John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mayor Charles E. Powers, the former mayor of Fort Mill, SC, a town I have the honor of representing. I call his service to the attention of the House because his long years in office are a model for local government. Charles Powers served as mayor of Fort Mill for 24 years, and before that, as a member of the city council. During all these years, he worked and raised a family, but the City claimed his devotion. As mayor, he was totally committed. Fort Mill came first. While serving as mayor, Charles Powers oversaw his small town as it grew and grew in the backwash of Charlotte, NC. He made sure that Fort Mill got its share of the growth, yet never lost its hometown quality, its hospitality and friendship. He helped Fort Mill remain a special place, and not become a bedroom suburb of Charlotte. He had the vision to see the need for a new city hall, for a local library, for a visitors' center on Main Street, and for numerous other projects. Under his leadership, things got done. Fort Mill flourished as an all- American town. In his latest race for re-election, Charles Powers did not have the good fortune of winning, but he took defeat with the grace and goodwill that always marked his years in office. Just a few days ago, Charles Powers, in his well worn role as ambassador of good will, opened the door of a local convenience store, and spoke kindly to the stranger going out. Before he realized that the man had just robbed the store, the stranger turned his pistol on Charles Powers and shot him. Fortunately, Charles Powers survived the assault, and is out and about Fort Mill again. Local elected officials like Charles Powers deal with problems that nettle people most, from potholes to public schools. Leaders like him solve those problems and make our democracy work and our communities livable. When they step down after years of service, they deserve our recognition and respect.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our most dedicated Air Force noncommissioned officers, Chief Master Sergeant Todd Small on the occasion of his departure from Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, as the Command Chief, Ninth Air Force and United States Central Command Air Forces. In these capacities, Chief Small was the senior enlisted man charged with facilitating the development, training, and readiness of over 50,000 airmen within the Ninth Air Force and the United States Central Commands' areas of operations. Chief Small was a front-line leader, who traversed more than 5,400 miles, across 11 countries, to enhance the mission of the airmen deployed in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Chief Small has truly answered the call of duty to his country and his community. I join the men and women of Shaw Air Force Base in honoring Chief Small, his wife Frankie, and their children Chelsea and Aaron, for their dedication and commitment to the Air Force, and I wish Chief Small the best in his new position as the Command Chief to the United States Space Command.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal stimulus package. We face mounting evidence that the economy is faltering and in sectors like housing, clearly losing ground, and many Americans are hurting as a result. Unemployment has spiked from 4.7 to 5.0 percent in one month; retail sales actually fell in December by 0.4 percent from the prior month, and last week the Federal Reserve made an emergency cut of 75 basis points in the Fed funds rate, the largest such reduction in 25 years. Across the country, Americans are feeling the effects of a slump in our economy, and if we want to avert or mitigate the effects of a recession, we need to act, and act now. In hearings and discussions over the last 2 months, the consensus has emerged that fiscal stimulus is needed to complement monetary policy, and it needs to meet three criteria: it needs to be timely, targeted, and temporary. Timely means taking effect quickly to boost the economy; targeted means getting dollars into the hands of households more likely to spend it quickly; temporary means that it has only a short-term impact on the Federal budget so that it does not add to our long-term fiscal deficits. The package before us meets all these criteria. There is general agreement that the fiscal stimulus needs to be roughly 1 percent of GDP. Two-thirds of this package goes to individuals and amounts to approximately $100 billion; one-third goes to business and amounts to about $50 billion to begin with, but since this stimulus comes in the form of accelerated depreciation, most of it will be recaptured over the life of the depreciable asset. If the two- thirds allocated to individual taxpayers is spent and helps avert or mitigate a recession, then it too may be recaptured to some extent, because a full-fledged recession could add $150 to $300 billion to the budget's bottom line, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This package is a practical step to boost the economy, to bolster confidence, and to give a hand-up to millions of hard-working Americans. As with any compromise, no one got everything that he or she wanted in this package--but it is critical to get a bill enacted quickly in order to help the economy and our people without undue delay. I could name several features I would like to add or modify, and there may be other aspects that we may need to address in later legislation, such as an extension of unemployment insurance. If the Senate adds that, and the administration concedes, I will gladly vote for it. But moving quickly to boost our economy and fend off a recession matters most. I think the bill coming to the floor today is likely to be the best agreement we can strike with the Bush administration if we want stimulus to come quickly and be effective. The package clearly meets our criteria of being timely, targeted, and having only a temporary cost to the budget. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 204, 206, and 207 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008. 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. 21. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The second table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2008 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The third 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. 21 for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and fiscal years 2008 through 2012. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 206 of S. Con. Res. 21. This list is needed to enforce section 206 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that: (i) are not identified in the 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 302 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2008 and the period of 2008 through 2012. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocation and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to the consideration of H.R. 4986 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax was not meant for middle-income Americans, and here in the House, we, as Democrats, have proposed and twice passed legislation that would prevent the AMT from coming down on 23 million taxpayers for whom it was never intended, without increasing the deficit. That's important to us as Democrats, which is why we believe in the Pay-Go principle. Last month, we passed a bill showing that you can patch the AMT, comply with Pay- Go, and not add to the deficit or to the tax burden of middle-income Americans. We were not the only one proposing such a solution. In February 2006, the Director of OMB, Josh Bolten, testified that the Bush Administration believed the AMT ``can be corrected in the context of overall revenue neutral tax reform.'' In February 2007, OMB Director Rob Portman said: ``Our budget assumes that we will have a revenue neutral correction to AMT.'' And in March 2007, Hank Paulson told us the same. But what the Bush administration proposed, they have not supported. Their counterparts in Congress voted down in the Senate an AMT fix consistent with Pay-Go, and forced the issue before us, an AMT patch that works for one year, but adds $50 billion to the deficit. We all agree that we must stop the AMT from coming down on 23 million middle-income taxpayers. That's why I and most of this House voted twice to fix the AMT the right way, the way the Bush administration once itself supported, with offsets that kept the fix from worsening the deficit. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I proposed an alternative idea, consistent with Pay-Go. What I proposed was that we postpone designation of the offsets necessary to keep this bill deficit-neutral until such time as we dealt with extension of expired or expiring tax deductions, such as the research and experimentation tax credit. At that point, we would require that the offsets for this bill be passed before any such deductions, credits, exemptions, or preferences be extended. This idea won support among many of my caucus, including our leadership, but in the end, not enough support to warrant its being offered. I regret that it was not, but I would remind everyone that this bill only buys one year of absolution. The same issue, the impact of the AMT on middle-income taxpayers, will have to be addressed again within months as we prepare and implement the budget resolution for fiscal year 2009. I hope we take a page from this year's experience and fix the AMT the right way next year, without impacting middle-income taxpayers, but also without impacting the deficit.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 301, 304(a), and 320(a) and (c) of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2008 and the period of 2008 through 2012. 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 S. 2499 (Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution. DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR RESOLUTION CHANGES [Fiscal years, in millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2007 2008 2008-2012 Total House Committee ----------------------------------------------------------------- BA Outlays BA Outlays BA Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current allocation: Education and Labor....................... -4,877 -4,886 -313 -983 5,017 4,157 Energy and Commerce....................... -1 -1 366 362 -59 -63 Ways and Means............................ 0 0 532 532 37 37 Change in Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act (S. 2499): Education and Labor....................... 0 0 25 6 25 18 Energy and Commerce....................... 0 0 1,142 1,141 1,755 1,753 Ways and Means............................ 0 0 2,298 3,497 -1,851 -1,851

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 308(b)(1) of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2008 and the period of 2008 through 2012. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocation and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to H.R. 6, as passed the Senate on December 13, 2007 (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I rise to call the attention of the House to Ola Copeland, an outstanding citizen of my district who recently passed away in Gaffney South Carolina, a place she called home for her entire life. Mrs. Copeland was known best for 15 years of service on the Cherokee County Board of Education. She believed in education, and as a life- long citizen, knew Cherokee County well. Her colleagues recognized her ability, and elected her Chairwoman of the Cherokee County Board of Education, a post she held from 2003 until the day she died. During her tenure on the board, she chaired the Curriculum, Budget, and Special Needs Committees, served on the Maintenance, Property and Grounds Committee, and acted as the Board's Parliamentarian and Legislative Contact. Despite a lengthy battle with kidney disease, the disease that ultimately claimed her life, Mrs. Copeland worked tirelessly to ensure that Cherokee County students had the best in education. To accommodate her dialysis schedule, the Cherokee County School Board reset its meeting. Just as kidney disease did not stop her serving on the board of education, it also did not prevent her from being a friendly and familiar face at school functions. The day before she was admitted to the hospital with her last illness, she attended the Gaffney High Homecoming Assembly. Mrs. Copeland was deeply involved in her church, served on numerous boards, and was a member of various organizations that help make Cherokee County a better place. She was an organizer of Theta Beta Gamma Sorority, Inc. and a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. As if serving on the county school board was not enough, she also served as an officer in the Rocky Mountain Red Hat Society, Friends of the Cherokee County Public Library, and on the board of Piedmont Community Action. She was involved in Communities in Schools, the Teenage Pregnancy Awareness Council, First Steps Board of Directors, and the Renaissance Committee at Gaffney High School. Ms. Copeland graduated from Granard High School and earned a business degree from Limestone College in Gaffney. She is survived by two sons, two daughters-in-law, and three grandchildren. Her life was cut short and she died before her time, but if we measure life not by how long we live, but by how well, Ola Copeland lived a long, full life. She left her community better than she found it, and left her fellow citizens a legacy of service and achievement, including her sterling example of what life in a democracy is all about.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 310 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2008 and the period of 2008 through 2012. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocation and aggregates for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to H.R. 4299 (Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007), which was made in order by the Committee on Rules. Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution. DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR RESOLUTION CHANGES [Fiscal Years, in millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2007 2008 2008-2012 Total

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under sections 308 (b) (1) and 309 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for fiscal year 2008, and the period of 2008 through 2012 for several House Committees. These revisions represent an adjustment to blouse committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of section 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to a further House amendment to the Senate Amendment to the bill H.R. 6, The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentlelady for the generous grant of time and I rise in support, Mr. Speaker, of the America's Historical and National Legacy Study Act. This bill authorizes studies into the suitability of 10 sites as candidates for the National Park System. It is the first step towards preserving some of our most important historical sights and some of our most precious national resources, many of which are vulnerable to development unless we act, and act now. One of the 10 sites is located in the heart of my district, the Battle of Camden. I introduced the Battle of Camden Study Act in the 108th Congress, and I am thankful that Congress is now finally considering it as part of this National Legacy Study Act. This site has been a national historic landmark since 1962, but it does not enjoy the support and protection offered by being an official unit of the National Park System. The Battle of Camden was fought on August 16, 1780, and was a crushing defeat for American patriot forces. Indeed, some regard it as the high watermark of British supremacy in the Southern colonies. So it's fair to ask, if this battle was such a crushing defeat for the American patriots, why should we commemorate it at all? Well, to start with, this battle was lost by General Horatio Gates. The hero of Saratoga was a political favorite in the Continental Congress, and after the fall of Charleston, the Congress sent him south to command what remained of our forces. Congress appointed Gates without consulting Washington, who would have sent Nathaniel Greene. Gates came and drove his ill-provisioned troops into battle even after discovering that Cornwallis had reinforced his ranks the day before with fresh troops from Charleston. The result was a rout, a disaster, and a retreat to Charlotte led by Gates himself. For its part, the Congress learned from this bitter experience its proper role in assigning general officers, and years later that principle was built into the Constitution. In replacing Gates after the Battle of Camden, Congress deferred to Washington and Washington dispatched Greene to the Carolinas. With Charleston and then Camden subdued, Cornwallis began a drive north to mop up resistance with Major Ferguson on the west side of the Broad River and General Cornwallis on the east. The Battle of Camden left new doubts about local militia, and how reliable or effective they could be, other than to harass British troops. But as Cornwallis' forces moved through the upcountry, they learned the Carolina patriot militia could not be taken lightly. As Ferguson made his way through the foothills of the Blue Ridge, he threatened to apply ``fire and steel'' to anyone who refused allegiance to the crown. Settlers from over the mountain got the message. More than a thousand mustered at Sycamore Shoals for a fight with Ferguson. On October 7, 1780, they found Ferguson encamped on the top of Kings Mountain; and after settling on tactics, they attacked systematically. In less than an hour, Ferguson was dead, and hundreds of his troops were also dead, wounded or taken prisoner. Kings Mountain is widely regarded as the turning point of the Revolution in the South, but we cannot fully appreciate its significance unless we understand its context, the Battles of Camden and Charleston. Three months later, Morgan would meet Tarleton at Hannah's Cowpens, just 15 miles from Kings Mountain. Tarleton's defeat at Cowpens and Cornwallis' pursuit of Morgan into Virginia would eventually lead Cornwallis to Yorktown in total defeat. The Revolutionary War was a very near thing which could easily have gone either way, and that's why the Battle of Camden is so essential to understanding the Revolutionary War. The Continentals and the patriots may have lost that battle, but they learned from bitter experience and came back to fight and win another day. I thank the committee, in particular Chairmen Rahall and Grijalva, Ms. Bordallo, and my good colleague from South Carolina, Henry Brown, for including the Battle of Camden in your bill; and I encourage every Member to vote for the adoption of this fine piece of legislation.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, under section 303(b) of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for the House Committee on Ways and Means for fiscal year 2008, and the period of 2008 through 2012. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocation and aggregates for the purposes of section 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to the bill H.R. 3996, The Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007. Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution. Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar. John M. Spratt, Jr.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, three times in recent months, officials of the Bush administration have come before our committee, and when asked about the AMT and its impact on middle-income Americans, for whom it was never intended, they have insisted that they could fix the AMT with changes in the tax code, such that there would be no change in revenues. In February 2006, Josh Bolten was the Director of OMB. He told the Budget Committee that the AMT could be ``corrected in the context of overall revenue-neutral tax reform.'' In February 2007, Rob Portman was the Director of OMB. He told the Budget Committee that ``our budget assumes that we will have a revenue- neutral correction to the AMT.'' Rob Portman was followed by Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, and he said essentially the same thing. The difference between these officials and Chairman Rangel is that Charlie Rangel has delivered. Mr. Rangel has put a revenue-neutral bill on the table, and to boot, extended a few popular tax concessions about to expire, such as the R & E tax credit, while adding few new ones, such as the exclusion of gains on the foreclosure of taxpayers' homes. Mr. Rangel and his committee deserve credit for bringing this bill to the floor, and for preventing the AMT from coming down on 23 million taxpayers, mostly middle-income; and they deserve credit also for sticking to the pay-go principles that we have steadfastly applied for the last 9 to 10 months. Our Republican colleagues ask why we have to fix the AMT in way that is compliant with our pay-go rule. If you really need an answer to that question, consider these facts: The Bush administration inherited a $236 billion surplus and by the year 2004, turned it into a $413 billion deficit. As a result, the national debt of the United States reached $9 trillion last week. $3.2 trillion of that debt has been incurred on the watch of this administration, and by the time it leaves office, the total debt accumulated will hit $4 trillion. That's why we apply pay-go and require offsets: it's one way to slow down the build-up of debt while working off enormous deficits. So, this bill is fiscally responsible, and fair for two reasons: it brings tax relief to middle-income Americans, and it does not pass the tab on to our children and grandchildren as a mountain of debt. So, vote responsibly. Vote Rangel.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, with the recent decision by Jim Bates to leave the Budget Committee staff to serve as a program associate director at OMB, the Congress has lost a dedicated public servant and the Budget Committee has lost an important institutional resource. But our loss is OMB's gain. Jim served on the Budget Committee staff for nearly 20 years, starting in 1988 as a budget analyst for the Republican staff and eventually becoming staff director to Jim Nussle when he was chairman and to Paul Ryan as ranking member. During that long tenure, Jim rightfully came to be known as one of the top budget experts in Washington. Jim has a deep knowledge of both the programmatic and numbers side of the budget, on the one hand, and the budget process, on the other hand. One reason Jim knows the budget rules so well is that he helped to write them. He has been centrally involved in such budget milestones as the budget agreements of 1990 and 1997, as well in the debates we have had over the years about how to best structure the budget process. Year in and year out, he has been critically involved in the development, consideration, and enforcement of the congressional budget resolution--the key blueprint for Congress's spending and revenue decisions. Throughout, Jim has been a strong advocate for the importance of the congressional budget process, in general, and the role of the Budget Committee, in particular. We will miss Jim Bates and his steady presence as he leaves the Congress to begin his new job. But he departs with great respect and sincere appreciation that he has earned from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, Under sections 211, 301(b), and 320(a), of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and the period of 2008 through 2012. 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 the bill H.R. 3963 made in order by the Committee on Rules (Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 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 am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 204, 206 and 207 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008. 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. 21. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The second table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The third 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. 21 for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and fiscal years 2008 through 2012. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 206 of S. Con. Res. 21. This list is needed to enforce section 206 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that: (i) are not identified in the 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, I thank my good friend for yielding and thank all of you for participating in this Special Order tonight. You know, we tend to think of ourselves as urbanized, even in the Southeast these days. But in South Carolina, my State, and even more so in North Carolina, agriculture is critically important as part of our total economy. In South Carolina, 46,000 full- and part-time jobs are supported by agriculture. That is 22 percent of all the jobs in our State; $15.1 billion in income is attributable to agriculture, 17 percent of the State's total income. I could go on to show that even now in the 21st century, we in the Carolinas and throughout the Southeast still have a lot of agriculture, and we are critically dependent upon it. Our farmers and our people throughout the Southeast are faced with just about the worst drought I have seen in I don't know when. And it keeps getting worse and worse. I went to Marlboro County, probably one of the most agricultural counties in the 14 counties I represent. I couldn't believe what I saw. And it hasn't gotten any better since then. Soybeans that never develop. There is no pod. Cotton that is barely worth getting out of the fields. Hay, peanuts, pastures, you name it, they are all suffering. It is basically at the level of being catastrophic unless we can help and help soon. In Marlboro, back in September, the threshold for the Department of Agriculture in declaring a crop or an area a disaster area is 33 percent crop loss. Marlboro County in September, 2 months ago virtually, at least 6 weeks ago, had 67 percent of its crop already damaged. It is worse by now I am sure. I represent 14 counties, small- town counties, proud counties, but still dependent on agriculture, and 13 of those 14 counties were included recently in a disaster declaration from the Secretary of Agriculture. That is how widespread the disaster situation is. Our Commission of Agriculture estimates that in South Carolina alone, the losses are going to equal $500 to $600 million. Now, most people don't know it, but most farmers today, responsible farmers, carry crop insurance underwritten and subsidized by the Federal Government. But it is not enough to cover their losses. It is partial recovery, but it is not nearly enough. The existing law requires, allows disaster relief and other forms of relief to farmers who have suffered from natural disasters, provided that they planted their crops or harvested their crops before February 28, 2007. Unfortunately, that applies to very few of our farmers in the crops that they plant. Consequently, they have next to no coverage, next to no protection from disaster relief that some farmers in other parts of the country would enjoy. Basically what we would like simply to see happen is for our farmers to be cut into the same program of relief that other farmers are enjoying by virtue of existing agriculture law. That is what we are asking for. And there's several different ways to do it. Supplementals will be coming through here with capital improvements in various parts of the world, Iraq, Afghanistan; we could afford something in those bills for our own farmers. The farm bill itself will be coming back here in conference report. Maybe there is some way we can adjust it to provide for us. The Agriculture appropriations bill has not yet been passed. There are lots of opportunities. We are here tonight to say we need the help of everyone, beginning with the administration. The Bush administration could initiate this process by requesting in the next supplemental some sort of assistance for these farmers, as was done and should have been done for the farmers suffering from wild fire on the west coast and, by golly, that will be a big first step and help us finish the process, carry the ball across the goal line here in Congress. We are here tonight from all over the Southeast to bring the same message to the Congress, to the country and to the Bush administration. We are hurting, hurting bad. And if we don't get some sort of relief, it is going to be devastating for our farmers. Thank you very much for the time you have yielded.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, on Friday, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer spoke to the National Press Club regarding fiscal responsibility and the Democratic record. I recommend his speech to all of my colleagues. The speech sets out the clear differences between the current Administration's harmful fiscal policies and the strong track record of fiscal responsibility that the current 110th Congress has established. Indeed, the new House majority has already passed and adhered to the Pay-As-You-Go rule and passed a budget resolution that returns to balance by 2012. The speech also establishes some helpful context for the Administration's pending veto threats on the appropriations bills. Most of the funding difference consists of Congressional efforts simply to restore harmful cuts proposed by the President, and the rest of the difference represents a responsible level of increase that will enable us to fund key priorities. Our appropriations level was accommodated within our fiscally responsible budget resolution, which returned the budget to balance by 2012. Majority Leader Hoyer's Address at the National Press Club: Fighting for America's Future Sept. 28.--I first want to thank Alan Greenspan for putting the issue of fiscal responsibility back on the political map. This is a very healthy development, even though it embarrasses the Administration. In his new book, the former Federal Reserve Board Chairman writes: ``Most troubling to me was the readiness of both [the Republican-controlled] Congress and the Administration to abandon fiscal discipline.'' And this: `` `Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric. . . . Deficits must matter.'' I was tempted to come here and deliver the shortest speech of my professional life. Eight words in all. ``Chairman Greenspan is correct. Are there any questions?'' But the bar is higher today. So, I intend to convince you of four main points: First, this Administration has pursued the most fiscally irresponsible policies in American history. Second, the Democratic Party is the party of fiscal responsibility today--which is a very under-reported story. Third, the President needs to put down his veto pen and pick up the telephone. Our differences on funding levels for domestic appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008--which begins on Monday--are relatively minor. We need to work out those differences, rather than engage in political posturing. And finally, we must not allow our disagreement on appropriations to distract us from the ominous, long-term fiscal challenges that confront our nation. The United States of America is on an unsustainable fiscal path--and the longer we wait to address our challenges, the more difficult it will be to avert a fiscal crisis.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, under sections 211, 304, and 320, of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and the period of 2008 through 2012. This revision represents an adjustment to certain House committee budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of section 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to the bill H.R. 3668, to provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance (TMA) and the abstinence education program, and the qualifying individuals (QI) program, and for other purposes. Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, Under sections 211, 301(b), and 320(a), of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and the period of 2008 through 2012. 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 the House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 976 made in order by the Committee on Rules (Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007). Corresponding tables are attached. Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, 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 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution. DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR RESOLUTION CHANGES [Fiscal Years, in millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2007 2008 2008-2012 Total House Committee ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BA Outlays BA Outlays BA Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current allocation: Energy and Commerce........... -1 -1 134 132 89 87 Change in Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (H.R. 976): Energy and Commerce........... 0 0 9,098 2,412 47,678 34,907 Revised allocation: Energy and Commerce........... -1 -1 9,232 2,544 47,767 34,994 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 207) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force as an independent military service.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 207, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force as an independent military service. I thank my colleague from New Mexico, Heather Wilson, in particular, for her partnership and collaboration in helping to bring this bipartisan measure before the House. I want also to recognize the outstanding leadership of the cochairs of the Air Force Caucus, Cliff Stearns of Florida, Sam Johnson of Texas, and Jim Marshall of Georgia for their participation. Sixty years ago in July, President Truman and Congress distilled the lessons learned in World War II into landmark legislation known as the National Security Act of 1947. On September 18, the Armed Forces were reorganized under a Department of Defense, and the Air Force was established as a military department coequal to the Departments of the Army and the Navy. The question of whether air forces should be a service on their own separate from the ground forces arose long before it was resolved in the National Security Act of 1947. Over a period of 40 years, airmen earned that recognition, beginning with the Aeronautical Division's earliest exploits in 1907, followed by the derring-do of the Army Air Service in World War I, and then by the superior performance of the Army Air Corps, later the Army Air Forces, in World War II. America's airmen performed well; so well, in fact, that when battles were fought in the air, they were won decisively, making air superiority a standing assumption. This tradition started during World War II, with aviators like General Doolittle. During the war in North Africa and Europe, General Eisenhower and General Spaatz, as commander of the Army Air Forces, worked well together. General Eisenhower came to appreciate the capabilities of air power and the role of the Air Force in achieving victory. He called General Spaatz, ``the best operational airman in the world,'' and became persuaded that the Air Force should exist alongside and equal to the Army and the Navy. Ike compared this arrangement to a three-legged stool, where each leg is essential to the whole. It's a principle alive, well, and working today. Since its origin, the Air Force has stayed abreast of our national security requirements, adding missiles to aircraft, and through a long cold war, deterring any attack upon our country. The Air Force is typically called when we need to gain air superiority with troops and materiel, when and wherever the need arises. Its airlift and tanker capabilities give us the advantage of remote presence. Its satellites supply us with surveillance and communication capabilities that are the gold standard, surpassing anything that any other country in the world possesses. Not only has the Air Force achieved a technical overmatch against our adversaries in the air, but in space and cyberspace as well. In today's Air Force, over 700,000 ``Total Force Airmen'' are at work as we speak, exercising vigilance, reach, and power around the world. They are operating intelligence and reconnaissance aircraft and spacecraft, supplying early warning, real-time intelligence, and situational awareness to the war fighters on the ground. They are a critical presence in the battle space of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are lifting cargo and passengers, and using refueling assets to build air bridges, projecting power, and sustaining the fight. Although the hardware tends to get the headlines, it is the people who make it work and who make the Air Force what it is. When General Horner came home from the Persian Gulf in 1991, I asked him who were the unsung heroes, and he answered without hesitation, ``Well, for one, it is our NCOs; their quality has literally gone out of sight.'' I was reminded of what General Horner said when I was at Shaw Air Force Base not long ago and met with the Fighting 20th and its wing commander, Colonel Post, along with airmen and women, many of them about to deploy. They will be part of some 35,000 other airmen deployed around the globe. Because of them and others like them, we have the best Air Force in the world, bar none. This concurrent resolution is our way, as Members of Congress and citizens of this Nation, of expressing our appreciation, of recognizing the United States Air Force, its leaders and airmen, for consistently proving their worth to our Nation and helping make this the land of the free and the home of the brave. Let me conclude with the resolving clause: That Congress remembers, honors, and commends the achievements of the United States Air Force in serving and defending our country on the 60th anniversary of the creation of the United States Air Force as an independent military service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.