Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. TOOMEY. That is exactly right. Reclaiming my time, I would further suggest that since they said these bonds are the property of someone else, they could demand any price they choose. They could force the U.S. taxpayer to pay a ridiculous and absurd price, and, frankly, they could choose to offer it at no price whatsoever. So what we are doing, what the Republican budget does, it says, let us take all the available debt, everything that comes due, and as it matures, that is what we pay off. Let me go to the fundamental difference between our two plans. Really what it comes down to is the Democratic budget grows government dramatically and provides token tax relief for some, while the Republican plan provides responsible government growth, but meaningful tax relief for all. Let us remember that before we calculate the first dime of the surplus, we allow for $1 trillion of additional spending over the course of the next 10 years. We take all of the Social Security and surplus, Medicare surplus, and we put that money aside. As I said earlier, we pay off all the available national debt. It is only after we do all of that that we say, now, with what is still left over, let us provide a little bit of tax relief for the people who created all that money in the first place. I do not know how we could not provide at least this plan, at least what the President has proposed, at least what the Republican budget proposal calls for. It is a modest tax relief plan. It is small compared to the tax relief Ronald Reagan proposed in the early 1980s. Let us not pretend that the tax relief in the early 1980s led to deficits or debt. The fact is tax relief in 1981 led to a doubling of Federal revenue by 1989. It was out-of-control spending that caused the deficits. This tax relief plan is not only small compared to the Reagan tax cuts, it is small compared to the Kennedy cuts of the 1960s. I have yet to hear my colleagues say that John F. Kennedy was proposing excess tax relief when in fact he did it when they did not have surplus. Madam Chairman, the fact is we have an abundance of cash. The surplus is enormous, and it is about time that we provided some tax relief to the people who earned it and created it. We understand that the men and women who earned this money have a right to decide how to spend it. That comes prior to our desires to increase spending which is what the alternative does. We also understand that freedom works. If we lower the tax burden and increase economic freedom, we will increase prosperity and opportunity. Wages will grow. Standards of living will grow. There will be more opportunity for more Americans. That is why it is important that we pass this tax relief measure, and we pass this Republican budget.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been a small business owner for about 10 years. Like many of us, I am sure, I know many hundreds of small business owners across my district, the Lehigh valley of Pennsylvania. There is no question that small business is the critical engine of economic growth and the critical creator of jobs. It is also, I would point out, an amazing source of the charitable contributions in our communities, of volunteer work that goes to improve the quality of life in our communities. It is a thrill to own a small business if you are fortunate enough to have a successful one. There is a great satisfaction in creating a business from scratch and employing people and seeing that become productive. But it is also an enormous challenge. There is a great deal of worry, whether you are going to make that payroll every Friday, whether you are going to have the funds to make that bank payment that is coming due next week, how are you going to figure out how to innovate and stay alive in business. What we in government ought to be doing is we ought to be finding ways to reduce the obstacles that we impose on the small businesspeople of America who achieve this great success. The two big things we can do is we can relieve the tax burden, the enormous tax burden that small business owners contend with every day. We can support the President's proposal and in fact expand on the President's proposal for tax relief and do wonders for small business. The other thing we can do is reduce the regulatory burden. H.R. 327 clearly does that. This is a very constructive step to give small business owners the time and energy to be able to spend productively improving their business, creating more jobs and more opportunity. That is what we ought to be doing here. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 327. I congratulate the members of the committee who have made this possible.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 23, 24, and 25. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 23, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 24, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 25.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 558, a bill that I introduced to name Allentown's Federal courthouse for retired judge Edward M. Cahn. As we have heard, Judge Cahn is a native of Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, and he has really honored our community over many years with his distinguished service as a judge in the district court of eastern Pennsylvania. In fact, if it were not for Judge Cahn's substantial efforts and commitment, Allentown might not even have this courthouse, which we badly needed and which now serves a very important purpose. It is only fitting this courthouse would bear his name. The outpouring of community support to name Allentown's courthouse after Judge Cahn has been overwhelming and bipartisan. I have been approached by judges, prosecutors, public defenders, private attorneys, and many others asking that Judge Cahn be honored in this way. His childhood friend and former colleague, Judge Arnold Rappoport, once said, ``Whether it is being captain of the basketball team in Lehigh University or being in the Marines, he has a pioneering will to achieve. The energy and drive never changed for Judge Cahn.'' As we have heard, he is a graduate of Lehigh University in the Lehigh Valley, a graduate of Yale Law School, and Judge Cahn practiced law in Allentown for 16 years before President Ford appointed him to the District Court. Judge Cahn then served on the Federal bench for 23 years, including 5 years as chief judge. As a jurist and public servant, he practiced fairness and equality under the law. Judge Cahn is widely credited with helping the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania garner the respect and recognition it deserves within the Federal legal community. One of Judge Cahn's former law partners, John Roberts, said of Judge Cahn's retirement that ``the Federal bench has lost a star.'' And although he is recently retired, Judge Cahn is already missed on the Federal bench. Perhaps naming the courthouse after him will serve as an enduring reminder of the contribution he has made to the administration of justice in Pennsylvania. I would like to take a moment to extend some special thanks to some people who have helped: my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) for his efforts in helping to pass this bill. I would also like to thank the members of the Pennsylvania delegation who agreed to cosponsor this legislation and honor someone who has done so much for Pennsylvania. I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the ranking members, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I would also like to thank briefly the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, for helping to bring this legislation to the floor so expeditiously; and I want to urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 558 and bestow this well-deserved honor on Allentown's courthouse and the man who made it possible.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am concerned about what we are doing here today. We are being asked to vote on a huge package of bills that we have not seen, we have not read, and we certainly do not know what is in them. We are being asked to agree to dispense with the regular order of the House and simply vote ``yes'' on a combination of bills, despite the fact that we do not know for sure what bills they are, we do not know how they may or may not have been changed if we did know them, and we do not know what private dealings were struck and may have been inserted into those bills as recently as this afternoon. Now, many of us support some of the elements that we think are in this package, such as the Medicare add-backs, which our hospitals badly need and which I support; but we do not support other elements of this package. Nevertheless, we are going to be forced to vote on the whole package up or down. I know this certainly is not the first time we have been asked to vote on a package of bills that we have not seen, but that does not make it right. And I know we all want to go home. We all want to be with our families for the holidays. I certainly also want to do that. But do we not have a responsibility to our constituents to at least know what we are voting on when we vote on the largest nondefense appropriation bill in the Federal Government? We are going to vote on one element of this package which alone is $109 billion of taxpayer money. I think it is disturbing that we are going to vote on that without knowing the details. But what is almost as disturbing as what we do not know is the things that we do know, or at least I think we know, about what is in this package. Mr. Speaker, we know that the spending on the Labor-HHS portion of that appropriation bill is, frankly, out of control. Using the Committee on Appropriations' own numbers, the budget deal that we are going to vote on today increases spending by $12 billion, or nearly 12 percent or nearly 5 times the rate of inflation. And if we take into account all the funding gimmicks, like advanced funding, and we look on an apples- to-apples basis, the actual money that will be spent is $23 billion more than in this previous year, an over-26 percent increase, nine times the rate of inflation. Frankly, we are squandering too much of the budget surplus that could be used for other purposes. The bill apparently is going to create untold new programs, and I do not know how many earmarks. It is $7 billion higher than what the House approved; it is $4 billion more than what the Senate approved; it is even $3 billion higher than the President's request. And of course, we are not sure exactly how all that money has been spent. Now, despite all of these big spending increases, some are probably going to come to this floor and say this is a cut of $3.6 billion from previously agreed-upon levels. Let me remind my colleagues that the so- called agreement was to an arbitrary number by a handful of Members under the duress of a threatened veto which never was agreed to by either Chamber. If I went ahead and objected, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that would not accomplish much. I know a rule could be brought up, it would be debated, it would be passed, and we would only be delaying the inevitable. But I will urge my colleagues to vote against final passage on this bill. Vote against the huge spending increase that is in this bill; vote against joining all these unrelated bills in one package; vote against a package the contents of which are a mystery to most of us. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, over the last 20 years, American and international financial markets have changed dramatically. Opportunities for investors have expanded tremendously. New access to capital has empowered entrepreneurs. The ability to hedge financial and commodity price risk has stabilized earnings and encouraged investment. This democratization of the capital markets has been driven largely by the development and application of derivative transactions, especially over-the-counter derivatives. I worked in the derivative sector of the financial services industry for 7 years in the 1980s and 1990s. I marvel now at how widespread, sophisticated, and indispensable these products have become since then. Today we are going to pass a Commodity Exchange Act that will eliminate most of the cloud of legal and regulatory uncertainty that has shadowed these products since their invention. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. It is not, however, a perfect bill. I hope the other body will eliminate the remaining legal uncertainty that will still shadow the use of these transactions by retail customers. I hope that they will allow greater flexibility in the electronic trading of the over-the- counter derivatives. Today we do have a good bill. It will strengthen the ability of American financial institutions to compete in a vital sector of finance. I urge its passage.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Claire Howard, one of my constituents, on her appointment as the President-Elect of the United States Serra Club. In 2001, Mrs. Howard will become the first woman President of the USA Council and also the first in the history of Serra International. Mrs. Howard is a charter member of the Bethlehem Serra Club and over the years has served as an active member on almost all of the standing committees. Of particular note is Mrs. Howard's service as the Coordinator of the Serra Clubs of Allentown Diocese's ``Life/Vocation Awareness Weekend.'' The weekend offers any adult who would like to explore the possibilities of entering the priesthood or a religious order a time to reflect, pray and interact with priests. In addition to her work with the Serra Club, Mrs. Howard is an active member of the Morning Star Rotary Club, Junior League of the Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem Palette Club, and the Bethlehem Quota Club. I applaud Mrs. Claire Howard on her new appointment and wish her the best of luck in this new assignment.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would like to add to this discussion the following thought: clearly, Governor Bush made the case, I thought very persuasively, and the choice between Vice President Al Gore and what Governor Bush comes down to is will we be a freer society in which the men and women who produce the assets and resources of our country get to decide how to allocate those assets and resources, or will it be a less free society and we will see the Federal Government's massive new powers, massive new spending that the Vice President has proposed and believes in? I would just like to make two observations. First, if we believe in the very central premise on which our Nation was founded, the principle of individual liability, then that is a very compelling reason in and of itself to support Governor Bush, because he wants to expand the freedom of the men and women of our country. But if we are not persuaded by that principle, then I would suggest that we ask ourselves, what does the empirical evidence suggest? What does the data suggest about the results of economic freedom? The fact is, the jury is in, the verdict is in. The outcome is very, very clear. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my colleagues that they might want to read an annual report that is produced by the Heritage Foundation in cooperation with the Wall Street Journal, and it is a fascinating report. What it does, it measures the extent to which various societies around the world are economically free. It measures things such as the level of government expenditures in an economy, the level of the tax burden, the amount of the regulatory burden, whether or not currencies are exchangeable. It takes this measurement, and it evaluates those countries which are essentially free economies, and it analyzes those which are essentially unfree, and then it shows an astonishing interesting correlation between economic freedom and wealth and prosperity. In fact, I would suggest my colleagues turn to page 21 of this report, it is the 2000 Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal, and what it demonstrates is empirically and objectively beyond a dispute that those economies, those societies that are most free are also most prosperous, allow their people to create the most wealth, have the highest standard of living, and the greatest opportunity in the world. And those societies which are least free have the greatest poverty and misery. We know that that happens on the extremes. We know that the Soviet Union was an economic disaster, and the United States has been an economic miracle, but the important point that this study illustrates is that it is not only true on the extremes, but it is true on the continuum in between. Mr. Speaker, just to finish and to conclude, the point that it makes is that if we move in the direction of greater economic freedom, lowering the tax burden, lowering government regulation, limiting Federal spending, limiting the control of our society in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, if we limit that and we expand personal freedom and economic freedom, we will have more prosperity, more economic growth, more opportunity, more people with bigger take-home paychecks able to do the things that work best for their families; and that is the society that I think we all want.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer hardy congratulations to Marty Nothstein. Last Wednesday, Marty won the gold medal in the cycling match sprint competition during the 2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. I am proud to stand before all of my colleagues today to say ``job well done'' to this Trexlertown, Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania native. During the 1996 Atlanta games, Marty narrowly missed his chance at gold by placing second in the match sprint competition in one of the closest races from Olympic history. But instead of giving up on his Olympic dream for gold, Marty rededicated himself to his sport. He devoted more time, more energy, more patience to his training than he had at any other time during his long cycling career. Marty's win last Wednesday is the culmination of a career that includes seven World Championship medals, including three World Championship titles. Mr. Speaker, before all of my colleagues today, I want to recognize the efforts of this outstanding young man. By winning this gold medal on the world's biggest stage, Marty has proven that, with unparalleled effort, determination, and dedication, everything is possible. Marty is a true Olympic hero.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our guest pastor, the Reverend Richard Elliott of New Hanover Evangelical Lutheran Church, in Gilbertsville, Pennsylvania. The House is privileged to have Pastor Elliott deliver such an inspirational opening prayer for us today, Thursday, September 21, 2000. His message to ``strive for justice and strength in order to pursue peace'' is reflected in the long history of his congregation and its wisdom to lead by example. Founded in 1700, the congregation is currently celebrating the church's 300th anniversary. It is the oldest German Lutheran congregation in the United States. New Hanover Evangelical Lutheran Church has nurtured a nation with its creative and energetic congregation, with character, with humility, with kindness and compassion. During the War for American Independence, the church served as a temporary hospital for General George Washington's troops after the Battles of Brandywine and Paoli. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is indeed privileged to have Pastor Richard Elliott of new Hanover Evangelical Lutheran Church deliver the opening prayer today. Pastor Elliott and his congregation are a true reflection of what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they fought for the birth of our Nation.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which is an insult to the millions of Americans who devote so much time and energy to the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Mr. John Finnegan, Jr. Mr. Finnegan, who only moved to the Lehigh Valley four years ago, has displayed an extraordinary dedication to the people of his community. The Director of Consulting Services at Dun and Bradstreet, Mr. Finnegan serves as a member of the Board of Supervisors of Hanover Township, Northampton County. He has served as the chief fund-raiser for the township's bicentennial committee, and on its parks and recreation board. His hard work and diligence have made a tremendous difference in the life of his community. In addition to his civic and corporate involvement, Mr. Finnegan's personal actions also serve as a model for others to follow. He has been a coach for Little League baseball and hockey leagues, serving as a role model and mentor to the youth of the Lehigh Valley. Coordinator for his neighborhood crime watch, Mr. Finnegan has become an invaluable resource to the constituents of my district in the short time he has lived there. I applaud Mr. Finnegan for his devotion to the Lehigh Valley community. John Finnegan is a Lehigh Valley Hero.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Mr. John Finnegan, Jr. Mr. Finnegan, who only moved to the Lehigh Valley four years ago, has displayed an extraordinary dedication to the people of his community. The Director of Consulting Services at Dun and Bradstreet, Mr. Finnegan serves as a member of the Board of Supervisors of Hanover Township, Northampton County. He has served as the chief fund-raiser for the township's bicentennial committee, and on its parks and recreation board. His hard work and diligence have made a tremendous difference in the life of his community. In addition to his civic and corporate involvement, Mr. Finnegan's personal actions also serve as a model for others to follow. He has been a coach for Little League baseball and hockey leagues, serving as a role model and mentor to the youth of the Lehigh Valley. Coordinator for his neighborhood crime watch, Mr. Finnegan has become an invaluable resource to the constituents of my district in the short time he has lived there. I applaud Mr. Finnegan for his devotion to the Lehigh Valley community. John Finnegan is a Lehigh Valley Hero.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague for again toiling in the field of the esoteric budget law; but this is important work, and to respond to the previous speaker, to suggest that there has been some kind of model of physical discipline in discretionary spending in recent years I think is simply to ignore the facts. The facts are that discretionary spending has been growing at a very rapid rate, far greater than the speed at which the economy is growing or inflation. I think we clearly need a tool like this for some fiscal discipline. I am happy to note that such a large, overwhelming majority of this body have supported this at one time or another. I am sure Members will want to be consistent in their voting, so I am very hopeful that this will pass. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that all this amendment does is it gives a Member of this body the option to use the savings from an amendment; when he or she reduces a particular account, it creates the option to make sure that that savings actually becomes a savings and does not get spent somewhere else. Now, if we want to do a transfer amendment, if we want to take from one account and put into another account, we can do that; and this amendment would not change that at all. The flexibility to shift money around from account to account would remain. But today, under our current budget rules, if what we really want to do is reduce spending and not spend it somewhere else, but actually use it to retire some debt and lower the burden on taxpayers in this country, we have no assurance that that will happen, because after we pass the amendment that reduces that account, that money can later be spent somewhere else in the process. What this amendment does is it gives a Member of this body the option to say, no, I do not want to spend this money anywhere else; I want to see it go for some debt reduction. For that I think it is a very valuable tool, a very important tool; and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing today from our colleagues on the other side that perhaps this measure is more symbolic than substantive and might not really accomplish that much. I could not more strongly disagree. The previous speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), made it very clear, and quite rightly, that absent this measure, there is absolutely nothing to stop Congress from spending this money. Of course, if one knows anything about the history of Congress, one knows that that is indeed the proclivity of this body, as well as the other Chamber to do exactly that. Let me touch on a specific situation and put this in some context. Where are we right now in the 2001 appropriations process? We are trying to pass a series of measures and the President is insisting that he needs another $20 billion or $25 billion above and beyond that record high level of spending that we are proposing. We hear our colleagues from the other side come down here every time we debate an appropriations bill to tell us we are not spending enough money. One of the ways that this spending can occur is by a devious little budget gimmick which involves reaching back into the previous year, in this case that would be fiscal year 2000, and spending the money there so that we create the illusion of some modicum of fiscal restraint, when, in fact, it is not recurring. One of the things we need to do is take this money off the table so that it is not available for that kind of gimmickry, so that the American public gets the budget that they are being told and so that we pay down this debt, this mountain of debt which we have made some progress on but need to make much more. There is one other point that I would like to make on this. Why is it important that we not just spend this money? Why is it important to limit the growth and the spending of the Federal Government? It is important because we need to remember every dollar that is spent by the Federal Government is the political allocation of other people's money, and we need to minimize that whenever we can and allow the hard-working men and women across this country who are producing the wealth in this country to spend their own hard-earned money as they choose rather than the way that politicians choose. That is why this measure is so important.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as I am listening to the other side talking about cuts in this bill, it is really very hard for me to fathom this. This is like hearing that black is white, that up is down. I think George Orwell would find this rhetoric very, very familiar. I would suggest that my colleagues turn to page 277 of the committee report. It simply says, it shows quite clearly that in fiscal year 2001 the program administrators, the people actually spending this money, are going to have $12.3 billion more money to spend than they had in fiscal year 2000; $12.3 billion. That is an increase. The 2001 number is bigger than the 2000 number. It is not just a little bit bigger. It is 14.5 percent bigger. That is three times the rate at which the economy is growing. It is about five times the rate of inflation. But what we are hearing from the other side is that even that increase is not enough. Frankly, I think it is too high, but it is consistent with the budget resolution that we passed in this Chamber and in the other Chamber, and I am going to support it. But to hear the other side complaining about cuts is shocking to me. Now, if the other side really finds programs that they feel need more funding, which no doubt they do, they are free to offer amendments to reshuffle this money around, to transfer from one account to another; but they cannot do that to their satisfaction, even with a 14.5 percent increase in the money that is available. I think what is clear here, the difference between the two parties is that there is no amount of money that is enough. We have a record high level of spending, record high discretionary spending. This bill is at a record high level, and we have record high taxes. Despite that, they want more money and more spending. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this rule, which simply keeps the bill consistent with the budget resolution and then vote yes on final passage.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues today, whom are we rewarding in China by opening up China to our products and services? Clearly, we are awarding American workers and farmers who will be able to sell their products in China, but whom in China are we rewarding? Some opponents of PNTR seem to think that this arrangement would reward the government in Beijing which they believe is unworthy. Mr. Chairman, I lived in Hong Kong, and I have traveled extensively and repeatedly throughout Southeast Asia, including China; and I think that is the fundamentally wrong way to view this deal. First of all, it assumes that the Chinese political leadership is a unified monolith of some sort. In fact, there are many factions in Chinese leadership, many factions in Beijing, tensions between Beijing and the provinces and fundamental world view differences between reformers in China who have initiated economic and political reform, who support engagement with the West, who have introduced the free enterprise system to a limited degree, and who encourage following the rule of law on the one hand, versus reactionary elements, in particular in the military, who would revert to the old ways of Mao Tse-type communism. If anyone is being rewarded in China with a vote for permanent normal trade relations, it is the reformers who have been catalysts for change, for progress for the good. What have these reformists accomplished so far? I believe they have put China on a voyage in the direction towards freedom. There is a long way to go, but there has been substantial progress. President Bush himself said that the people of China enjoy much greater freedom today than when we lived in China, and that is the trend that we can be rewarding. In China today, local villages are having democratic elections for municipal leaders. Millions of Chinese are practicing religions, including Christian religions. Workers can choose where they work for. Travel is open, including travel abroad, and almost half of economic output in China is now privately owned. Millions of Chinese citizens have access to the Internet, and there they have unlimited information and ideas, including ideas about personal freedom, political freedom, the rule of law, all of the values that we cherish. A vote for permanent normal trade relations with China reinforces the reformers; it reinforces this trend. China has a long way to go, but I urge my colleagues to vote to help further empower the Chinese citizens to achieve the freedoms that we take for granted. Help the Chinese people on the beginning of this voyage towards freedom. Vote yes for permanent normal trade relations.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I think he deserves congratulations for delving so deeply into the land of esoteria here. This is not a very well understood topic and I congratulate him for his conscientious efforts certainly to understand it, which he thoroughly does, but to offer a constructive solution. I think what this amendment is all about really is honest budgeting, specifically honest budgeting in the age of surpluses. Pay-go is a relic of the era of deficits. It was designed at the time for the worthy purpose of preventing further growth in existing deficits. What the Ryan amendment does is it simply updates this tool so that it will also work when there are surpluses. If, God forbid, we go back to the days of deficits, this tool will continue to work as it was designed, as it was intended, as it worked then. But today, fortunately, we are in a time of surplus and we need to update this tool. Theoretically, under the current budget rules, if we want to use part of the on-budget surplus, the non-Social Security surplus for a tax cut, the rules say you have got to cut entitlement spending in order to do that. Now, we certainly do not want to cut entitlement spending because we want to lower taxes from the on-budget surplus, and we do not. When we propose a tax cut, what we do is we waive this rule. We pretend it is not there. Well, that is not the right way to do things. That really makes a mockery of the rules of the House. What the gentleman from Wisconsin is attempting to do is to modify this rule, update it, bring it up to the era of surpluses and make it workable, whether we have deficits or surpluses. It is a good, thoughtful amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is really very simple. What this amendment is all about, as it says, is if Congress passes an amendment designed, intended, and it passes, to save taxpayer money, then it should do just that. It should not be spent somewhere else. The Ryan amendment, frankly, is a reasonable and sensible compromise on how that happens. It says any money that is saved through an amendment to an appropriation bill is not going to be used for a tax cut and it cannot be used for additional spending. It simply will be used for debt reduction. Now, some may point out, well, you know, if nothing else happens, eventually this money automatically will go for debt reduction. But, keep in mind, that is only if it is not spent first on a subsequent bill. I think experience shows that it is very hard for this Chamber and it is very hard for the other Chamber to resist the temptation of spending money that is sitting on the table. What the Ryan amendment does is it says when this Chamber expresses its will by reducing the spending level, let us make that happen. Take the money off the table. This is a very modest modicum of fiscal discipline, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Every year, at the end of the appropriation process, we end up facing the shutdown showdown. Congress and the President disagree on the spending level, and when a stalemate occurs, the threat of a disruptive, costly, irresponsible government shutdown looms ominously over the negotiations. Who wins those negotiations? The winner is whichever side can blame the other for the shutdown. The politics of who will win and who will get to blame the other side for the shutdown determines the winner. That is no way to run the government. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) has a good commonsense solution that says, keep the government running, keep spending bills in dispute constant at the previous year's level. One of the best things about this approach is, as we have heard today, nobody likes freezing things at last year's level. No one likes it. I do not like a freeze, I would like to see lower spending. Others do not like a freeze, they want to see higher spending. The appropriators do not like the freeze, they want to play the role allocated to them of allocating the spending. The good result of that is that if the Gekas amendment becomes law, there is plenty of pressure from all sides to reach a reasonable compromise, much more likely to be based on policy matters and less likely to be driven by the politics of a shutdown. I urge a yes vote on this amendment.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a group of my constituents who do volunteer work helping others in my district. Over 100 volunteers for the Lehigh Valley Hospice will soon receive awards for their service. These volunteers, who come from all areas of eastern Pennsylvania, help to improve the lives of thousands of terminally ill patients in the community. From assisting with chores to providing respite for patients' families, the acts of these volunteers show the depth of their generosity and compassion. Hospice volunteers provide much needed emotional support during a time of tremendous distress. The volunteers provided care for patients as well as caregivers, and represent a light of hope to the entire community. This year marks the 20th anniversary of Lehigh Valley Hospice, and I applaud the organization's wonderful volunteers for providing a service that aids so many members of the community. Mr. Speaker, all the hospice volunteers are Lehigh Valley Heroes. Honorees--Lehigh Valley Hospice Volunteers Marilyn Ackerman, Robert Allwein, Jennifer Baldwin, Edna Balmat, Debbie Barr, Susan Baxter, Jean Behler, Shirley Beiseigel, Irene Bell, Roy Bertelsen, Rosemary Bobersky, Al Braido, Florence Brown, Lisa Brown, Lois Brown, Diane Buchner, Nadenka Butko. Penn Clissold, Mary Therese Collins, Karen Conners, Jean Cooper, Dorine Cope, Betsy Cunningham, Alice D'Amore, Rosie Deitrick, Marilyn Demaree, Lou Ditro, Jean Dolan, Chester Dombrowski, Helene Dombrowski, Betty Dorwart, Elizabeth Dorwart, Margaret Duell, Doug Dykhouse. Mary Earley, Adrienne Ehle, Jean Everett, Gerry Filemyr, Gertrude Flicker, Kathleen Foglia, Dorothy Folk, Helen Fox, Susan Fritz. Lar Garman, Gail Geist, Steve Gendall, Marion Gewartowski, Joyce Gobrecht, Connie Graaf, Lorraine Gyauch, Mary Haas, Jeanne Hagemes, Susan Hamill, David Hankard, Lori Henninger, Jack Helt, Dorothy Hoffman, Jane Holland, Barbara Hydro. Karen Jacob, Marymae Jansson, Ann Karas, Pat Keinert, Barbara Kelly, Mary Lou Kenney, Becky Korman, Gina Kramer, Sarah Kutz, Shirley Lafaver, Roberta Lambert, Helen Lamparella, Joan Laudenslager, Margaret Liebl, Martha Lopez, Anne Lynch, Wendy Lynn. Ed Magocs, Jean Magocs, Kathryn Major, Ken Mangano, Helen Maron, Yvette Martinez, Linette Martino, Joan May, Donnal Mayotte, Suzanne McCready, Anne McCullough, Tracey McGee, Susan McGrath, Jean McNamara, Lettie Mearhoff, Kristy Parks Mesh, Sue Micek, Rodney Miller, Carolyn Momm, Joan Moran, Elsie Mory, Valerie Moyer. Ruth Nigro, Pat Pluchinsky, Angie Pontician, Sylvia Prorok, Frederika Rhodes, Nancy Rich, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Kim Roth, Lillian Rozenburgh. Laurette Sabolick, Jean Sauder, Carol Saxman, Marion Schaffer, Ann Schuck, Mary Sechler, Jan Seem, Eileen Serow, Elaine Sheninger, Brenda Smith, Sherri Smith, Brenda Stahley, Kathy Sterner, Justine Stoudt, Arlan Strubeck. Fran Tapper, Mary Thompson, Karen Toole, Dorothy Tramontano, Beverly Van Kuren, Jeaninne Wagner, Frank Walsh, Eleanor Wetherhold, Janet Whitehill, Ann Wilhelm, Anne Yori, Rita Zanders, Susan Zern, Bill Zoshak. In memoriam--Michael McNamara and Ethel Strubeck.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I would just close by pointing out that this Congress has never taken on-budget funds, money in this case that is coming from the overcharged taxpayers, and allowed that to sit around and to be used to retire debt. The Congress has never done that. And I think to think that that would happen this year is naive at best. By explicitly appropriating this money for debt reduction, we assure that will happen, we pay down more of the publicly held debt, and we eliminate the possibility that next week or next month or sometime in the near future there will be another bill that will attempt to spend it. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and make this supplemental a better bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a supplemental appropriations bill, but this debate is really all about what Congress should do with the on-budget surplus for fiscal year 2000. Let me explain what this surplus is because there is, understandably, a lot of confusion about budget surpluses. Last year, Congress, for the first time in 30 years, stopped the raid on Social Security surpluses, and that was a terrific step. This year, after saving and setting aside the entire Social Security surplus, the Federal Government is still taking in more tax revenue than it is spending for the rest of its programs. We call this the on- budget surplus or sometimes the non-Social Security surplus. Now, despite increasing discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000 by about 5 percent over fiscal year 1999's levels last fall through the regular appropriations bills, the economy is so strong, and tax revenues were so high that this on-budget surplus that we are talking about is about $26 billion for fiscal year 2000. Let us keep in mind that this fiscal year is about half over, so this amount is quite certain at this point. So today's debate is really over what to do with this $26 billion on-budget surplus. This is a historic debate. We have not had a surplus like this in over 30 years, and even then only briefly and very small. But today we have a real live, honest-to-goodness, not-just-projected, but already- here non-Social Security surplus. More importantly, we stand at the threshold of an era in which we could be debating surpluses for many years to come, provided that we do one thing, Mr. Chairman, provided we do not spend it all. Mr. Chairman, prior to the amendments that we are voting on and considering today, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill already spends roughly $9 billion of the $26 billion surplus. Now, we will likely add to that price tag today, and some are already working on future later bills which eventually, if we do not do something about it today, will surely spend all of this real live surplus, the first one in 30 years. I think it will be a terrible mistake to spend all of that money. Let me cite four reasons. First of all, I think the American people want to see less government and more freedom, surely not expanding Federal spending at a breathtaking pace. Second, this is not just about fiscal year 2000 spending because, as we all know, each year we spend more money than we did in the previous year. That is what we do in Washington. My point is that this debate is not about just the fiscal year 2000 surplus, because if we spend all this money, it will find its way into the baseline, and all future budgets will end up spending more money as a result if we spend all of this fiscal year 2000 surplus. If we do that, we diminish future surpluses, and that means there is less money available in the future for tax relief, to make the changes we need in Medicare, to make structural reform for Social Security, a number of very important priorities. Thirdly, it would be a terrible precedent. This again, as I said, is our first real live, honest-to-goodness Social Security surplus in 30 years. Do we really want to tell the American people that, for Congress, the purpose of the surplus is to spend it as fast as it arrives? Finally, let us remember that every dollar the Federal Government spends is a dollar being spent by politicians through a political process rather than by free men and women who have earned that money and could be spending it as they see fit. That is why I am offering this amendment, to prevent us from spending all of this money by taking some of it off the spending table. What my amendment does is very simple. It specifically appropriates $4 billion of the $26 billion fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus to reduce the publicly held debt. If we pass this amendment, first of all, we will pay down some more debt. I think that is a worthwhile goal. But, in addition, it would be the first time in the history of the modern Congress that we will have an explicit appropriation for debt reduction and an explicit voluntary act of this body to take some of that money and pay down debt. It will show that we have got the discipline to resist spending some of this money. I want to thank the Republican leadership for their support on this. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for his support on this amendment. I want to remind my colleagues this first surplus is a unique opportunity. I want to urge my colleagues to do the right thing and set the right precedent. Vote yes on my amendment and make this a better bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.