John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very prescient point, because we can look back in time from three particular areas where we either as a Nation did try to second guess the markets or we nearly tried to second guess the markets and look at what the historical results were. First case in point, synthetic fuels. We put billions of dollars into trying to develop oil from coal in the synthetic fuels program, trying to second guess the technology that is out there in the energy marketplace; and that money was essentially wasted because the technological feasibility of success in that area was so limited. A second example, back in the 1980s, the silicon industry, the chip industry was crying for subsidies for static memory. We need Federal subsidies to maintain our static memory markets. It was a question of competitiveness. We heard it from all corners of the country. Today, the static memory business is a terrible business to be in. The margins are razor thin. We put about $400 million into subsidy for that industry. But in retrospect, it would have been a terrible industry to subsidize. A third example, high definition television. Thank goodness we did not put tens of billions of dollars into subsidizing that technology as some of our European and Asian counterparts did, because, by allowing markets to determine where the technology went, the American companies have the winning standard. So we have to be careful about distorting these technical markets.

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

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman raises a couple of important points, and I just want to respond briefly. First, the concern of the gentlewoman about gas prices. I think everyone shares that concern. We have had a debate here on the floor about gas prices and what might be done about the situation, but I want to reaffirm that nothing in this program will directly affect the price of gasoline. The second point the gentlewoman makes is one about fuel efficiency, and there to be sure that was the stated objective of the program, but the GAO, in its March report, has said that at this point it does not appear likely that such a car will be manufactured and sold to consumers. Even if we can agree that this is a lofty and well-founded goal, it simply looks at this point that the $1.25 billion that is put into the program has missed the mark.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of this amendment which I have cosponsored with my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). This amendment strikes $126 million from the Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle and takes the funds and uses it I think in a much more fiscally responsible way. We put $86.5 million into debt repayment; and then we take $40 million, $10 million to the Forest Service operation and maintenance accounts, $10 million to the Park Service maintenance account, $10 million into land and water conservation, and $10 million into the payment in lieu of tax program. Anyone that has public lands in their district knows how important these programs are. They really make a difference to communities; they really make a difference in preserving public lands throughout the country. Why are we striking $126 million from the Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle? There are a number of important reasons. First of all, that program provides subsidies, research and development subsidies to profitable firms. I think if you go to any community at the local level in this country and you look at the stress and the burden on the property tax base of that city and town that might be caused by public lands, they would think it is wrong to be subsidizing corporations that are profitable. In this case the automotive manufacturers, the Big Three, they are successful companies. They are great companies. But, let us face it, their profits last year were over $20 billion in the aggregate, and these are not the kinds of firms that need Federal subsidies from hard-working taxpayers. Second, a program like this tries to pick winners and losers within an industry. It invests in solar cells, but perhaps at the expense of investments in fuel cell technology, or reinvests in battery technology or in diesel combustion or internal combustion engine technology. But who is the Federal Government to say which one of these technologies really deserves a Federal subsidy? And even within these sub- categories, batteries, do we invest in lithium batteries, do we invest in ni-cad batteries, do we invest in photovoltaics? It is wrong for the Federal Government to try to pick winners and losers in these industries. It is bad policy from a technology perspective, and it is fiscally irresponsible as well. Third, this kind of a corporate welfare subsidy picks winners and losers among different companies. Who qualifies? If the Federal Government is going to subsidize diesel combustion engine research, which of the dozens of companies, firms large and small that might be involved in this kind of technology, is going to get the Federal handout? The Federal government actually has to choose. There are going to be winners and losers. Who is to say which company really has the technological capability to finance a breakthrough? No Federal bureaucrat knows. We should not be second-guessing the markets. We should not be manipulating and distorting markets for technology. We should not be playing one company off against another. Moreover, this program has failed to produce. I have a GAO study here from March of this year. It states clearly that it is unlikely that the technology focused upon in this program is ever likely to come to market. Supporters will say, well, this program has created some jobs. If I spent $1 billion over 7 years, as this program has, I would certainly hope we might have a few jobs to show for it. But even if this program created a thousand new jobs, and I doubt that, that would come at a public cost, a taxpayer cost, of over $1 million per job. It just is not worth the subsidy. Supporters might also argue that this has resulted in incremental technological improvements. Again, I might agree to that. But if we are spending $1 billion in our State or district back home over a 7- or 8- year period, giving that money to the brightest minds in our districts, I would hope they would have some kind of incremental innovation to show for it. But it is not going to bring a breakthrough to the marketplace. We are distorting the marketplace of ideas. We are subsidizing one company at the expense of another. The taxpayers should not stand for it. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by a wide range of groups, and my cosponsor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will speak to that, such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth; but fiscally responsible groups as well: Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union. They recognize that it is simply a poor use of taxpayer funds. Supporters of the program I recognize will say it is well-intended, it has fair-minded objectives. I do not deny that. There are a lot of well-intended programs at the Federal level, but it is just not the appropriate use of taxpayer money to distort markets, to subsidize corporate profits. This is a responsible amendment that sets aside $85 million for debt reduction, that gives back to the Park Service and the Forest Service that is so important in maintaining our public lands, and it sets the right course for our technology policy, as well. Fundamental research through the National Science Foundation, through the National Institutes of Health, are critical to the underlying scientific foundation of this country, but we should not be going into product development areas where the markets are mature and where the capital markets know what a good deal is and what a good deal is not. We are distorting those capital markets as well as the technological markets. Let us do the right thing for the taxpayers and the Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle: Pay down some debt and invest in our public lands.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to pay tribute to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the first publicly owned shipyard in our Nation, on the occasion of its 200th birthday. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was established on June 12, 1800, on the Piscataqua River between New Hampshire and Maine as our first permanent shipyard devoted exclusively to the construction and repair of vessels for the United States Navy. In 1814, the Washington, the first naval vessel to bear the name of our first president was built at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. By 1818, the Shipyard's work force had grown to 50 workers. Portsmouth constructed another 12 vessels for the United States Navy prior to the beginning of the Civil War earning recognition as the ``Cradle of American Shipbuilding.'' Although new ship construction slowed at Portsmouth after the end of the Civil War, the Shipyard continued to play an important role in our Nation's history. The U.S.S. Constitution was berthed at the Shipyard for some time, and during and after the Spanish-American War, over 1600 Spanish prisoners were quartered on its grounds. In 1905, the Treaty of Portsmouth, ending the Russo-Japanese War and earning President Theodore Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize, was signed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. With the onset of World War I, the workforce was expanded to almost 5,000 and the Shipyard began its long and illustrious history of submarine construction, launching the first U.S. submarine built in a naval shipyard in 1917. During World War II, the ranks of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard jumped to 24,000. Over 70 submarines were constructed at the Shipyard during the Second World War, with three launched on a single day, a record that no other public or private shipyard has ever equaled. In 1944, Portsmouth held the record for constructing the greatest number of submarines in one year, turning out 31. After World War II, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard became the Navy's center for submarine design and development. The Shipyard built the research submarine, the U.S.S. Albacore, with its revolutionary `tear- drop' shaped hull, which set the standard for all subsequent submarine designs world-wide. Today the U.S.S. Albacore rests at a site close to the Shipyard in Portsmouth, NH, as an historical and educational exhibit open to the public. Another in a long line of ``firsts'' for the Shipyard occurred in 1968 when Portsmouth constructed the first full size very deep diving non-combatant submarine built in a naval shipyard. The Portsmouth Shipyard also launched the last submarine built in a public shipyard, the nuclear powered U.S.S. Sand Lance, in 1969. As a tribute to its historical significance and its place in our heritage, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today the civilian work force at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard stands at 3601, and it takes pride in its continuing role as the Navy's leading shipyard for submarine overhaul and repair. The Shipyard encompasses nearly 300 acres and over 300 buildings, has three dry docks, and capacity to berth six submarines. As we embark on a new century and millennium, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has positioned itself to meet the demands of today's competitive business environment and offer its customer, the United States taxpayer, the best product for the best price. Responding to the challenges of the marketplace, the Shipyard is forging joint ventures with the private sector--leasing out unutilized or underutilized facilities and equipment--and partnering with Electric Boat. Today Portsmouth Naval Shipyard workers and Electric Boat employees work side by side in the best interests of the Nation. For two hundred years the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has served in the defense of our country, the Cradle of American Shipbuilding set in New England's Cradle of Democracy. Ever adapting to the changes that have taken our Nation from sails to atoms, the Shipyard continues to play a critical role in strengthening and maintaining our national security. Mr. Speaker, this historic institution, a hallmark of our country's mighty naval strength, deserves the recognition of all Americans as it marks the occasion of its two hundredth birthday. I ask you to join me in thanking generations of Shipyard workers for their dedication and service to protecting our Nation's security interests at home and on the seas.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of rhetoric on the floor here today, but this is an important and a substantive issue. I believe firmly it is not a question about rich and poor, it is really a question of right and wrong. It is a question of fundamental fairness. Is it right to tax an estate, a family, simply because the owner of that estate happens to pass away? Is it right to take up to half of what that family owns? My colleagues here today are talking about their interest in protecting a small business. What does that really mean? Let us take a closer look. That means if your estate, your home, your business, your farm is only worth $650,000 or $1 million, and you die, well, they agree that should not be taxed. But if you are successful, if you are too successful in their eyes, and your business or farm is worth $5 million or $10 million or $20 million, then the Federal Government should be able to take half, 55 percent of everything you own. The Federal Government is given a presumptive claim to all of it. Is that right? Never. It is wrong if your estate is worth $50,000, it is wrong if your estate is worth $50 million. It is wrong if you are Bill Gates and your estate is worth $50 billion for the Federal Government to step in and say we get 55 percent of everything you have. I think that cuts to the core of what this debate is all about. It is morally wrong to have written into the Tax Code that kind of power to confiscate any individual's property, rich, poor, farmer, small businessman, individual, or family. I ask my colleagues to support the entire elimination of the death tax here on the floor tomorrow, not because of dollars and cents but because of right and wrong.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentlewoman, how did she vote on the Shadegg amendment?

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

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I have rarely heard so much time and effort made into making a pretty simple amendment sound so complicated. It is simple because if you ask anyone in this country what should be done with the on-budget surpluses, they give you a pretty straightforward response. They say, we should increase education funding, we should strengthen Social Security or Medicare, we should get rid of the marriage penalty, give individuals deductibility for their health insurance cost. But the fact of the matter is under the existing pay-go rule, you cannot get rid of the marriage penalty using the on-budget surplus. You cannot strengthen Medicare using the on-budget surplus. Then how in fact do we do those things? Last year we passed a Medicare update bill. We had to waive the pay-go rule, which is arcane and outdated in an age of on-budget surpluses. How did we eliminate the Social Security earnings limit, which is good bipartisan legislation that everyone in this body supports? We had to waive the pay-go rule. How do we get rid of the marriage penalty? We have to waive the pay-go rule. If you want to do these things, if you want to reduce taxes without cutting entitlements and if you want to strengthen entitlements without cutting other entitlements, you need to waive the existing pay- go rules. That is what this gentleman's amendment does. It updates them in a common sense way.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I think it is always a good sign when one brings a piece of legislation to the floor like this one that is rooted in common sense, and the only opposition that can be put up is to argue against elements that are not even in the legislation. I think that is an indication of the strength of the bill, and I rise in strong support of it. This is budgeting process. It is not necessarily exciting, but it is important. This legislation does a few basic things to put us back on a ground of common sense and fiscal responsibility. We give the budget resolution the teeth of law, allowing the President the opportunity to sign it into law, and thereby enable us to know where we are headed at the beginning of the process and make the outcome that much better. We set aside for emergencies. Everyone in America would think that that makes sense to budget for emergencies or contingent funds at the beginning of the year. But we do not do it in Congress. As a result, we are caught in an endless cycle of supplemental and emergency appropriations where we have to exceed whatever our every budget caps might have been put into place. We will take up the opportunity to look at 2-year budget cycles, which would give us an opportunity to improve the budget cycle by improving our capacity for oversight, to make sure that taxpayer funds are spent effectively. The bottom line is that this legislation gives a better planning process to all of Congress. It improves the accountability that is in the system and puts us on a road to greater fiscal discipline and restores public confidence in the way we fund government. It is not a cure-all. The opponents of this legislation will raise some legitimate concerns. But the objective is to incrementally improve the budget process and restore public confidence in the way we do business here in Congress.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about priorities, that the priorities of this budget should be setting aside the social security surplus. We set aside every penny of the social security surplus for the third year in a row. This was first proposed last year by Republicans in response to the President's suggestion that we should spend 40 percent of the social security surplus. That is simply wrong. The speaker suggested that one of the priorities should be providing prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. We set aside $40 billion to put together not just prescription drug coverage, but coverage that includes reforms that protect the options and choices of those senior citizens that currently have prescription drug coverage. There was a suggestion that our priority should be paying down the debt. We do. We are on a glide path to pay down the debt by 2013. The suggestion was that the priorities should be education and science, and they are. He pointed out specifically the additional funding for the National Science Foundation. Indeed, we also have over $1 billion that is focused toward the special education mandate that burdens cities and towns across the country. We also have the kinds of tax fairness that the previous speaker suggested that he supported: eliminating the marriage penalty, getting rid of the social security earnings test, getting rid of death taxes for millions of our citizens. Of course, we promote a strong national defense. I want to talk specifically, though, about the record on debt reduction. The suggestion was that an alternative had three times the debt reduction that this resolution has. That is quite frankly a fiction, because this resolution has $1 trillion in debt relief over the next 5 years. Was there any resolution brought to the floor that provides $3 trillion of debt relief over 5 years? Of course not. That is simply not possible. However, we pay down $1 trillion over the next 5 years. That is not just a pie in the sky projection, because if we look at what we have already done, the achievement is quite significant: $50 billion in debt paid down in 1998, $88 billion in 1999, over $150 billion this fiscal year. As we debate the budget here on the floor today, we are going to pay down over $170 billion in the next fiscal year, $450 billion in debt reduction over a 4-year period, an historic achievement. It keeps interest rates low, it keeps the economy on the right track. Certainly we could keep penalizing seniors and pay down a little bit more debt, but that would be wrong. We could keep penalizing married couples and pay down a little more debt, but it would be wrong. We have a proposal here that sets the right tone for the American economy and achieves the right goals for the taxpayers.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the debate back to the fundamentals of this budget resolution and away from a lot of the rhetoric, some of which we have just heard. Let us talk about what is really in the budget resolution and what is not. First and foremost, we set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. Now there is a lot of rhetoric on the other side about whether do we protect all of Social Security, do we not protect all of Social Security? This budget resolution does it, and it does it for the second year in a row. We had a budget that was put up by the minority last year that spent 40 percent of the Social Security surplus. We have ended that problem in budgeting, set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. We set aside $40 billion for prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Now it is true there is no formal piece of legislation before this body right now, but that is reflective of the fact that we know we have to work on a bipartisan basis to try to put together a good piece of legislation, not just one that provides prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries but one that reforms and strengthens the program and hopefully gives those beneficiaries more options and more choices. We pay down the debt. We actually set a course to pay down the entire public debt by 2013. We have tax relief in this legislation. Of course, we do. We try to make the Tax Code more fair by getting rid of the marriage penalty, getting rid of death taxes, repealing the Social Security earnings limit, and giving individuals full deductibility for their health insurance, and we also invest in defense and education. I want to focus a little bit in the minute or so remaining, however, on the debt relief I spoke about, because if one travels anywhere in this country, people recognize that it is important that we continue the process of paying down the public debt. Here is what we have done in just the past 3 years: in 1998, we paid down over $50 billion in public debt; in 1999, last year, we paid down over $80 billion. This year we will pay down $163 billion; and, in fact, over the 4 years, including this budget year that we are debating now, 2001, we will pay down over $450 billion in debt. That is because of the determination of this Republican Congress to set aside funds, not just for social security but also for debt retirement and to keep that debt going in the right direction. Now the minority has said repeatedly in this very debate we should get rid of all of these tax cuts, get rid of any tax cuts and pay down more debt. Of course we could do that. We could decide not to repeal the penalty that seniors pay if they choose to continue working and pay down a little bit more debt, but if we did that it would be wrong. We could decide not to eliminate the marriage penalty, to keep penalizing married couples simply because they choose to get married, and pay down a little bit more debt, but if we did that it would be wrong. It would be wrong to sustain a Tax Code that is so unfair. We could refuse to give individuals health insurance deductibility, but that also would be wrong. We could decide not to give individuals health insurance deductibility and pay down a little bit more debt, but again that would simply be the wrong approach to take. We need a Tax Code that is more fair. We need to continue to pay down debt, and we need to recognize that what is important is that just as one views their home mortgage, if they have additional income, additional funds, they do not pay down their entire home mortgage in one year. They might put a little bit more toward that mortgage, but what is most important is that they pay down a little bit every year, a little bit with every payment. They reduce the size of the mortgage gradually, and they keep the country and their own budget on a course of fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation brought before us by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources. The facts that led to this legislation really do speak for themselves: skyrocketing overhead costs in an important Federal program, payment for foreign travel completely unrelated to the nature of the work of the Federal Aid Program, and the use of funds to pay employees that were not even working within the program itself. Clearly this is necessary legislation to protect the financial interests and restore financial accountability to a very important Federal program. Contrary to the suggestion that we might be injecting too much oversight or too much financial accountability into this program, I think it understands the need for more such oversight, and the gentleman has done us a service in beginning this process. Identifying waste and mismanagement in government is not just a good idea, but it is in the best interests of the taxpayers and really the future of this country because every time we find opportunities to save taxpayers not millions, but in the aggregate it adds up to billions, that is additional resources that we can invest in programs that really do work for the American taxpayer, or it is money that we can actually let the taxpayer keep and never even have to send to Washington, investing in what they care about. I applaud the work of the gentleman from Alaska; I applaud the Speaker and Members on both sides of the leadership that have called for greater oversight of waste and mismanagement in government in the hope that it will lead to a much better investment of those taxes that we do collect here in Washington.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, the preceding speakers on this side talked a little bit about the vision and the values that are embodied in the Republican budget, setting aside every penny of Social Security, paying down debt. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talked about the importance of setting aside $40 billion, not just to cover prescription drug benefits but to improve and strengthen the Medicare system as well. We have heard about the investments that we think are important to make in education and in defense and in basic science, and, of course, the tax relief that is in this budget, to make the Tax Code more fair and to reduce taxes for all Americans. And, unfortunately, that is one of the real shortcomings of the alternative being offered here, not only does it not lower taxes, it increases taxes, and that is just the wrong direction to take the country. Let us, in fact, look where we have come over the past few years, even while cutting taxes. Under this Republican Congress, we have seen the public debt begin to decrease. We are actually making payments against the debt held by the public, reducing that debt and increasing America's financial security. We can see clearly the red, increases in debt year after year under a Democrat Congress. The tide was turned in 1998. Shortly after we had a Republican Congress, clearly the amount of debt was lower and lower in 1996, 1997. And what has happened over the past 4 years? What a turn around. In 1998, we paid down over $50 billion in debt; 1999 paid down over $80 billion in debt; and in fact, with this Republican budget that is here on the floor today, we will reduce the debt held by the public $450 billion over just 4 years. It gets even better, because over the next 5 years we will pay down a trillion dollars in public debt, reducing the public debt, keeping interest rates low, even while making the Tax Code more fair, eliminating death tax provisions, giving health insurance deductibility for those that are self-employed. Those are the values that are embodied in the Republican budget, and that is why we should reject this alternative and support the resolution.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is off-budget, is it not?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, function 650 is a discretionary account, is it not?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it does not include mandatories. We passed that bill unanimously in the House; it passed unanimously in the Senate. It will be signed by the President into law. It was initiated by the Speaker of this House, and it does not need to be included in function 650, because it is a mandatory outlay and not a discretionary fund.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the point is clear, is eminently clear. All of Social Security spending is off-budget. Function 650 is a discretionary account. What we are voting on here today includes the incorporation of the Social Security earnings test to the extent that it needs to be included in this budget document. I think it is misleading to suggest that it was put together in a slipshod way when the gentleman knows that the legislation has already passed the House and the Senate and will be signed into law and that it will not have a material impact on discretionary outlays.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, we have a Republican budget on the floor here today, and it cannot be emphasized enough. It sets the right priorities; it protects ever penny of the Social Security surplus. It sets aside $40 billion for Medicare and makes sure that there is enough for prescription drug coverage for those that need it. It retires public debt. It promotes tax fairness by eliminating the marriage penalty, by making the Tax Code more fair for those seeking to purchase health insurance or send their children to school. It restores the strength of our defense system, and it invests in education and science as well. The previous speaker spoke a little bit about the importance of retiring public debt, and I think he spoke the truth. It is important. It does help lower interest rates, and it does make a difference in our economy. But I think it is also important to remember where we started. The President was not setting aside ever penny of the Social Security surplus a year ago; he was not making the commitment to pay down the debt that we have in this budget. Just 1 year ago, the President suggested that we spend 40 percent of the Social Security surplus. We have come a long way, and what a difference just a year makes. In 1998, we paid down $50 billion in public debt. In 1999, over $80 billion in public debt retired. Last year, when the critics on the other side of the aisle said, no, you are not going to set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, we proved them wrong. We not only did it, we paid down over $160 billion in debt. With this Republican budget, we will bring the 4-year total of debt retirement to over $450 billion. Paying down debt to protect our future, to lower interest rates, to keep the economy growing, it does make a difference on every home mortgage someone has. It does make a difference in lowering the cost of college loans and lowering the cost of an automobile loan. It helps keep interest rates low, and it helps protect America's savings. When one's interest rates are lower, those are funds that one never even has to send to Washington. We are paying down debt, over $450 billion in the most recent 4 years. But over the next 5 years, we will pay down over a trillion dollars in debt, paying down that debt to protect the public. Now, the critics say, well, maybe we could pay down more debt if we did not cut taxes. We could pay down more debt if we did not eliminate the marriage penalty and kept penalizing married couples. We could, but that would be wrong. We could pay down more debt if we did not get rid of the Social Security earnings limit. We could, but that would be wrong. We could pay down more debt if we did not give individuals health insurance deductibility. We could, but it would be wrong. We set aside over a trillion dollars over the next 5 years, and we can criticize and harangue and suggest that maybe we should keep raising taxes so that we can spend more. My colleagues have heard the code words, risky scheme. My colleagues have heard the code words, it is a dangerous plan. Taxes are not high enough. The fact of the matter is those are code words for spending more and for keeping more of the money that the public sends here. We are paying down over a trillion dollars in 5 years, and that is why my colleagues should support the Republican budget.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, it is never easy to put together a budget that spends $1.8 trillion. It is difficult to bring together all of the Members on this floor on either side of the aisle, talk through priorities, make trade-offs and set forth a blueprint that talks about our broad vision for where this economy ought to be headed, for where Federal spending ought to be headed and for what we ought to be doing to protect the taxpayers of this country. But the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has provided tremendous leadership to the Committee on the Budget; and I think it is worth reviewing, not just the record that he has established in setting these priorities, but where this budget is really going to take us. Let us cut through the rhetoric a little bit and talk about what our priorities are. First and foremost, it is to set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. This is not old hat. This is not an idea that Democrats or Republicans have been talking about for 4, 5, or 6 years. It was just last year that Republicans responded to the President's call to spend 40 percent of the Social Security surplus with a commitment that no longer will we take funds out of the Social Security surplus, that we will set aside every penny. We did it despite the calls of critics that we would not be able to do it. We did it because we had the will and determination to put forward spending bills that achieve that goal. What else does this budget do? It sets aside funds for Medicare, for prescription drug benefit. We have heard a lot of scare tactics about losing benefits, Medicare or Social Security, trying to intimidate Members of this House, trying to intimidate the American people. But the fact is we have set aside $40 billion. If you just take a look at the allocations for Medicare, the red showing the President's set-aside for Medicare, the blue slowing the Republic plan for Medicare, there is a dramatic difference. If we have the wherewithal and will to pass bipartisan legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means, we will achieve historic Medicare reform and deliver that prescription drug benefit to those seniors in need. Set aside Social Security surplus, protect Medicare, and pay down debt. Look at the record on debt relief. This is not a projection; this is what has actually been done. In 1998, $50 billion. In 1999, over $80 billion. This fiscal year, $163 billion. Despite the fact that the critics on the other side said we were going to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, we did not. Over 4 years we have paid down over $450 billion in debt. It keeps interest rates low, it keeps the cost of one's home mortgage or car loan low, and that money never has to be sent back to Washington. Critics say we could pay down more debt if we did not cut taxes. Well, of course, we could pay down a little more debt if we did not cut the marriage penalty, if we kept penalizing married couples; but that would be the wrong thing to do. If we did not eliminate the Social Security earnings ban, we could pay down a little bit more in debt, but that would be the wrong thing to do. If we did not give individuals health insurance deductibility just like we give to big corporations, we could pay down a little bit more in debt, but that would be wrong. We are supporting this historic tax relief for Americans, not because of what it does or does not add up to, but because of eliminating the marriage tax penalty, eliminating the death tax, because giving individuals health insurance deductibility is the right thing to do. Even with this historic tax relief, we pay down debt over the next 5 years. Mr. Chairman, $1 trillion in debt paid down over the next 5 years. What a historic achievement, bringing public debt from over $3.9 trillion to well under $3 trillion over the next 5 years. That achievement will not just serve fiscal responsibility or serve our budget priorities well, but it will serve the American people well. Mr. Chairman, this is the right set of priorities for America, from paying down debt and cutting taxes to investing in defense and funding our special education mandate. I urge my colleagues to support this vision, this set of priorities, and support the Republican resolution.