John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, budgets are about values and vision. Where your treasure is, the Bible says, there also is your heart. But if you cut through all of the arcane detail, all the numbers, it is hard to find the heart in the Ryan resolution. Buried in this budget resolution, if you dig deep enough, are some enormous cuts exceeding anything that has ever been proposed, much less passed, in the past, particularly with respect to health care, in which people are totally dependent. These cuts are so extreme, so deep that they go to the reality of this whole resolution. It turns on these cuts, and the real question is whether or not they are politically or practically possible. These cuts are dictated by an extraordinary process called reconciliation. Here is what the cuts amount to: Our committee, the Budget Committee, if this resolution were adopted, would be dictating to the Energy and Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid, cuts of $97 billion over the next 5 years. With respect to Medicare, this committee, if this resolution were adopted, would direct that the Ways and Means Committee go back to Medicare and cut another $153 billion out of Medicare or, if they couldn't get that much out of Medicare, cut it out of the safety net programs that are in the province of the Ways and Means Committee, shredding the safety net for SSI, for TANF, and other programs. Altogether, the cuts in the health care entitlements in this resolution come to $266 billion. And not just the health care entitlements are in jeopardy. Education and labor, $4.9 billion. Where does that come from? Student loans, Pell Grants. Natural resources. You heard Mr. Dicks a moment ago. Where does that come from? Clean water, Environmental Protection Agency, conservation. $22 billion less than we provide over 5 years. Education, $46 million over 5 years for Function 500 less than we provide. There is a huge difference. But it also goes to the veracity, the practical reality of this resolution, and begs the question: If cuts of this enormity have never been proposed before, why do we believe that they would be enacted now? Instead, we have a sneaking suspicion that when all of these cuts are put together, we are going to be right back where we have been for the last 6 years, that is, deeper in deficit. That is because in addition to making spending cuts that total $278 billion, the same reconciliation instructions call for tax cuts, tax decreases, of $447 billion; and when you net the spending cuts against the tax cuts, you get an impact of $168.5 billion on the deficit. It makes it worse. If this budget resolution would come back to the House as a concurrent budget resolution with these provisions, we would invoke the rule we passed on the House floor to the effect that you cannot abuse the process of reconciliation and use it for the purpose of worsening the deficit. It can only be used to improve the deficit, to use these extraordinary powers to improve the deficit. That is why we say the Ryan resolution should be defeated. We think it is a sham. We don't think it will achieve its stated purposes. We think it will put us right back on this track of debt accumulation in which we have seen $3.1 trillion added to the national debt over the last 6 years.

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

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

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 Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I am reserving my time to close.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas, I yield myself 1 minute to reply. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will acknowledge that they have requested in their budget resolution $278 billion in reconciled tax cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and a number of different areas. He is faulting us for not joining in this endeavor. That is partly because, number one, we don't agree with his specific cuts. But number two, having so-called saved $278 billion, there is then enacted by reconciliation directive to the Ways and Means Committee $447 billion in tax cuts. So the net effect is not to use entitlement cuts for reform, but to actually add to the deficit $168.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 1 minute. While the gentleman was on his extended sabbatical back in California, he missed the heyday of our experience here under the Clinton administration and seems not to know that during those years the average job creation was 237,000 jobs per month. By comparison or by contrast, for the Bush administration comparable figures are 68,000 jobs per month. Now, you can fudge that number by starting to count in August of 2004, claiming that it doesn't apply until then. But if you go back to January of 2001, the average per monthly increase for the Bush administration is 68,000 versus the Clinton administration which was 237,000. Furthermore, the Clinton administration every year had a better bottom line in the budget. Every year, the deficit got smaller and smaller, to the point where, in 1997, we had a surplus for the first time in 1998 in 30 years; and in 2000 we had a surplus of $236 billion. I now yield 1 minute to Mr. Davis of Alabama.

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

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have been treated to a show tonight featuring a one- trick pony. Every Republican who has come to the well of this Chamber has come with the same mantra, the same slogan, alleging wrongfully that our budget resolution would raise taxes. We have repeatedly explained why, only to have them keep coming to the floor basically on the belief if they say it often enough, maybe somebody will believe it. Here is one thing you can believe. There is no conjecture in this. These are matter of fact. As Casey used to say, you can look it up. You can look it up. There is the debt of the United States, $5.7 trillion before President Bush came to office. Here is the debt of the United States today, $8.8 trillion. That arithmetic is very simple and very straightforward. It's a $3.1 trillion increase of debt of United States on their watch. This isn't conjecture, this is a matter of record. I will just show you this chart one more time, because it shows that the revenue flows that we are projecting, based upon CBO's base-line certification of projection of revenues is essentially the same as the President is assuming in his budget from OMB, there is a 1.2 percent difference. This is the so-called biggest tax increase in American history. The President is right where we are, 1.2 percent difference between us. Now, why all of these shenanigans? Partly it is because this is a red herring. They don't want to talk about really what is in their budget resolution. It's their resolution they will have to pass tomorrow. They bear the burden of truth and persuasion. You would think they would be talking about it. But deep down in that resolution, you have to dig hard. You will find the same thing in the Agriculture Committee. This year they are to renew and reauthorize the farm bill. We want you to reconcile $9.85 billion in cost reduction in the agriculture bill. It will be awfully hard to get that farm bill out if that reconciliation is implemented. They say to Labor, which has student loans, Pell Grants under its jurisdiction, you can cut $4.9 billion. Where from, student loans? No where else to go. They say to Energy and Commerce, with Medicare and Medicaid in its jurisdiction cut $97.539 billion over the next 9 years. Judiciary and our law enforcement programs, cut $3.5 billion dollars; Natural Resources, already strained, huge backlog for our national parks, cut $4.7 billion; Transportation and Infrastructure, about to run short of funds for our highways, cut $4.2 billion; Ways and Means, with all kinds of safety net programs, this is an instruction to Ways and Means, to cut $153 billion. Now, this is done under the name and guise of balancing the budget. But what's the bottom line? They also tell Ways and Means to cut taxes by $447 billion. When you net the $447 billion tax cut against the $278 billion in reconciled spending cuts, the result is $168 billion more to be added to the deficit. That is why they are talking about this other subject. That is why they wouldn't talk about their own resolution. Our resolution will stand on all fours. Our resolution is a good resolution. It's not the best, but it is doggone good. It brings us to balance by 2012. It fully funds defense. By the way we don't have any shenanigans with the outlays. We don't short up guys in the field $67 billion in outlays. When we get through paying and providing for defense, which is a big item there, is not a lot left over. We husband our resources. We say to our veterans, by golly, you deserve what you are talking about. We give the biggest increase in history, $5.4 billion over current services for veterans health care. Education, we think it's critically important. We genuinely believe in it on this side. We provide $9 billion more than the President for education next year, over the next 5 years, we provide $46 billion more for education than does theirs. Children's health insurance, it's going to expire this year. What they propose will not even allow us to insure the children now on the program. We want to not only renew it, but expand it. We also want to pay for it. So we say to those who advocate SCHIP, its expansion, if you pay for it, you can go up to $50 billion in expanding the program. That is in our budget resolution. Why do they want to put this red herring out there? To keep us from talking about these things that the American people really care about, the health of their children. They should. We don't have any Medicaid cuts, and we don't have any Medicare cuts. I will tell you, because I have been at this business of the budget for a long time, in 1990 and 1991 Democrats voted for budget measures that truly reduced the deficit and had some restraints on Medicare and Medicaid in them; 1997, the same thing; 1993, with Mr. Clinton, the same thing. When we knew that it was going to improve the bottom line and not be used simply to offset another of their tax cuts, we were willing to pay for Medicare and Medicaid reduction. They have not been able to or willing to. Finally, as to taxes, we have no tax increase anywhere in this resolution, none whatsoever. For that matter, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, particularly those middle-income tax cuts, which we list and enumerate, not once but twice in our resolution, we fully protect them and leave them in place, full force and effect, this year, next year, 2008, 2009 and 2010. They only expire then, not because of anything in this budget resolution, but because when the Republicans first wrote those tax cuts and passed them, they put that sunset date in there in order to diminish the size and shoehorn these tax cuts under what was allowed under that budget resolution. We have got a good budget resolution. It will stand on all fours. It brings the budget to balance in 2012, encourages less in deficits and depth than the President does. Furthermore, we have got a track record to talk about. When President Clinton came to office in 1993, there was a deficit of $290 billion. Every year thereafter, every year thereafter, the bottom line of the budget got better, to the point where in 2000, there was a surplus of $236 billion. That is what happened on his watch. President Bush came to office with an advantage few preceding Presidents have enjoyed, a surplus of $5.6 trillion projected by his own economists. He has run that into a deficit of $8.2 trillion. We haven't seen a reversal like that since the Great Depression. That was not the President's fault in the 1930s. This is the record they have to rely on. The record we have to rely on is the record of the Clinton administration, which balanced the budget in the year 1998 for the first time in 30 years, and built up a surplus of $236 billion, which we turned over to Mr. Bush. We will discuss this further tomorrow. But what we offer is a responsible budget resolution that reaches responsible results but is balanced well in its priorities.

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

Mr. SPRATT. If you are quoting the Congressional Budget Office, can you cite the quote?

Mr. SPRATT. How much time is left on each side, and who has the right to close?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had seen it all, until I just saw the cartoon. What we have seen tonight is a sort of unrelenting attack for 3 hours on a straw man, a demonized version of this particular budget resolution. Because if you read it, you read it in vain in search of any particular language or place where these tax cuts are terminated or extended. That decision, as we have said, has been left open until a better time when we know better where we stand. If we had wanted, if we had wished, we could have repealed all of the deductions, credits and exemptions passed in 2001 and 2003. We did not do that. They remain in effect this year, next year, 2009, 2010. Then they expire on December 31, 2010, because that is the way they wrote them to expire, in order to diminish the size of the tax cuts somewhat and shoehorn them into the budget situation, which would only provide for so much tax expenditure reduction. I have also heard it said out here something about defense spending. Let me mention to you one little anomaly we haven't brought up tonight. But in order for the other side to say they are spending more than us on defense, I guess, I surmise, they have added $38 billion to budget authority, BA, for national defense. But, at the same time, they have taken $60 billion out of the outlay stream. That is the real money that is outlaid, that is spent by the Pentagon. So they have taken $60 billion away from our troops in the field by their assumption about outlays, if it were efficacious; and, in fact, it is not efficacious. You can't control outlays. So they have an anomaly like that in the middle of the budget. So I don't think it behooves them to criticize our budget resolution or to make it something that it isn't, because they have got things there in their own budget resolution that won't bear scrutiny and require explanation. But the tax cut, let's get down to the bottom line, this budget resolution does not raise taxes. It allows all of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 to remain in place until they expire December 31, 2010, and leaves for then the decision as to what to do about their renewal. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. SPRATT. Before yielding to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), let me read from three letters we received in our committee. One is from the American Legion with respect to our support for veterans' health care. ``The American Legion and its 2.8 million members applaud the Budget Committee,'' that's us, Democrats, ``for the budget resolution recommendation of $43.1 billion in funding for veterans' health care. That is our recommendation.'' That is the American Legion speaking. The DAV says, ``The budget recommendation coming out of the House will make a real difference in the lives of America's sick and disabled veterans. This is important if our Nation is at war.'' And the Veterans of Foreign War, the VFW says, ``The members of the VFW stand firmly behind you in support of your strong advocacy for this Nation's veterans.'' These letter go on and on and on. We had a press conference yesterday where they endorsed our budget resolution because of what we provide for veterans' health care, the biggest increase in veterans' health care funding in the history of the organization. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. SPRATT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).