John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. As we near the end of this long debate, I want to speak to those who are still weighing their vote and to any who are still wavering. To them--in fact, everybody--let me say that with respect to our resolution, if you want to vote for bold initiatives, like health care for the millions who don't have insurance, our resolution lays out the framework for helping that to happen, and for funding it so that the net cost is not added to the deficit. If you want to say to the next child you meet in a classroom, ``You can go to college. Yes, you can go to college. Yes, you can. You can go because Pell Grants will help pay the way if you do your studies and work hard.'' If you want to look that child in the eye and say just that, our resolution is the resolution you should vote for. If you want to vote for tax reduction, this resolution supports $1.7 trillion in net tax reduction over 10 years, including all the middle- income tax cuts that we passed in 2001 and 2003. And that's not my contention; that's CBO's conclusion after reviewing this budget. If you want to vote for deficit reduction, our resolution reduces this year's deficit of $1.8 trillion--an unwelcome inheritance from the last administration--our resolution reduces that deficit by two-thirds, down to $586 billion by the year 2013, when it would be 3.5 percent of GDP--roughly the growth rate that year. If you want to be sure in voting for the deficit reduction that the deficit will actually be reduced, our party is the party that balanced this budget in 1998; our party is the party that paid off $400 billion in Treasury debt; and our party is the party that left President Bush a surplus of $236 billion the year before he came--$5.6 trillion over the next 10 years of his administration. We wiped out the deficit. They wiped out the surplus. Not only did they wipe out the surplus, they ran up more than $5 trillion in debt and left us a tab of $1.752 trillion in deficit, which we're struggling with right now in the well of this House, and will be for years to come. So when it comes to deficit reduction, we rest our case on the record. If you want to show where cost savings have been achieved because of the budget you vote for, this resolution saves significant sums by converting guaranteed student loans to direct DOE loans; we save billions more by funding agencies like the IRS, HHS, Labor, and SSA, to wipe out waste, fraud, and abuse; and we save $176 billion over 10 years by competing Medicare Advantage plans. If you want reasons why you should vote, we've got them. Finally, if you're still swayed by the other side's rhetoric, let me offer in evidence exhibit A on this poster right beside me. This chart is a simple side-by-side that shows what Democrats accomplished in the 1980s compared to what Republicans have accomplished since 2001. Average monthly job growth. This is really dramatic. The Clinton administration, Democrats in the 1990s, 217,000 jobs every month in job creation. Republicans, 2,000, as opposed to 271,000. This is a matter of record. Net job creation, 22.7 million jobs. That's the net accomplishment of the Clinton administration. The Bush administration's net accomplishment, 1.9 million. Percentage of Americans living in poverty during the Clinton administration, 3.8 percent reduction. During the Bush administration, eight-tenths of a percentage point increase.

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 3 minutes. The gentleman from Wisconsin and I are good friends. We work together collegially and cordially, and I don't lightly disagree with him, but I have to take profound exception here, because the budget he proposes before us would lay out draconian cuts in spending, $2.4 trillion. We're talking about real money over 10 years. These are made in the name of deficit reduction, and they cover the spectrum. Eleven committees are reconciled with instructions to make enormous spending reduction: Energy and Commerce, $666 billion; Ways and Means, $695 billion; Financial Services, that's housing, $28 billion. All together $1.380 trillion in spending cuts is reconciled to 11 committees, and on top of that, it appears that Medicaid and CHIP would be block granted. This is serious stuff. And I've only begun, because this just applies to mandatory spending. More is in store when you go to discretionary spending. There's $1 trillion of cost reductions there, achieved by imposing a freeze for five straight years on all discretionary programs except defense and veterans. That's education, that's infrastructure, that's science, NIH, NSF, public health, food safety. The list goes on, frozen for five straight years. For all the havoc and hurt that's wreaked by this draconian plan, what do we gain? Very little on the bottom line. That's because the $2.4 trillion in spending cuts is more than offset by $3.6 trillion in tax cuts. Under the guise of deficit reduction, more tax cuts are provided for the upper brackets. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, 25 percent of all Americans would face a tax increase under this budget proposal. The wealthiest 1 percent would get $100,000 or more. Those are not my numbers but theirs. This is not the way to go. This is not the way to go to a deficit reduction plan. This is not the way to go if we have any respect for the values that are embodied in this budget. This is something we should all vote down. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I'm glad to yield 30 seconds. Maybe Mr. Ryan would yield some more time as well.

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, we resume this morning. When we'd broken off last night, we'd had a lively but civil and spirited debate. There were some things said last night that were just so wildly off the mark that they bear just a minute of consideration to correct the Record. It was said repeatedly that this resolution was about the biggest tax increase in history. In fact, don't take it from me. Look at the CBO. After examining the President's budget, they said it will work out to be a net tax reduction of $1.7 trillion over a 10-year period of time. The size of the budget was mentioned several times in the debate. It's enormous, no question about it, but it's partly swollen by virtue of what has happened over the past year in the financial services industry, beginning with the failure of Lehman Brothers, of other firms on Wall Street, and due to our intervention, which has cost us substantially and is factored into the budget that we are dealing with today. Our friends were blaming that crisis on us. In truth, we all share some responsibility for it, but it's one of the reasons we have a swollen number. Before we begin the debate proper, I would like to recognize for 1 minute the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) because he was an active participant in the debate last night. This is just to connect it to where we left off.

Mr. SPRATT. We now would like to return to the broad issue of fiscal responsibility. For the purposes of leading that debate, I would like to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, for a rejoinder, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Does the gentleman desire further time to rejoin?

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of our caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. SPRATT. Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a Vietnam veteran, a colonel in the Border Guard, Silvestre Reyes.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. SPRATT. I have one other speaker in addition possibly to myself. How much time is left?

Mr. SPRATT. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Could the Chair inform me how much time is now remaining?

Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 3 minutes. It has been difficult to sit here and listen to the cascade of unfounded facts. It is hard to respond to everything that has been said. But a few things need to be said clearly as we move forward with this debate. First of all, last night in particular, but again today, Member after Member got up and talked about the biggest tax increase in history. It is not here. It is not in this particular budget resolution. If you read CBO's analysis of the President's budget, you will see that CBO, not me, CBO finds that there is a net reduction of $1.7 trillion due to tax cuts that are incorporated in this budget resolution. For example, we have been saying for years that we would renew the middle-income tax cuts when it came time to, those that were middle-income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003. Well, the date for their expiration is approaching, and we are coming forward with what we have said consistently for the last several years, we are renewing those tax cuts, the marital tax relief, child's tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, the Pomeroy substitute for estate taxes. We provide in this budget resolution for the renewal and the extension of those tax cuts. And as a result we have a net tax cut of $1.7 trillion. Then there has been a lot of limiting of the size of the deficit for this year and next year. And as the Lord knows, I share the concerns. I pride myself on having been a budget hawk, on having brought together the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and for the first time in 30 years actually, actually balanced the budget of the Federal Government. We did it. Well, what has happened this year with the swollen budget that we have seen before us is that we have had a catastrophe in the financial markets. And much of the cost of that, the TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, FDIC, the list goes on and on, and the costs that have come out of the Treasury are reflected in the swollen spending level of today. It isn't acknowledged, but spending is projected in the President's book here to come down from $3.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion, $400 billion per his recommendations here. You wouldn't have known that to listen to the cascade of facts coming forth. Finally, as to spending levels, NDD, nondefense discretionary, often looked upon as an index as to whether or not Congress is exercising restraint in spending, the increase in NDD is about 4, 4\1/2\ percent. Defense, national defense, we want a strong national defense. We have always stood for that as Democrats and still do. We think we should restrain, however, the defense spending level. And it is restrained by the President to a 4 percent increase. Some would say that is a modest increase, but it is a big sum of money. We will be spending over $660 billion on national defense at that level. For all of these reasons, the resolution before us should be ready and up for debate on the House floor. I would now like to yield the balance of my time, 1 minute, to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.