John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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).

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Moore, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

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

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

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. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and rise to support the resolution and to talk about something the President seldom mentions, the cost of the war in Iraq. In deciding what we should do, cost is not the determining factor, but it is considerable, and with costs overall approaching $500 billion, it has to be a factor. During the first Persian Gulf War we had real allies, Britain, France, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and our gross cost was around $80 billion in current dollars. But Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States contributed in kind about $16 billion, and allies like Germany and Japan and Saudi Arabia contributed in cash around $60 billion, so the net cost to the United States was a mere $4 billion. Because we had allies willing to share the burden, the cost of the first Gulf War was minimal. But in this war our President was able to enlist only one major ally, Great Britain, and he chose to go it alone with a motley coalition. That is one reason this war is proving more costly than the first, in lives and in dollars. So far, over 3,100 service men and women have been killed in action; so far, over 23,000 have been wounded in action, many of them grievously; and so far, Congress has appropriated $379 billion for the war in Iraq. As we speak, two supplemental appropriation bills are on deck. One is to cover operations in Iraq for the rest of fiscal 07, and it provides $100 billion to the $70 billion provided last year. The other supplemental is to cover operations in Iraq during fiscal 08, and it provides $145 billion. These bills, when passed, will push appropriations for the war in Iraq over $600 billion. $600 billion. When the 08 supplemental is added to the 08 base budget, these two will push appropriations for fiscal year 2008 alone to $643 billion. In constant dollars, that is more than we spent at the peak of Korea or Vietnam. In a few weeks we will enter the fifth year of our engagement in Iraq. You would think after 5 years spending would come down. But spending over this time has not come down, it has gone up. Three years ago, 2004, the Pentagon was obligating money for Iraq at the rate of $4.8 billion a month. Today the Pentagon is obligating money for Iraq at the rate of $8.6 billion a month, and considering the supplemental for 07, with $170 billion, and the surge in Baghdad, the obligation rate will probably rise to $10 billion a month by the end of this year. To support this surge, the President has called for five brigades, 21,500 additional troops. He sends a supplemental of $3.2 billion to pay for these troops. The CBO says, how about the support troops? How about the staff? This will cost billions more. CBO has also looked out 10 years and tried to figure what future costs might be. By its estimation, future operations in Iraq and Afghanistan together could come to $824 billion between 2008 and 2017. Mind you, this assumes that the troops deployed in these theaters will be declining from a little over 200,000 today to a steady state of 75,000 in 2013. If future costs are split 75-25, then over the next 10 years that is another $600 billion in store for us. Surely, surely at this juncture, as spending surges head upwards to more than $10 billion a month, surely we should ask whether we want to raise our commitment of troops and thrust them into a civil war with no clear exit, no timetable for completion, and, worse still, an urban war. The Pentagon will say they can't see past 2008 and they don't know what the budget is for the outyears, and they will probably dispute this end state of 75,000 troops in the two theaters 10 years from now. And I hope they are right. But there are other costs, the cost of ``reset,'' of refurbishing or repairing our equipment, which our commanders have told us could easily be $60 billion to $70 billion. And I haven't talked about the toll on our troops and their families, where some will soon be going for their third tour. The dwell time between tours is now 1 year instead of 2 years. Whenever you go into the field to visit these troops, you have to be impressed with their attitude, with their readiness to serve and their willingness to sacrifice. I have always come away from these experiences saying thank God there are such Americans. They deserve our admiration and support, but they also deserve something else. They deserve not to be asked to do what Iraqi troops and Iraqi police should do themselves. For the past 2 years, the Bush administration has said to us just forebear, just wait, because we are training Iraqi forces, and as soon as these forces are stood up, ours can be stood down. Well, 118 Iraqi battalions have been stood up, and none of ours have been stood down. In the Defense Authorization Act for 2006, Congress enacted this policy into law. We called for 2006 to be a year of transition. The resolution before us embodies that notion. The resolution heeds that advice. It does not call for pulling out our troops. It does not call for cutting off our funds. It says simply but solemnly that we disagree with the surge of our troops, thrust into what the Intelligence Estimate has called ``self-sustaining sectarian violence,'' especially when there are more than 118 Iraqi battalions trained to take on that task. It is time for them to stand up and us to stand down, and Baghdad is a good place to start.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, section 511 clause (a)(4)(B)(i) of H. Res. 6 provides that I submit the 302(a) allocations contemplated by House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the House. In addition, section 511 clause (a)(4)(B)(ii) of H. Res. 6 provides that I submit accounts identified for advance appropriations pursuant to section 401(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the House. The attached tables, which I submit, provide that information. DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTION [Fiscal years, in millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2007 2007-2011 total House committee ------------------------------------------------------------------- BA Outlays BA Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agriculture................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... Armed Services.............................. 45 45 45 45 Education and Labor......................... ............... 1 ............... 30 Energy and Commerce......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... Financial Services.......................... ............... ............... 2 2 Foreign Affairs............................. 1 1 5 5 Homeland Security........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... House Administration........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... Judiciary................................... 19 16 116 113 Natural Resources........................... ............... ............... 6 6 Oversight and Government Reform............. ............... ............... ............... ............... Science and Technology...................... ............... ............... ............... ............... Small Business.............................. ............... ............... ............... ............... Transportation and Infrastructure........... 13 13 22 22 Veterans' Affairs........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... Ways and Means.............................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2, I am submitting the Committee on the Budget's rules for the 110th Congress. The rules were adopted during our Committee's organizational meeting, which was held January 18, 2007. Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Budget, January 18, 2007 General Applicability Rule 1--Applicability of House Rules Except as otherwise specified herein, the Rules of the House are the rules of the committee so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day is a motion of high privilege. Meetings Rule 2--Regular meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the committee shall be the second Wednesday of each month at 11 a.m., while the House is in session. (b) The chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular meeting when the chairman determines there is no business to be considered by the committee. The chairman shall give written notice to that effect to each member of the committee as far in advance of the regular meeting day as the circumstances permit. (c) Regular meetings shall be canceled when they conflict with meetings of either party's caucus or conference. Rule 3--Additional and special meetings (a) The chairman may call and convene additional meetings of the committee as the chairman considers necessary, or special meetings at the request of a majority of the members of the committee in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(c). (b) In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the chairman shall provide written notice of additional meetings to the office of each member at least 24 hours in advance while Congress is in session, and at least 3 days in advance when Congress is not in session. Rule 4--Open business meetings (a) Each meeting for the transaction of committee business, including the markup of measures, shall be open to the public except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(1). (b) No person other than members of the committee and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as the committee may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. Rule 5--Quorums A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum. No business shall be transacted and no measure or recommendation shall be reported unless a quorum is actually present. Rule 6--Recognition Any member, when recognized by the chairman, may address the committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under consideration before the committee. The time of such member shall be limited to 5 minutes until all members present have been afforded an opportunity to comment. Rule 7--Consideration of business Measures or matters may be placed before the committee, for its consideration, by the chairman or by a majority vote of the members of the committee, a quorum being present. Rule 8--Availability of legislation The committee shall consider no bill, joint resolution, or concurrent resolution unless copies of the measure have been made available to all committee members at least [4] 6 hours prior to the time at which such measure is to be considered. When considering concurrent resolutions on the budget, this requirement shall be satisfied by making available copies of the complete chairman's mark (or such material as will provide the basis for committee consideration). The provisions of this rule may be suspended with the concurrence of the chairman and ranking minority member. Rule 9--Procedure for consideration of budget resolution (a) It shall be the policy of the committee that the starting point for any deliberations on a concurrent resolution on the budget should be the estimated or actual levels for the fiscal year preceding the budget year. (b) In the consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the committee shall first proceed, unless otherwise determined by the committee, to consider budget aggregates, functional categories, and other appropriate matters on a tentative basis, with the document before the committee open to amendment. Subsequent amendments may be offered to aggregates, functional categories, or other appropriate matters, which have already been amended in their entirety. (c) Following adoption of the aggregates, functional categories, and other matters, the text of a concurrent resolution on the budget incorporating such aggregates, functional categories, and other appropriate matters shall be considered for amendment and a final vote. Rule 10--Roll call votes A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of at least one-fifth of those present. In the apparent absence of a quorum, a roll call may be had on the request of any member. Hearings Rule 11--Announcement of hearings The chairman shall make a public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least 1 week before the hearing, beginning with the day in which the announcement is made and ending the day preceding the scheduled hearing unless the chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the committee by majority vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, in which case the chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Rule 12--Open hearings (a) Each hearing conducted by the committee or any of its task forces shall be open to the public except when the committee or task force, in open session and with a quorum present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security, or would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. The committee or task forces may by the same procedure vote to close one subsequent day of hearing. (b) For the purposes of House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(2), the task forces of the committee are considered to be subcommittees. Rule 13--Quorums For the purpose of hearing testimony, not less than two members of the committee shall constitute a quorum. Rule 14--Questioning witnesses (a) Questioning of witnesses will be conducted under the 5- minute rule unless the committee adopts a motion pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2(j). (b) In questioning witnesses under the 5-minute rule: (1) First, the chairman and the ranking minority member shall be recognized; (2) Next, the members present at the time the hearing is called to order shall be recognized in order of seniority; and (3) Finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called to order may be recognized in the order of their arrival at the hearing. In recognizing members to question witnesses, the chairman may take into consideration the ratio of majority members to minority members and the number of majority and minority members present and shall apportion the recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the members of the majority. Rule 15--Subpoenas and oaths (a) In accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(m) subpoenas authorized by a majority of the committee may be issued over the signature of the chairman or of any member of the committee designated by him, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman or such member. (b) The chairman, or any member of the committee designated by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses. Rule 16--Witnesses' statements (a) So far as practicable, any prepared statement to be presented by a witness shall be submitted to the committee at least 24 hours in advance of presentation, and shall be distributed to all members of the committee in advance of presentation. (b) To the greatest extent possible, each witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity shall include with the written statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or sub-grant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years. Prints and Publications Rule 17--Committee prints All committee prints and other materials prepared for public distribution shall be approved by the committee prior to any distribution, unless such print or other material shows clearly on its face that it has not been approved by the committee. Rule 18--Committee publications on the Internet To the maximum extent feasible, the committee shall make its publications available in electronic form. Staff Rule 19--Committee staff (a) Subject to approval by the committee, and to the provisions of the following paragraphs, the professional and clerical staff of the committee shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the chairman. (b) Committee staff shall not be assigned any duties other than those pertaining to committee business, and shall be selected without regard to race, creed, sex, or age, and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of their respective positions. (c) All committee staff shall be entitled to equitable treatment, including comparable salaries, facilities, access to official committee records, leave, and hours of work. (d) Notwithstanding paragraphs a, b, and c, staff shall be employed in compliance with House rules, the Employment and Accountability Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and any other applicable Federal statutes. Rule 20--Staff supervision (a) Staff shall be under the general supervision and direction of the chairman, who shall establish and assign their duties and responsibilities, delegate such authority as he deems appropriate, fix and adjust staff salaries (in accordance with House Rule X, clause 9(c)) and job titles, and, at his discretion, arrange for their specialized training. (b) Staff assigned to the minority shall be under the general supervision and direction of the minority members of the committee, who may delegate such authority, as they deem appropriate. Records Rule 21--Preparation and maintenance of committee records (a) A substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the proceedings shall be made of all hearings and business meetings subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections. (b) The proceedings of the committee shall be recorded in a journal, which shall among other things, include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded. (c) Members of the committee shall correct and return transcripts of hearings as soon as practicable after receipt thereof, except that any changes shall be limited to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections. (d) Any witness may examine the transcript of his own testimony and make grammatical, technical, and typographical corrections. (e) The chairman may order the printing of a hearing record without the corrections of any member or witness if he determines that such member or witness has been afforded a reasonable time for correction, and that further delay would seriously impede the committee's responsibility for meeting its deadlines under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. (f) Transcripts of hearings and meetings may be printed if the chairman decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of the members so request. Rule 22--Access to committee records (a)(1) The chairman shall promulgate regulations to provide for public inspection of roll call votes and to provide access by members to committee records (in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(e)). (2) Access to classified testimony and information shall be limited to Members of Congress and to House Budget Committee staff and staff of the Office of Official Reporters who have appropriate security clearance. (3) Notice of the receipt of such information shall be sent to the committee members. Such information shall be kept in the committee safe, and shall be available to members in the committee office. (b) The records of the committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The chairman shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the committee for a determination on the written request of any member of the committee. Oversight Rule 23--General oversight (a) The committee shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject of which is within its jurisdiction. (b) The committee is authorized at any time to conduct such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under clause (1)(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House, and, subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by clause 6 of Rule X, to incur expenses (including travel expenses) in connection therewith. (c) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a Congress, the committee shall meet in open session, with a quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans for that Congress for submission to the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Government Reform in accordance with the provisions of clause (2)(d) of House Rule

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for consideration of the College Student Relief Act. This bill is good for students, it is good for the budget, and it is deserving of our support. This bill will help make college more affordable to students who need it most by cutting the interest rate in half on subsidized student loans. College costs, as we all know, have risen dramatically. In the last 5 years, the cost of attending a 4-year public college increased $3,095, or by 34 percent. Interest rates the students pay on college loans have also risen this year to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent. This combination of factors makes attending college more expensive, if not impossible, for some of today's high school students. This bill, the bill before us, takes a long first step towards making college more affordable. Each year it cuts the interest rate that undergraduates will pay on the standard subsidized student loans until that rate is cut in half to 3.4 percent in the year 2011. At the same time, the bill we have before us will save the Federal Government by reducing the deficit by a significant sum. That is why this bill meets all of the tests laid down by the pay-as- you-go rule which the House adopted on January 5. That rule requires that direct spending or mandatory spending be budget neutral or deficit neutral over 6 years, 2007 through 2012, and over 11 years as well, 2007 through 2017, which is as far out as our cost estimates run. This bill is more than deficit neutral or budget neutral because it actually reduces the deficits in most years, saving $1.5 billion in 2007, $65 million over 6 years, and a total of $7.1 billion over the next 11 years, 2007 through 2017. So, overall, this bill helps students get a good college education while helping us reduce the deficit. It meets the requirements of PAYGO. It is a bill and a rule that deserves our support. I would urge every Member on both sides to vote for this rule and vote for the rule that enables it to come to the floor.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for the compliment and wish I could accept it, and I am glad to have the time to explain what is before us. The budget summit in 1990 ended up with a 5-year deficit reduction plan and a kit of budget process rules known as the Budget Enforcement Act of 1991. Among these process changes was something that we have come to call the PAYGO rule, or pay-as-you-go. Basically, the pay-as-you-go rule provides that any increase in entitlement benefits has to be paid for by a new revenue source, and that any cut in taxes has to be offset by equivalent cuts in entitlements or by equivalent increases elsewhere in the Tax Code. In other words, entitlement increases or tax cuts have to be deficit neutral. They cannot worsen the bottom line. This is the basic principle of PAYGO; a common-sense, truly conservative principle. PAYGO was originated by Democrats, but it was embraced by the first President Bush in 1991, in the Budget Enforcement Act. It was adopted by President Clinton in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. It was confirmed again by Clinton and by this Congress in a bipartisan way in the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. It was even endorsed by the second President Bush in his 2001 budget submission: Reinstate PAYGO. That is what the President requested. But the Bush administration soon found that if we did that, it would get in the way of its huge tax cut agenda, and that was its driving force behind all the budget policy of this administration. So in 2002, even though it had worked, demonstrably worked, and brought the deficit down, in 2002, the Bush administration and this Congress, under Republican leadership, allowed the PAYGO rule to expire. PAYGO had been renewed three times. From 1991 to 2001, it was the law of the budget. It worked. But it was allowed to expire. The result was a deficit that soared. President Clinton handed over to President Bush a budget that was in surplus, in surplus by $236 billion the year before President Bush took office. By 2004, without the PAYGO rule, without the strictures of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1991, the surplus was gone, wiped out, replaced by a deficit of $413 billion. That was a swing of more than $600 billion in the wrong direction. In an effort to diminish these debts and to rein in the deficit, Democrats tried repeatedly over the last 6 years to reinstate the PAYGO rule. And Republicans, just as repeatedly, rebuked us at every turn. Today, with a new majority, we want a new commitment to fiscal responsibility. We want to pay as you go. We want to quit stacking debt on top of debt. The statutory debt, on the watch of this administration, has increased by 60 percent, 60 percent since President Bush took office, more than $3 trillion in new debt. This is not a sustainable course. Nobody in this House would rise to support this course. So let us reverse course. Let us start today. Let us enact something that worked for 11 years, the PAYGO rule that was adopted first in 1991. Today, we add two new rules to the rules of the House, section 402 and section 405 of title IV in the package before you. The original PAYGO rule was statutory. It set up a scorecard on which tax cuts and tax increases, entitlement cuts and entitlement increases were all entered. At the end of the fiscal year, the tally was taken by the Congressional Budget Office, and if there was an adverse balance, it had to be rectified. If it was not rectified and removed, then it would result in across-the-board abatement or sequestration cuts. Why not just reenact the statutory rule, since that is the form that worked? I wish we could. But it is not at all clear we can pass a statutory change or reenactment of the PAYGO rule in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed. And it is even less clear, and extremely doubtful, that the President would sign a statutory PAYGO rule if it reached his desk. So what we propose today is the art of the possible. What we propose is a House rule, setting up a point of order to any PAYGO violation. We also correct here the practice of using the reconciliation process, an extraordinary process in order to do things, that would worsen the budget deficit. But I want to focus mainly on the PAYGO result. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, and I look forward to working with him, he is a good man who knows his stuff, and I look forward to a good relationship, but I have to take exception when he says this rule does not reduce the deficit. By itself, it may not. But it establishes in the rules of this House a commonsense, truly conservative principle that when the budget is in deficit, deep deficit, at the very least, we should avoid making it worse. We should avoid entitlement increases that are not paid for and we should avoid tax cuts that are not offset. This rule is not immutable, it can be waived or modified, but it establishes a strong working presumption in favor of fiscal responsibility and it holds accountable every Member who votes otherwise. Mr. Ryan claims this bill will set a double standard favoring higher spending. But in truth it is a double-edged sword. It applies to entitlement increases as well as tax cuts. So if you want to start the 110th Congress on the foot of fiscal responsibility, the right thing to do is to vote to reinstate PAYGO. Vote for this package and its fiscal responsibility provisions.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2007 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 401 and 501 of H. Con. Res. 376, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 6. This status report is current through January 1, 2007. An additional report will be filed to reflect any changes in committee jurisdictions. 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 H. Con. Res. 376. 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 table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2007 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 376 for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2007 through 2011. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2007 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2008 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 376. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) 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. The fifth table provides the current level of the nondefense reserve fund for emergencies established by section 501 of H. Con. Res. 376. The table is required by section 505 of the budget resolution, and is needed to determine whether an increase in the reserve fund, allocations and aggregates will be necessary for any pending legislation that contains emergency-designated discretionary budget authority.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, the package before us will be modified tomorrow to include provisions that reinstate a practice that was followed throughout the 1990s in the budget process called pay-as-you- go. Pay-as-you-go was first instituted in 1991 as part of the Budget Enforcement Act when President Bush, the first President Bush, was the President of this country. Pay-as-you-go simply provides that if you want to cut taxes when you have a deficit, you can't make the deficit worse; you have got to offset those tax cuts either with entitlement cuts in an equivalent amount or with tax increases elsewhere in the Tax Code. And, if you want to enhance an entitlement, you have to pay for it with an identified revenue stream. Our friends across the aisle are trying to imply that this PAYGO rule is a sham. I will simply say to you that our PAYGO rule is the art of the possible; it is what we can do at the present moment, and that is we can amend the rules of the House today and tomorrow to include two new PAYGO rules which we have provided for and which have been published. There is some dispute as to whether or not the baseline against which to measure increases and decreases is going to be something that we can manipulate in the Budget Committee. I would simply invite everybody to read the language of the rule, and they will see that in this particular case, the Committee on the Budget is bound to turn to the Congressional Budget Office, which is traditional practice, and to use the recent baseline estimates supplied by the CBO consistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1985. That is what the rule provides. We go to CBO for the baseline, we determine whether or not the extent to which there will be an increase in spending or decrease in revenues. It is a CBO function based upon the latest baseline. And any other construction of this is a false construction. Now, some may say this is just a rule of the House, it can be waived by the Rules Committee because, as the other side well knows, points of order of this kind traditionally have been mowed down by the Rules Committee. But this is the best we can do with a rule of the House. We can later come back and make a statutory change, but it will be good to know if our opponents on the other side who support such a change.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the following commentary by Jason Ackerman, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, which is in my congressional district. Jason was a House page in 2003- 2004 and is now a student at New York University. The Importance of the Page Program (By Jason Ackerman) New York Times columnist John Tierney argues that the congressional page program should be eliminated because it serves no purpose for pages or for the country (``A page, M'Lord, at your service,'' Oct. 4). Well John Tierney was obviously never a page. I served as a page from August 2003 to January 2004. These months were some of the most special moments of my life-- months in which I not only learned how Congress operates, but also months in which I made some of the greatest friends of my life. A day in the life of a page is not easy. It starts at 6:45 in the morning when we all walk from our dorm a couple of blocks from the Capitol to the Library of Congress's Jefferson Building where school is held. Full-time teachers teach the same subjects that we would otherwise have been taking back at our home schools. The school is not a piece of cake either. The courses are very challenging, so challenging in fact that when I came back to my high school I was way ahead in most subjects. After school, which lasted until the House of Representatives commenced, we would head over to the Floor of the House of Representatives where we would start our daily tasks. There are many different page jobs, most of which are rotated around so everyone gets an opportunity to experience different areas of the House. Some pages are runners, which involved taking documents from one place in the Capitol to another. Others are cloakroom pages, where we worked in the cloakroom answering phones about floor proceedings. Still others are in charge of the bell system and of raising and lowering the flag every day on the top of the House of Representatives to declare that the House is in session. The day ends when the House goes out of session. This can be anywhere from 5:00 in the afternoon to 7:00 in the morning. Then we head home, do homework, socialize, clean our rooms (which are checked three times a week), and then go to bed at mandatory curfew hour, which was 10:00 on weekdays and 12:00 on weekends. Some of my most memorable and enjoyable moments as a page were getting to interact with members of the House. Some would come by and tell us jokes, and others would take the time to help us identify someone we were trying to find or to explain to us what was going on at that moment in the complicated proceedings of the House. Yes there were some unfriendly ones, but by and large most members are very kind and generous. There was not a single time in which I felt insecure or unsafe while on the Floor or at any other time while I was a page. The lifelong friendships that I made because of the page program are some of the most amazing friendships of my life. Former pages are some of my closest friends, and I keep in touch with a lot of them on a daily or weekly basis. I now have friends in California and Wyoming that I would never have had the chance to make without this experience. The page experience is something that I would not trade for anything, and it was one of the greatest times of my life. I witnessed history first hand, and made a ton of friends in the process. The experience also sparked my interest in public service, government, and the political process. I would not hesitate one moment to send my child to be a page. These views are also shared with every one of my classmates that I have spoken to since the Foley scandal has erupted. My roommate, who was actually sponsored by Congressman Foley, stressed the importance of continuing the program because of how the program changed his life as well. The only people who do not want the program to continue are people who know nothing about the program and have never talked to a page. Congressman Foley made a mistake, and should be punished to the full extent of the law, but to punish the page program for his mistake is not only unfortunate but also unjust.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support and to praise the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in bringing this bill to fruition this fall, rather than Christmas Eve, as was our experience last year. There may be some questions as to whether or not it is worth it, to have two committees process a bill of this magnitude, an authorization process and an appropriations process. But in addition to having a second scrub of a $462 billion bill, that double, two-part process also leads to some positive provisions from each mark. Let me just highlight a couple to show you some of the valuable features in this bill. A couple of years ago, we became concerned about the level of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. We increased the amount of coverage from $250,000 to $400,000. I offered an amendment to pay for the full premium for those troops that go into a combat zone and hazardous duty zones. That did not pass, but we did pass a provision that $150,000 of the increased coverage would be paid for. This bill takes it a step further, as it should. What we are saying in this bill is that the full $400,000 in life insurance coverage in the combat zone will be paid for in full when you enter the combat zone. This is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The least we can do is to make sure that their family and loved ones should be taken care of in this manner if the worst should happen to them. Second, nonproliferation is a major concern, big defense risk. In this particular bill, we plussed-up the President's budget for the megaports bill by $15 million, and we added $20 million to the Global Threat Initiative. This additional funding will allow for the installation of additional radiation detectors at the world's major border crossings and ports and help secure and dispose of nuclear material in some of the most vulnerable research reactors around the globe. Finally, one of the things we did not do was to endorse the authorization for space-based missile defense weapons. I have always had great concerns about the efficacy. This bill says to ballistic defense: Before you undertake this program, make sure it works, what its scope is, what its strategic implications are. And, finally, we right and timely put in this bill $23.7 billion to reset the capital assets of the Marine Corps and the Army. And this is an illustration of a cost that is going to be staring us in the face for years to come as we try also to fund transformation and modernization. We will have to pay this expense just to keep standing still, another reason we needed a bill of this magnitude, $462 billion, to defend the country. I commend the leadership of this committee for bringing this bill to fruition.