John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I now yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2, I am submitting the Committee on the Budget's rules for the 111th Congress. The rules were adopted during our Committee's organizational meeting, which was held January 22, 2009. Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives of the United States, 111th Congress General Applicability Rule 1--Applicability of House Rules Except as otherwise specified herein, the Rules of the House are the rules of the committee so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day is a motion of high privilege. Meetings Rule 2--Regular meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the committee shall be the second Wednesday of each month at 11 a.m., while the House is in session. (b) The chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular meeting when the chairman determines there is no business to be considered by the committee. The chairman shall give written notice to that effect to each member of the committee as far in advance of the regular meeting day as the circumstances permit. (c) Regular meetings shall be canceled when they conflict with meetings of either party's caucus or conference. Rule 3--Additional and special meetings (a) The chairman may call and convene additional meetings of the committee as the chairman considers necessary, or special meetings at the request of a majority of the members of the committee in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(c). (b) In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the chairman shall provide written notice of additional meetings to the office of each member at least 24 hours in advance while Congress is in session, and at least 3 days in advance when Congress is not in session. Rule 4--Open business meetings (a) Each meeting for the transaction of committee business, including the markup of measures, shall be open to the public except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(1). (b) No person other than members of the committee and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as the committee may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. Rule 5--Quorums A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum. No business shall be transacted and no measure or recommendation shall be reported unless a quorum is actually present. Rule 6--Recognition Any member, when recognized by the chairman, may address the committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under consideration before the committee. The time of such member shall be limited to 5 minutes until all members present have been afforded an opportunity to comment. Rule 7--Consideration of business Measures or matters may be placed before the committee, for its consideration, by the chairman or by a majority vote of the members of the committee, a quorum being present. Rule 8--Availability of legislation The committee shall consider no bill, joint resolution, or concurrent resolution unless copies of the measure have been made available to all committee members at least 6 hours prior to the time at which such measure is to be considered. When considering concurrent resolutions on the budget, this requirement shall be satisfied by making available copies of the complete chairman's mark (or such material as will provide the basis for committee consideration). The provisions of this rule may be suspended with the concurrence of the chairman and ranking minority member. Rule 9--Procedure for consideration of budget resolution (a) It shall be the policy of the committee that the starting point for any deliberations on a concurrent resolution on the budget should be the estimated or actual levels for the fiscal year preceding the budget year. (b) In the consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the committee shall first proceed, unless otherwise determined by the committee, to consider budget aggregates, functional categories, and other appropriate matters on a tentative basis, with the document before the committee open to amendment. Subsequent amendments may be offered to aggregates, functional categories, or other appropriate matters, which have already been amended in their entirety. (c) Following adoption of the aggregates, functional categories, and other matters, the text of a concurrent resolution on the budget incorporating such aggregates, functional categories, and other appropriate matters shall be considered for amendment and a final vote. Rule 10--Roll call votes A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of at least one-fifth of those present. In the apparent absence of a quorum, a roll call may be had on the request of any member. Hearings Rule 11--Announcement of hearings The chairman shall make a public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least 1 week before the hearing, beginning with the day in which the announcement is made and ending the day preceding the scheduled hearing unless the chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the committee by majority vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, in which case the chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Rule 12--Open hearings (a) Each hearing conducted by the committee or any of its task forces shall be open to the public except when the committee or task force, in open session and with a quorum present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security, or would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. The committee or task forces may by the same procedure vote to close one subsequent day of hearing. (b) For the purposes of House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(2), the task forces of the committee are considered to be subcommittees. Rule 13--Quorums For the purpose of hearing testimony, not less than two members of the committee shall constitute a quorum. Rule 14--Questioning witnesses (a) Questioning of witnesses will be conducted under the 5- minute rule unless the committee adopts a motion pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2(j). (b) In questioning witnesses under the 5-minute rule: (1) First, the chairman and the ranking minority member shall be recognized; (2) Next, the members present at the time the hearing is called to order shall be recognized in order of seniority; and (3) Finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called to order may be recognized in the order of their arrival at the hearing. In recognizing members to question witnesses, the chairman may take into consideration the ratio of majority members to minority members and the number of majority and minority members present and shall apportion the recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the members of the majority. Rule 15--Subpoenas and oaths (a) In accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(m) subpoenas authorized by a majority of the committee may be issued over the signature of the chairman or of any member of the committee designated by him, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman or such member. (b) The chairman, or any member of the committee designated by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses. Rule 16--Witnesses' statements (a) So far as practicable, any prepared statement to be presented by a witness shall be submitted to the committee at least 24 hours in advance of presentation, and shall be distributed to all members of the committee in advance of presentation. (b) To the greatest extent possible, each witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity shall include with the written statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or sub-grant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years. Prints and Publications Rule 17--Committee prints All committee prints and other materials prepared for public distribution shall be approved by the committee prior to any distribution, unless such print or other material shows clearly on its face that it has not been approved by the committee. Rule 18--Committee publications on the Internet To the maximum extent feasible, the committee shall make its publications available in electronic form. Staff Rule 19--Committee staff (a) Subject to approval by the committee, and to the provisions of the following paragraphs, the professional and clerical staff of the committee shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the chairman. (b) Committee staff shall not be assigned any duties other than those pertaining to committee business, and shall be selected without regard to race, creed, sex, or age, and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of their respective positions. (c) All committee staff shall be entitled to equitable treatment, including comparable salaries, facilities, access to official committee records, leave, and hours of work. (d) Notwithstanding paragraphs a, b, and c, staff shall be employed in compliance with House rules, the Employment and Accountability Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and any other applicable Federal statutes. Rule 20--Staff supervision (a) Staff shall be under the general supervision and direction of the chairman, who shall establish and assign their duties and responsibilities, delegate such authority as he deems appropriate, fix and adjust staff salaries (in accordance with House Rule X, clause 9(c)) and job titles, and, at his discretion, arrange for their specialized training. (b) Staff assigned to the minority shall be under the general supervision and direction of the minority members of the committee, who may delegate such authority, as they deem appropriate. Records Rule 21--Preparation and maintenance of committee records (a) A substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the proceedings shall be made of all hearings and business meetings subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections. (b) The proceedings of the committee shall be recorded in a journal, which shall among other things, include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded. (c) Members of the committee shall correct and return transcripts of hearings as soon as practicable after receipt thereof, except that any changes shall be limited to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections. (d) Any witness may examine the transcript of his own testimony and make grammatical, technical, and typographical corrections. (e) The chairman may order the printing of a hearing record without the corrections of any member or witness if he determines that such member or witness has been afforded a reasonable time for correction, and that further delay would seriously impede the committee's responsibility for meeting its deadlines under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. (f) Transcripts of hearings and meetings may be printed if the chairman decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of the members so request. Rule 22--Access to committee records (a)(1) The chairman shall promulgate regulations to provide for public inspection of roll call votes and to provide access by members to committee records (in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(e)). (2) Access to classified testimony and information shall be limited to Members of Congress and to House Budget Committee staff and staff of the Office of Official Reporters who have appropriate security clearance. (3) Notice of the receipt of such information shall be sent to the committee members. Such information shall be kept in the committee safe, and shall be available to members in the committee office. (b) The records of the committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The chairman shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the committee for a determination on the written request of any member of the committee. Oversight Rule 23--General oversight (a) The committee shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject of which is within its jurisdiction. (b) The committee is authorized at any time to conduct such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under clause (1)(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House, and, subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by clause 6 of Rule X, to incur expenses (including travel expenses) in connection therewith. (c) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a Congress, the committee shall meet in open session, with a quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans for that Congress for submission to the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in accordance with the provisions of clause (2)(d) of House Rule X. Reports Rule 24--Availability before filing (a) Any report accompanying any bill or resolution ordered reported to the House by the committee shall be available to all committee members at least 36 hours prior to filing with the House. (b) No material change shall be made in any report made available to members pursuant to section (a) without the concurrence of the ranking minority member or by a majority vote of the committee. (c) Notwithstanding any other rule of the committee, either or both subsections (a) and (b) may be waived by the chairman or with a majority vote by the committee. Rule 25--Report on the budget resolution The report of the committee to accompany a concurrent resolution on the budget shall include a comparison of the estimated or actual levels for the year preceding the budget year with the proposed spending and revenue levels for the budget year and each out year along with the appropriate percentage increase or decrease for each budget function and aggregate. The report shall include any roll call vote on any motion to amend or report any measure. Rule 26--Parliamentarian's Status Report and Section 302 Status Report (a)(1) In order to carry out its duty under sections 311 and 312 of the Congressional Budget Act to advise the House of Representatives as to the current level of spending and revenues as compared to the levels set forth in the latest agreed-upon concurrent resolution on the budget, the committee shall advise the Speaker on at least a monthly basis when the House is in session as to its estimate of the current level of spending and revenue. Such estimates shall be prepared by the staff of the committee, transmitted to the Speaker in the form of a Parliamentarian's Status Report, and printed in the Congressional Record. (2) The committee authorizes the chairman, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transmit to the Speaker the Parliamentarian's Status Report described above. (b)(1) In order to carry out its duty under sections 302 and 312 of the Congressional Budget Act to advise the House of Representative as to the current level of spending within the jurisdiction of committees as compared to the appropriate allocations made pursuant to the Budget Act in conformity with the latest agreed-upon concurrent resolution on the budget, the committee shall, as necessary, advise the Speaker as to its estimate of the current level of spending within the jurisdiction of appropriate committees. Such estimates shall be prepared by the staff of the committee and transmitted to the Speaker in the form of a Section 302 Status Report. (2) The committee authorizes the chairman, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transmit to the Speaker the Section 302 Status Report described above. Rule 27--Activity report After an adjournment of the last regular session of a Congress sine die, the Chair of the committee may file any time with the Clerk the committee's activity report for that Congress pursuant to clause (1)(d)(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the House without the approval of the committee, if a copy of the report has been available to each member of the committee for at least seven calendar days and the report includes any supplemental, minority, or additional views submitted by a member of the committee. Miscellaneous Rule 28--Broadcasting of meetings and hearings (a) It shall be the policy of the committee to give all news media access to open hearings of the committee, subject to the requirements and limitations set forth in House Rule XI, clause 4. (b) Whenever any committee business meeting is open to the public, that meeting may be covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, still photography, or by any of such methods of coverage, in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 4. Rule 29--Appointment of conferees (a) Majority party members recommended to the Speaker as conferees shall be recommended by the chairman subject to the approval of the majority party members of the committee. (b) The chairman shall recommend such minority party members as conferees as shall be determined by the minority party; the recommended party representation shall be in approximately the same proportion as that in the committee. Rule 30--Waivers When a reported bill or joint resolution, conference report, or anticipated floor amendment violates any provision of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman may, if practical, consult with the committee members on whether the chairman should recommend, in writing, that the Committee on Rules report a special rule that enforces the Act by not waiving the applicable points of order during the consideration of such measure.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 201 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2 (Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we can debate this bill endlessly tonight, but no one can contest this point, this fact; we are in the midst of the greatest, longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression. The question before us is simply this: Will we act, act now and act boldly in an effort to restore our economy to a healthy status, or will we run the risk that this recession will become even deeper and longer? Now, I know that some doubt or disdain the steps taken so far by the government. Let me say up until a week ago that government was the Bush administration. I know that some question whether or not these steps have done any good. But let's go back to September and October. We witnessed a complete collapse of confidence in the global financial system and a wrenching credit crunch for corporate and consumer borrowers both. The spread between the 3-month LIBOR, the London Interbank Lending Rate, and 3-month Treasuries, which is a proxy for the willingness of banks to lend money, reached 360 basis points, 3.6 percent. Many feared, with good reason, that we would soon be in a cash-and-carry economy. We passed the bill which provided additional liquidity. It hasn't accomplished all we hoped it would. But the spread that I just mentioned has fallen from 360 basis points to 100 basis points, still double the normal spread, but that is a big improvement and one clear indication that government actions have produced some good effect. Sure, they are not lending as much as we would like. Financing for consumer durables like autos and homes is not where we'd like it to be. But we are a lot better off than we would have been if the government had not intervened. Now, I know some recoil at the enormous costs we are incurring. And I'll be frank with you, I find it stunning. $825 billion. But the cost of doing nothing is not zero. Far from it. What is the cost of doing nothing? Well, the CBO tells us that the cost of doing nothing, nothing tonight, nothing further, could be as much as a 2.2 percent contraction in GDP over 2009, the current year, and an unemployment rate climbing to 9 to 10 percent. Other forecasters predict even worse. We had several before our committee today. Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.Com forecasted today a 3.4 percent contraction in the economy in 2009 with unemployment soaring to 11 percent next year. Still people say, well, why does the government need to respond? Why can't we let this recession, like others in the past, run its course and self-correct? Well, our economy is up against some major head winds. Consumers have cut spending because their principal asset, their home, has plummeted in value by 20 percent, and some say it may go 20 percent more before we reach a reasonable trend line. There are huge overhangs in the real estate market. Real estate may have led us out of past recessions, but not this one. Nor will automotives. If anything, they are in deeper doldrums. With credit shrinking and retail sales falling, it is unlikely that the manufacturing sector will step up the production of goods for which there is little market. Finally, with the Fed fund rates at virtually zero, monetary policy is at the end of its tether. What is left, if we were to do something, if we were to intervene, if we were to restore health to our economy? A major fiscal response by the government is the only viable option left on the table. Now, what could a $825 billion stimulus bill accomplish? CBO forecasts an economy in 2009 or GDP equal to $14.2 trillion if we don't act. That is an economy operating at 6.8 percent less than its reasonable capacity, its potential. CBO predicts the same for 2010. My friend, that is a gap of nearly $1 trillion in potential production, goods and services that people in this country could enjoy and use, $1 trillion a year if we don't act. According to CBO, the recovery bill will raise output between 1.3 percent and 3.6 percent by the end of this year. If we take the middle of that range, 2.5 percent, that is an additional $350 billion worth of goods and services purchased which businesses will then generate into several million badly-needed jobs. A recovery bill that invests in America and begins to repair our stock of capital will yield dividends down the road. If investing in our schools, our children, our workforce, our roads, our bridges, our ports, our schools, our waterways, our transit and our scientific and technological base did not produce solid economic returns, how would our Nation have ever emerged to lead the world. I urge everyone to support H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, under section 201 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to passage of the bill H.R. 2 (Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution. Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar. DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR RESOLUTION CHANGES [Fiscal years, in millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2008 2009 2009-2013 Total House Committee ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BA Outlays BA Outlays BA Outlays -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current allocation: Energy and Commerce................................. 89 81 884 847 3,153 3,148 Ways and Means...................................... 1,853 1,843 5,794 5,714 -6,724 -5,034 Change in the Childrens' Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2): Energy and Commerce................................. 0 0 10,625 2,391 50,000 32,604 Ways and Means...................................... 0 0 0 0 -260 -260

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, the bill before us has been vastly improved over the bill sent to us, and all of those improvements are still here. But this bill was waylaid in the Senate to add unrelated matters, which is not a good way to legislate, and I do not defend it. But the major adds extend expiring tax cuts, which we would extend anyway in time, and to fix the AMT to keep it from coming down on middle income Americans, and sooner or later, we would adjust the AMT. In regular order, we would offset those tax reductions so that they do not add to the deficit. This bill contains only partial offsets, but there is remarkable improvements to the code here. For example, one shining example, this bill closes a gaping loophole and saves $25 billion, a gaping loophole in the tax code, which has long allowed managers of hedge funds to shelter their income in places like the Caymans and dodge taxation. One final point. Throughout, this has been called a $700 billion bailout, but we should bear in mind three points: first, $700 billion will be the gross cost if all of it is drawn down. The net cost should be a lot less. I support this bill, and will vote for it again. I congratulate the chairman for the fine work he's done.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 220 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2013. This adjustment is in response to consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1424; the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. A table is attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, no one comes to the well of this House today with any relish or enthusiasm. This bill is as unappealing to those of us who will vote for it as it is to those of us who will vote against it. The President has sent us an unprecedented request for $700 billion and asked for its immediate consideration. The request came to us--all three pages--much like two bookends with contents to follow. When we read it, we found that the President sought a massive grant of money accompanied by a sweeping grant of authority. The President asked for speedy action. The people asked for diligence and deliberation, and that's what we have given them over the past 8 days. The result is a vastly improved bill. If you think that $700 billion in one fell swoop is too much, as I do, the bill before you addresses that concern. It splits the funds into three stages and makes the third tranche of $350 billion subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress. In any event, everyone should understand that the cost of this bill is not $700 billion, as CBO has told us in testimony. The bill's cost would be substantially smaller than $700 billion. The cost would be the difference between the amount spent by the government and the amount received in earnings and proceeds when all the assets are finally sold. The CBO expects that ``since the acquired assets will have value, the net impact will be substantially less than $700 billion.'' If you think, nevertheless, that the financial industry that benefits from this bill should ultimately pay for the losses it causes, as I do, then this bill offers a mechanism to accomplish that. And though the recoupment is not as ironclad as I would like, the principle is there embodied in the bill. If you think that a grant of this amount calls for extraordinary oversight internally and externally, this bill is replete with oversight. If you think that the whole regulatory system needs to be overhauled, this bill initiates the process. If you think that executive compensation should be capped, as I did, then this bill has limits and controls, and though they are not nearly as strict as I would like, they are present, they will be enacted and they can be built upon. If you want equity sweeteners for risks the government is taking, to cushion the downside losses and to give us a piece of the upside gains, this bill provides for warrants to go along with the notes, bonds and mortgages that we will be taking. There is a lot that's better about this bill after almost 100 pages of substantive changes. But the question remains, is this bill necessary? Is this the best way to inject credit liquidity into our markets? Should we even shore up insolvent firms? I can't answer that question definitively, but I have to listen when Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, answers it by saying: ``This is the most significant financial crisis of the post-war period. I see the financial markets as quite fragile . . . Credit will be restricted further. It will affect spending; it will affect economic activity; it will affect the unemployment rate; it will affect real income; it will affect everybody's standard of living . . . Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress. Action by Congress is urgently required to avert what could otherwise be grave consequences for financial markets and for our economy.'' Ben Bernanke is an accomplished economist who has made a life-long study of economic crises. He has no axes to grind, and he is not given to exaggeration. When he warns that the situation is dire and that the cost of doing nothing could be catastrophic, we have to listen. Indeed, we ignore his advice at our peril--the peril that this crisis will become a wider economic debacle. Many Members like me come from districts that are rural and made up of small towns. We tend to think that we are far removed from the ripple effects of a crisis like this. But when we get up on a Monday morning and find right in our yard that Wachovia has been acquired at the instigation of the FDIC, we know that the crisis can reach us all sooner or later unless we act now and act decisively. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, As Dean of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the South Carolina delegation to honor the South Carolina Research Authority, SCRA, on its 25th anniversary. SCRA was established 25 years ago and, since its inception, has played a leading role in commercializing technological advances, managing research parks, and supporting small businesses and entrepreneurial development. The result has been a positive economic impact on South Carolinians. In 2007, SCRA operations, technology parks, and programs in South Carolina were responsible for a $1.4 billion economic impact. SCRA' s operations, technological programs, and research parks, have benefited South Carolina and the country. Madam Speaker, we are honored to celebrate with fellow South Carolinians the 25th anniversary of the South Carolina Research Authority. We recognize the distinguished leadership and staff for their hard work and dedication to making SCRA successful. We look forward to witnessing the continued growth and development of this great institution and seeing the tremendous impact it has on our State and our country.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to a remarkable citizen, Sergeant Major Johnnie Robinson, of Rock Hill, SC. Johnnie Robinson served for 27 years in the Army, including tours in Korea and Vietnam, and rose to the rank of Command Sergeant Major. When he retired from the Army, he kept on serving. For 22 years he was Quartermaster and Commander of VFW Post 2889 in Rock Hill, SC, and also State Commander of the VFW. Under his leadership, Post 2889 became one of the largest posts in the State, and by everyone's estimation, one of the best. Among his proudest accomplishments: handsome new quarters, a building 11,000 square feet large. Johnnie Robinson has passed the torch to a new generation, and stepped down as commander, but to commemorate all that he has done for veterans, the VFW, and Post 2889 in particular, the post today is naming its ballroom for him. Madam Speaker, I ask permission to enter into the Record the following account from the Rock Hill Herald of Johnnie Robinson's service to community and country, and not least, to veterans and the VFW. [From the Herald of Rock Hill, SC] VFW Legend Paved the Way for Local Vets Few places are known to a city by one face like Rock Hill's Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2889 is known by Johnnie Robinson. For most of the past 22 years, Robinson has been commander of the almost 500-member post, among the largest in the state. The few other years, he was quartermaster in charge of raising and accounting for the post's money. Robinson has spoken about service and community to throngs at the local football stadium and to small groups of students. He has helped raise and give tens of thousands of dollars for veterans, widows and the children of veterans. He helped start and organize an honor guard that still serves at military funerals and other functions. He has been the state VFW commander and held national posts in the organization of more than 1.6 million members nationwide. He has bent the ears of local, state and federal politicians to make sure veterans get better treatment and raised a stink if he didn't like the answers he got. Robinson helped the post move from an old building on Main Street into what is now an 11,000-square-foot building down the block. He brought the first black member into the post decades ago, walking in with an arm on the guy's shoulders saying, ``Meet one of us.'' But now it is over. Robinson, 77, has given up his commander's hat. He didn't run in the recent yearly post elections. ``It was time for somebody else to lead,'' he said. That somebody else is Ray Bentley, elected the new commander, but even Bentley said following Robinson isn't easy. ``The man is a legend,'' Bentley said. ``Leadership is what Johnnie was always about.'' The post is having a banquet September 27 to honor Robinson, and to name the ballroom in his honor. Politicians, combat veterans and dignitaries will toast what this guy has meant to the little guys who fought in wars. One of those speakers will be Pat Nivens, veterans affairs officer of York County, whose job it is to help veterans get benefits. Robinson is respected and well-known around the country in veterans' circles as a veterans' rights advocate, Nivens said. To outsiders, the VFW might look like a smoky barroom where old vets drink cold beer and tell war stories. That it is at times, and few places are as tough as at the bar rail of the VFW if somebody is a boaster who can't back up claims about heroism or combat. But the VFW is a lot more, offering veterans advocacy and assistance and helping with community functions ranging from scholarships to flower sales for deceased veterans' children. Robinson is not to be found at the bar. But he has been found where soldiers are since joining the post more than 30 years ago. When a group of area National Guardsmen went to Iraq and then Afghanistan, Robinson led the drive for the post to adopt the whole unit so money could be raised for families. Robinson then worked to enlist those men from 178th Combat Engineers in the VFW when those men came home: More than 60 of those newest vets joined. ``This is their VFW, not mine,'' Robinson said. ``We serve combat veterans, and we serve the community. I only hope I serve both.'' Robinson himself--not a representative--attends every local military send-off, every welcome home. Why? Maybe it's two wars and 27 years in the Army ending up as a command sergeant major--the highest enlisted rank there is. He joined as a teenage kid straight off the cotton-chopping fields of rural Lancaster County. He was in the Nevada desert for atomic bomb tests, the cold killings of Korea, the hot killings of Vietnam. He doesn't have to read about Agent Orange--he lived through it, and he has lived through cancer because of it. ``I came home from Korea to California on a ship, then took a bus across the country to Columbia,'' Robinson said. ``I had to take another bus to Lancaster. I couldn't say I was coming home because we had no phone in those days. ``I came home alone, and nobody knew I was coming until I got there. People need to be there at these ceremonies to show these guys what they do matters.'' Robinson's membership at the post continues, and he will be around to help. He'll pull in driving his red pickup truck, with an old South Carolina license plate from 1990 on the front bumper. The plate says disabled veteran. The tag number states simply that Robinson was and remains in this city: ``VFW 1.''

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the prospect of peaceful cooperation and trade between the United States and India on matters of nuclear power. I voted for the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 because I thought it was a foundation on which we could build an energy relationship with India, one that would be mutually beneficial and, at the same time, reassuring to the international community. Seeking energy solutions for the world's rapidly developing countries, India among them, is an admirable cause. But nuclear nonproliferation is also an admirable, compelling cause, and I am not frankly convinced that the bill we're considering on this fast track, with 40 minutes of debate, will promote India's nuclear energy goals without creating exceptions, gaps, and ambiguities that could hamper our efforts to police and stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materials. Many serious questions need to be answered with respect to this legislation. Chief among them are questions like these: How well do these agreements comport with the letter and spirit of the Hyde Act and the Atomic Energy Act? Does the bill take the right course in constraining India from breaching the worldwide moratorium to undertake nuclear testing? Does the bill indirectly encourage India to enlarge its arsenal of nuclear weapons by allocating nuclear materials from reactor fuel to warheads? Does it provide international safeguards? Mr. Speaker, it appears that the President is bent upon a hurried approval of this agreement. Frankly, I can find no convincing reason to treat this issue in such a hasty manner, particularly as we enter the waning hours of this session preoccupied with other issues. The Atomic Energy Act contemplates a continuous 30-day period of congressional review, calling clearly for due diligence on issues of this gravity. I say we should abide by this solemn requirement, and if necessary, work our will and make improvements to the legislation before us. The President may want us to move with dispatch, but the American people, on matters of this importance, want us to move with diligence and deliberation. Due diligence takes time and effort. In this instance, if we adopt this bill, we are not applying either.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 204 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to passage of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2095 (Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 220 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This is in response to consideration of the bills HR 7005 (Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008) and HR 7006 (Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008). A table is attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution. Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2638, as amended, but I wish to draw particular attention to the $5 million of funding provided within this bill for a space-based kinetic interceptor study, that, ostensibly, was included as an earmark requested by Senators Allard, Inhofe, Kyl, and Sessions. Chairman Obey's explanatory statement of the amendment under consideration expressly states, ``The bill provides $5,000,000 to support the study outlined in section 236 of S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.'' Section 236 of the Defense Authorizaton bill no longer refers to a space-based kinetic interceptor study. The provision specific to such a study appeared in a Senate version of the authorizing bill, but it was stricken from the House amended version of the bill that we passed this afternoon for good cause. Mr. Speaker, a study to explore the potential for space-based kinetic interceptors within our ballistic missile defense system is a bad idea. I have many reservations, but chief among them is the message that the purported study would project to the world. It would clearly indicate America's willingness to unilaterally introduce weapons into space. The notion for the proposed study may be couched by its proponents as a low cost method for determining the merits of a purely defensive mechanism, but the dual use technologies associated with kinetic interceptors could be used for a variety of offensive purposes, such as shooting down satellites. Such a step, however small, would surely be perceived as the first step toward an arms race in space, which would only place our vital military and commercial space assets at greater risk. Independent studies in the past concluded that space-based kinetic interceptors would prove impractical and costly. We have no evidence that the proposed study would prove otherwise. Mr. Speaker, I wish to underscore that the Congress has not granted any authority to fund a space-based kinetic interceptor study and to reiterate for the record that the specific provision relied upon in this bill for authority and guidance to fund such a study does not exist.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 220 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This is in response to consideration of the bills H.R. 7005, Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, and HR 7006, Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008. A table is attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 211(3) of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the bill H.R. 6983, as expected to be amended on the floor (Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008) (September 23, 2008, 9:24 AM). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution. Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar at 226- 7200.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 205 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the bill H.R. 6899, Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 301 and 302 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set by S. Con. Res. 70. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under S. Con. Res. 70 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 with the ``section 302(a)'' allocation of discretionary budget authority and outlays to the Appropriations Committee. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach section 302(b) suballocations within the Appropriations Committee. The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 302 of S. Con. Res. 70. This list is needed to enforce section 302 of the budget resolution, which establishes a point of order against appropriations bills that include advance appropriations that: (i) are not identified in the joint statement of managers; or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, under section 208 of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 4137 (Higher Education Opportunity Act). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for H.R. 6083. This bill authorizes funding for a national training program, which is focused on State and local prosecutors. The funding this bill authorizes will be an important step toward ensuring that State and local prosecutors from across the country can have the training they need to be skilled, effective, and more professional prosecutors. Originally, H.R. 6083 would have authorized $6.5 million per year for 5 years to fund the Ernest F. Hollings National Advocacy Center, the NAC. The NAC is a joint venture of the Department of Justice and the National District Attorneys Association, which is located on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina. The NAC is a unique facility created specifically to train Federal, State, and local prosecutors in advocacy skills and management. Since 1997, 22,000 prosecutors from across the country have benefited from this program, which makes it a vital resource for the professional education of our State and local prosecutors. The classes and other programs at the NAC strengthen a prosecutor's advocacy skills by offering a wide range of specialized subjects, ranging from child abuse to gang crime to cyber crime and identity theft. Over the years, operations at the NAC have relied mostly on congressionally directed appropriations. Recognizing the value of a national advocacy center, Congress has consistently seen to it that this support is available to NDAA for services at the NAC. But this year-by-year funding has led to uncertainty in the budgeting and operations of the center, and a cut in funding in recent years, or at least the threat of it, has put this program in doubt. Classes have been canceled, educators have been laid off, all of which is evidence of the impact that unstable funding has had on the programs and, indeed, the NAC's ability to continue fulfilling its mission. I intended H.R. 6083, as originally written, to be a step away from this perennial end-of-year funding crisis. I wanted to ensure also that State and local prosecutors nationwide could receive the training they need through a broad curriculum. However, with my concurrence, during the markup of H.R. 6083, the bill was amended. In its current form, the bill creates a grant program for comprehensive training, for which national nonprofit organizations, like the National District Attorneys Association, can compete. In addition, the authorization has been lowered from $6.5 million to $4.75 million per year over a period of 5 years. This was done in response to suggestions from Members of the Senate that it would increase the bill's likelihood of being accepted unanimously there. This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Cosponsors on the bill come from all parts of the country: California, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and of course, South Carolina. It also has the emphatic support of the National District Attorneys Association. I want to express my great appreciation to the committee chairman, Mr. Conyers; to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Scott; and to the Judiciary Committee staff, particularly Mario Dispenza, for working with dispatch and great diligence so that H.R. 6083 could be reported out of committee and placed on the suspension calendar. Once again, I urge all my colleagues' support for training our State and local prosecutors, making them more professional. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6083. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman. I would add that the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act would have accomplished and satisfied the law's requirement, also, if for technical reasons it had been entitled ``a bill to respond to Medicare funding warning.'' I support this resolution and urge its adoption.

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 includes a trigger. That trigger is exercised when general fund revenues, as opposed to trust fund revenues, premiums and payroll taxes, exceed 45 percent of the Medicare program. Once the Medicare trustees determine in two back-to-back reports that the 45 percent threshold will be crossed within 7 years, the administration must submit legislation ``eliminating excess general revenue Medicare funding.'' The trustees submitted their first such report last year, projecting that general revenues would fund 45.07 percent of Medicare in 2013, the last year of the 7-year window. This year the trustees issued a similar warning, and the administration sent Congress a bill to keep general revenues below 45 percent through 2013. According to CBO's analysis, the administration's bill will hold general revenues below 45 percent until 2014 by charging higher premiums to Medicare beneficiaries who make above a certain income level. Instead of enacting the administration's proposals, the House and Senate enacted last week into law the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 over the President's veto. CBO calculates that this new law will keep general revenues below the 45 percent threshold through 2014, just as the administration's bill would have. So substantively and for all practical purposes, we have met the trigger's financial requirements, and we have made this issue moot for the rest of this Congress. I support the rule before us which would turn off the Medicare trigger for the remainder of this Congress. I find, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, the legislation we have just enacted ``eliminates excess general revenue Medicare spending'' and complies with the Medicare law's financial test. Consequently, there is no need or reason to exercise the trigger.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are in the midst of a recession, which is not your garden variety business down-cycle. This recession started with the collapse of sub- prime mortgages, which has taken a toll on investment banks, like Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns, and even the biggest of the commercial banks, like Citibank. At the outset, it seemed that the effects of the recession would be felt mostly by those institutions that were long in sub-prime mortgages. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deal mainly in prime mortgages, typically with equity of 20 percent, and not sub-prime mortgages, it was felt at first that these institutions, with their government-sponsored status, and their implicit guarantee, would be part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem. It was felt that maybe they could even take up some of the defaulted sub-prime paper. But as foreclosures increased, and housing values decreased, and net interest rate spreads worsened, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to feel the effects, and the financial markets began to question their financial statements, which, I will emphasize, state positive net worth and positive cash flow. Secretary Paulson was able to slow down the steep fall in value by stating explicitly and emphatically what has been implicit since these entities were first created, namely, that the credit of the United States stands behind them. The most important purpose of this bill is for the Congress to affirm in law what the Secretary has declared, or to be more specific, to confer on Treasury the power to extend to these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an open-ended line of credit. It's fair to ask why no ceiling on the line of credit. The answer may seem paradoxical, but the Secretary of Treasury has assured us that the larger and less restricted the credit is, the less likely the lines will ever be drawn down. Creditors will not need to worry if they forbear, if they don't cash in, they may not be paid because come hell or high water the Federal Government's credit stands behind these entities. For that pledge also to be taken seriously by the market as credible, it's necessary to increase the debt ceiling of the United States. We did that in the last budget resolution we adopted here in the House. This bill, once again, would confirm and raise the debt ceiling of the United States, giving the Secretary headroom and credibility when he says the standby lines of credit that we're extending will be adequate to accomplish the effect it's intended. This debate is about housing and two entities, GSEs, but it's also about our credit globally. If these two entities were to default and not have the United States government back up its guaranty, the consequences could be truly calamitous. This is also good policy, counter-cyclical policy for the recession itself. It's a good bill, good policy, and I urge everyone to support it. I thank the gentleman.