John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I offer a motion.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset what we said yesterday in the debate of this bill. But let me refer to third parties, independent, disinterested third parties like the Concord Coalition. They took a look at our budget, and they said unequivocally, and I'm quoting, ``Thus, to be clear, the budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.'' The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, excellent analytical work, they took a look at our budget and they said, ``The House budget does not include a tax increase.'' And then, finally, the Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution, independent, disinterested said, plainly, simply, ``This budget would not raise taxes.'' We have included in the budget resolution not one place, but twice, in different parts of the resolution, our wholehearted endorsement, our commitment, our pledge, our determination to see that these middle- income tax cuts are preserved and enacted and carried forward when they expire per their terms. The budget resolution does not cause them to expire. They were designed to expire, written to expire when they were offered and passed. At that particular time, that was part of the provision. In addition, I am making clear again that our budget resolution allows all of the deductions, credits, exemptions and exclusions that are provided in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. All of them are provided and allowed to stay in place this year, next year, and for the next 4 years. So there is very little disagreement about us except I am wondering about the arithmetic. Budget resolution motions to instruct are nonbinding. They are a valid part of the process. But they do present a problem. They single out specific elements of a budget resolution without looking at how one goal, such as tax reduction, interacts with another goal, such as deficit reduction. In that respect, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have offered is a resolution that calls for support of all of the tax cuts they laid out plus a surplus of $96 billion. Could I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, what does this assume about the bottom line before the tax cuts? How big a surplus would you have to have in 2012 in order for there to be, after taking these tax cuts, a $96 billion remaining surplus?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in response to the last speaker, if we support this resolution, it's because we originally provided in our budget resolution, in two different aspects of our budget resolution, our full, wholehearted support for these middle-income tax cuts. We still have, I will have to confess, concern about your arithmetic here, but we supported it in the budget resolution we filed, which passed the House. We endorsed and pledged that we would seek to the extension of the 10 percent individual tax bracket, the child tax credit, research and experimentation tax credit, all of these things. Read the resolution. They're there. We were there before you were, saying that, over the next 3 or 4 years, we need to see that when December 31, 2010, comes along, these tax cuts will survive and be preserved. We are committed to that, black and white print, budget resolution.

Mr. SPRATT. But you haven't shown us the arithmetic. We are not sure your arithmetic is correct.

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

Mr. SPRATT. I will yield for one question.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. If I could reclaim my time, it takes a bigger forum than the Budget Committee provides. It takes more participants than just the Congress. Everybody has got to be a player in this game to make it happen in a significant way because it has got to involve, as you and I know, systemic change. No question about it. And, finally, PAYGO. We are proud of the fact that we adopted the PAYGO rule in 1991, and it contributed significantly to the fact that over a period of 8 years during the Clinton administration the bottom line of the budget got better every year for 8 straight years to the point where we had a surplus of $236 billion under the Clinton administration resulting in part from the Balanced Budget Act of 1993 and 1997. $236 billion we handed over to President Bush. By the year 2004, between 2001 and 2004, we went from a surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $412 billion. That happened on your watch. The Republicans controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, they controlled the White House. There is no way you can escape responsibility for what happened in those circumstances.

Mr. SPRATT. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I mean that compliment, I return the compliment, that I nevertheless vigorously disagree with some of the points you just made. Facts are stubborn things, and the fact of the matter is that during the Clinton years, on average 237,000 jobs were created every month over an 8-year period of time. The Bush record is half that amount, if that. During the past month, you're leading with your left making that point at this point in time because during the past month job growth was just 88,000 jobs. Secondly, with respect to Medicare, we know that Medicare has to be dealt with, but you know as well as I that this is not the forum. We need a much bigger group. We need the administration involved in the process. It is a very difficult undertaking to make the systemic changes that are necessary. And before we commence those negotiations, we need to do what President Clinton required in 1997, everybody needs to put some ante on the table. Everybody's got to have some skin in this game to be a player in this process of trying to diminish the cost of the health care entitlements to the United States. It has to be done, but this is not the correct forum for doing it. The gentleman's budget resolution, I believe, cuts Medicare by $250 billion.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this rule simply makes in order a motion to go to conference on the House and Senate budget resolution. That's all it does. The budget resolution, in turn, frames all that we will do in fiscal year 2008, next year; and it helps keep the process fiscally disciplined as we move forward. Usually, this procedure is accompanied by, expedited by, unanimous consent. In this case, we couldn't be assured of unanimous consent, so we are, instead, moving forward with the rule. Now, naturally, we in the House think that the House-passed budget is a better expression of our goals. But both resolutions to be resolved in conference, both are Democratic products, and we think both are vastly better, far better budgets than the Republicans offered this year or last year, for that matter. It's a matter of record. Last year the Republicans failed to pass a concurrent budget resolution. They couldn't get the two Houses together. When we came back here in November, we had to finish up the unfinished work. Only 2 of 11 appropriations bills were passed, partly because they didn't have the framework of a budget resolution in which to proceed. Just weeks ago, we had the Republican budget on the House floor. It fell 60 votes short of a majority, way behind. So unless we do what we are doing today, we are going to find ourselves shortly in the same situation we were last fall when the work was undone at the end of the year. Both budgets, both the House and the Senate budgets, have this goal. Both budgets are designed to bring the budget back to balance by the year 2012. The House resolution carries forward, I'm proud to say, carries forward our commitment to pay-as-you-go. And the Senate resolution includes a pay-as-you-go rule of its own. There are a number of initiatives, it's true, in this bill. A number of new initiatives. One is the Children's Health Insurance Initiative, but none of these initiatives, including CHIP, will be undertaken, none of them will be undertaken unless there are offsetting revenues or offsetting expenses to make them budget neutral so they do not have any impact on the bottom line. This budget resolution and the Senate resolution both contain program integrity measures requested by the President, augmented by us in our budget resolution to crack down on wasteful spending. We're proud of that. We want to see that money appropriated. We want to see some that could be saved on wasteful sending. Both budgets, and let me emphasize this, both budgets support middle- income tax relief. We'll say it again and again and again. It bears repeating because it's absolutely true. The House budget resolution sites in its text income tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003, and it supports, not in one place, but two, wholesomely supports the extension and renewal of those tax cuts past 2010, when they will all expire. Now, let me make something clear. This budget resolution for the next 4 years does not take a thing away from any taxpayer. The tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 remain unaffected, remain standing and in place. In addition, let me make clear that when the tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of 2010, it's by design. That's the way you wrote the resolution. That's the way you wrote the bill that passed it. And we do not propose anything here in this bill about not renewing those tax cuts when they come up. We simply say that's a bridge we will cross when we get to it. But in the Senate, Senator Baucus has offered an amendment that will require a vote before the year 2010 to renew those middle-income tax cuts that sunset in the year 2010. The Baucus amendment limits these tax cuts to $180 billion in annual revenue reduction, the amount of the surplus that is anticipated in 2012 in the budget resolution. In the meantime, let me say again, all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 were provided for, allowed and in place under this budget resolution. It is completely specious to say that we have raised taxes by one dime. Completely specious. If you don't believe, let me say once again or let me show you in writing what Mr. McGovern just introduced. Here is the Concord Coalition. Nobody would dispute their bona fides or their unpartisan character. Here is how they sum up their analysis of our budget resolution: ``Thus to be clear, the budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.'' That is the Concord Coalition. Next is the Brookings Institution, Hamilton Project: ``This budget would not raise taxes.'' An independent group, no axes to grind. That is their opinion. And, finally, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: ``This claim is incorrect. The House plan does not include a single tax increase.'' Those are three outside organizations with no axes to grind. They looked at our resolution. That is the judgment they rendered on it. Now, let me move on to say that both the House and Senate budget resolutions meet the President's request for national defense. They protect our country, and they exceed the President's request for veterans' health care. Funding for veterans' health care in our resolution is 6 billion bucks, $6 billion, above the 2007 level and more than $3 billion above the President's request. Both budgets are also designed to reduce the deficit and bring the budget back to balance, as I said earlier. That will decrease our reliance on foreigners who buy our debt. Since 2001, foreign ownership of Treasury bonds has more than doubled to $2.2 trillion, making our economy vulnerable to global markets and the whims of foreign investors. If I could see this chart next to show you the total debt accumulation under this administration. On the back of an envelope, this shows you what we are about, what we want to avoid. When this administration came to office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. In the last 6 years, they have added 60 percent to that sum, $3.1 trillion in additional debt. And as a consequence, the national debt stands at $8.8 trillion. This is what Republicans have produced. This isn't about claiming or argumentation or anything else. This is a matter of record. You can look it up, from $5.7 to $8.8 trillion. Finally, this budget resolution maintains the priorities that we Democrats stand for and are proud of. We put families first. We put children first by investing in health care; child care; education; Head Start; and as I said earlier, tax relief to middle-income families. Both budgets, both budgets, plan huge steps, and this is one of the great initiatives we hope to achieve in this Congress, huge steps to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program so that it covers most of the 9 million children without health insurance in this country, and we propose to do that with offsets so that there will not be a dime of the cost of that added to the bottom line. In summary, Mr. Speaker, in short, this rule will make in order the steps necessary to send our budget resolution to conference so that they can move us forward on a fiscally responsible, fiscally disciplined path. I urge support for this resolution so that we can move forward with the budget process.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SPRATT. Well, the President's budget cut Medicare by $252 billion over a 10-year period of time and cut Medicaid by 50 to $60 billion over the same 10-year period of time.

Mr. SPRATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRATT. Well, I can only surmise what happened to your budget resolution. One reason it didn't muster, besides the fact that you lost 40 votes, as you recall, is I am sure there are certain Republicans on your side of the aisle who did not want to vote for those massive cuts emasculating Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. SPRATT. PAYGO is never applied to discretionary spending. It would be very difficult at this time to do it when every year we have an end run around discretionary budget with the President's supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be very difficult to cap discretionary. Your party, on its watch, allowed PAYGO discretionary spending caps, all of those constraints in 1990, to expire and did not renew them. The main reason you didn't was you knew if we had a double-edge PAYGO applicable to tax cuts as well as mandatory increases, you would be unable to pass additional tax cuts as part of your agenda.

Mr. SPRATT. Those numbers are correct, are they not?

Mr. SPRATT. We'll talk about it. If we've got a forum, the Budget Committee, once we've got this budget resolution behind us, and that is the order of the day, there are lots of things along those lines that we can explore, and we will. Let me conclude by saying everybody should vote for this budget resolution if they want to see an orderly, fiscally responsible, disciplined process in the next fiscal year.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have to return to South Carolina to attend the presidential primary debate and the dedication of the library at Shaw Air Force Base. As a result, I will be unable to cast my vote today for H.R. 249, to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. If I were able to cast my vote, I would vote in favor of H.R. 249, as I have done in the past 109th Congress, rollcall vote 199. In the 109th Congress, I joined Representatives Rahall, Sweeney, and Whitfield in offering an amendment to the Department of the Interior Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 to ensure that none of the funds made available would be used for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. Our amendment passed the House by a vote of 249-159. The number of wild horses is dwindling. Just a century ago, 2 million horses roamed the west. Today, the combined number of wild horses and burros is less than 30,000, demonstrating that these animals need more protection. I hope that others will join me in supporting this and other legislation to end the slaughter of our American horses.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, today's opening prayer was given by the Reverend Ronald B. Jackson. Reverend Jackson serves as the minister of East Gaffney Baptist Church in Gaffney, South Carolina, a pulpit that he has filled with distinction since 1989. Reverend Jackson's ministry is based in East Gaffney Baptist Church, but not confined there. He has a television ministry in Greenville and a radio ministry in Gaffney. He is a prominent preacher, for sure, but he is also a pastor who has been recognized for service throughout the Southeast. He has established, for example, a foundation to help needy ministers and their families called the Parsons' Pantry Fund. Three years ago, Governor Sanford awarded him the Order of the Silver Crescent, our State's highest award for volunteer service. Reverend Jackson has spread the gospel from the Second Baptist Church of Great Falls, South Carolina, where he was called to the pulpit, to Bethel Baptist Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and even to Bourbon Street in New Orleans, where he was assistant chaplain, before coming home to South Carolina and eventually settling in Gaffney. Reverend Jackson is married to Karen A. Jackson. They have two children, Kimberly McMillin of Inman and Bryan Jackson of Gaffney; and three grandchildren. Karen also has a son, Brock Burgess, of Gaffney. On behalf of the House, I want to thank Rev. Jackson for his inspiring prayer and the Speaker and Rev. Coughlin for asking him to open today's session.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, here is the Ryan resolution on the back of an envelope: look at what it does for reconciliation, because it does it elsewhere within the budget proposal. Mr. Ryan proposes crippling, emasculating Medicare and Medicaid totaling over $250 billion, $278 billion altogether in hypothetical, wholly impractical, and unlikely cuts. But what is the net effect? Because at the same time and in the same bill he lowers taxes, has a tax cut of $447 billion. The net effect is an increase to the deficit of $168 billion. That is why we have with this kind of arithmetic, why they have added $3.1 trillion to the debt of the United States. Alternatively, we offer the base budget, the Spratt resolution, the Democratic resolution. It moves to balance by 2012, it leaves in place all of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. They will be in place in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010; and it leaves until the future the decisions as to whether or not and to what extent to renew these tax cuts when they expire, not because of this resolution but because of the way you wrote them, in the year 2010. We fully fund defense. We don't have a lot of left over, but we husband our resources to do more for education, more for science and innovation, more for veterans health care, and more for SCHIP which barely ranks an honorable mention in their budget. It is the centerpiece of our effort this year to see that more American children will be covered by the program known as the Children's Health Insurance Program. Otherwise, we restrain spending, and throughout our budget resolution, we apply religiously the rule we adopted this January, the rule of pay-as-you-go. So that for every mandatory spending increase we make possible, we provide that it has to be offset by mandatory spending cuts elsewhere. We protect the tax cuts, as I say. We present a good budget resolution. I say vote for the Spratt resolution. Vote for the Democratic resolution, and vote resoundingly ``no'' on the Ryan resolution.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Doggett).

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