Pain, Ear, Nose, and Throat. Locally accessible care continues today in the form of Center- sponsored health screenings in local communities throughout the state. The Manchester VA Hospital also serves as a research center for a large number of health care programs. Of note is the facility's Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder research center which has received both national and international recognition for its work. Although New Hampshire's veterans' population has decreased, their health care needs remain a high priority. These men and women sacrificed a great deal for each and every American and their needs continue to be met today. Community Based Outreach Clinics can be found throughout the state including the communities of Tilton and Newington and future facilities are planned for Lancaster, Conway, Wolfeboro, and Keene. Through its changes, the VA's importance holds strong with a purpose ``to serve those who have served us well,'' its commitment ``to advocate for the total well-being of veterans,'' and its promise ``to be there when veterans need us.''

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of the Kelly amendment. I would anticipate after all the rhetoric we heard on the preceding amendment that this would receive strong bipartisan support given the concern that the minority has expressed for doing more in the key operating accounts of this bill. This is a case where the Representative merely wants to take $1 million from nonessential expenses, from report writing, from promotion within the Housing Department and put it into an account that will help people receive affordable housing, $1 million, from nonessential administrative overhead into a program that will enable more people to get the housing that they deserve. We have heard about waiting lists for some of these important programs, and I think that there is a tremendous amount of merit in this common sense amendment. But it is a very modest amendment, let us face it. We can do even more. We should be doing even more. I have been fortunate to be the chairman of the task force on the Committee on the Budget that has looked at other ways to find the resources to put into these key accounts that help people with a certificate and a voucher program, for example. One of the problems that we uncovered within HUD was an inability to truly verify the income of those that receive housing benefits. Now, that is important because if HUD is underestimating the income of beneficiaries, it is overpaying subsidies. And if it is overpaying the subsidy to someone who is in public housing, then there is someone else that is not in the housing that cannot benefit because someone is taking their place, perhaps inappropriately, because they have misreported their income. Well, it stands to reason that we should be able to verify the income of those that are relying on the Federal Government for such a significant and important subsidy. Unfortunately, HUD cannot. How big is this problem? Is it $1 million? No. Is it $10 million? No. Is this a $100 million problem in HUD? No. Is this a $500 million problem? It is even bigger than that. HUD and the GAO estimates there are $935 million in subsidy overpayments every year. This is not a historical problem. This is a yearly problem. Last year they estimated it at over $800 million. This year $900 million. What does that mean? That means over 100,000 families on the waiting lists cannot get access to existing affordable housing. Now, the members of the administration that testified said, ``Well, we don't know for sure that it's $935 million.'' I am the first to admit it is very difficult to estimate the exact amount of the overpayments. But even if we are off by a factor of two, that is still nearly $500 million that taxpayers are sending to Washington that we are appropriating to HUD that everyone in this body and across the country thinks is going to affordable housing and it is not. We need to do better. This is a very modest step in the right direction, taking $1 million from administrative overhead and helping people get the housing that they need. I very much hope that this will be supported on a bipartisan basis because it is not just a good amendment, it is common sense.