John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address an issue that Mr. Ryan spoke to just a moment ago. This bill does apply to new direct spending items. Now, there could be some disagreement over what that means, but direct spending is mandatory spending, it is entitlement spending, and under that broad rubric falls Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and veterans benefits. The reason we are very concerned about broadening the reach to include mandatory programs like that is that these are programs people depend upon; and what this bill essentially does is create a fast track, a 30-day turnaround. The President sends a bill here, we can't amend it in committee, we can't amend it on the floor, we only have an up-or-down vote, we have a limited amount of time for debate. It is a fast track with no substantive input from Congress, and I would hate to see us make an ill-advised change in Social Security or Medicare simply because it got wrapped up with other spending issues and was pushed through here on such a small fast track that we didn't realize the consequences until we woke up a month or two later. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. SPRATT. I am in its present form.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the motion to recommit concerns entirely the budget process. It is germane and completely germane to the budget process. We add to the bill or would add to the bill the so-called pay- as-you-go provisions which were the law of the land from 1990 to 2002. We reinstate that as a complement to, and it is complementary to, the other powers granted by this bill. It relates to entitlement spending. The bill relates to entitlement spending. So this is well within the ambit of the subject matter of this bill.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Exactly. That simple rule worked better than any budget resolution, any budget rule we enacted during the 1980s and during the 1990s. I was here, involved in the process. I can stand witness to it. PAYGO worked. But don't take my word for it. Last year, while he was still chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan testified before our committee three times, and on each occasion we asked him, What is your assessment of the budget process rules we adopted in the 1990s and let expire in 2002? He said, I was a cynic then. I thought it was a diversionary tactic. But I have to acknowledge that those budget process rules had an enormous impact on the success we achieved, moving the budget from $290 billion in deficits when George Bush left office in 1992 to $236 billion in surplus in the year 2000. PAYGO, he said, works. And he recommended that it be renewed, extended in its old form, affecting both tax cuts and entitlement increases. That was Alan Greenspan saying it accounted for a lot of the success of the budget discipline we displayed in the 1990s.

Mr. SPRATT. The bottom line is we charge the tab to our children. We have a deficit today. This fiscal year the deficit will probably be somewhere between 300 and $350 billion. If we adopt additional tax cuts, they will go straight to the bottom line and only make the deficit larger. Now, the tax cuts envisioned by this estate tax extension will come in the outer years because we are still increasing the exemptions and lowering the rate applicable to decedents' estates right now under old law. This will mean that in the first 10 years that this estate tax provision is fully implemented, the first 10 years when it is fully effective, the cost will be somewhere between 700 and $800 billion in revenues lost or foregone. Seven to $800 billion during that period of time. And that will be a period of time when the baby boomers will be beginning to retire in big numbers and starting to draw Social Security and Medicare, and we all know both of those programs are going to be strained under the load of the baby boomers' retirement.

Mr. SPRATT. As a matter of fact, our Republican colleagues control the House. They have a majority in the Senate, and, of course, they control the White House. So they cannot escape responsibility for these fiscal results.

Mr. SPRATT. That letter was in February.

Mr. SPRATT. I have been here for 23 years

Mr. SPRATT. There are lots of ways to present it, and you have got some ingenious devices there on the table. I found this back-of-the- envelope summary of how much we have increased the debt ceiling of the United States, the legal limit to which this government can borrow, which is set by statute, over the years that George Bush has been President of the United States. When the Bush administration first came to the Congress back in 2001, with their proposal to do 1 trillion, 800 billion in tax cuts over a 10-year period of time, they told us we could do these tax cuts and still we won't be back here to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, the legal lending borrowing limit, until 2008. The next year, June 2002, hat in hand, they were back here at the Congress saying we missed it. We overestimated the surplus. The tax cuts have taken effect. We need a $450 billion increase in the debt ceiling of the United States. That was June of 2002. Within a year, May, 2003, they were back, and they were asking this time for a phenomenal sum of money, a $984 billion increase in the debt ceiling of the United States. If you go back to 1981, just before I first came to Congress, when Mr. Reagan became President of the United States, the entire debt of the United States was less than $984 billion. In 1 year, they needed to raise the debt ceiling by that amount to accommodate the budgets of the Bush administration. Well, that was May of 2003. Fourteen months later, November 2004, there was another $800 billion increase. And when we passed the supplemental for the budget this year, the supplemental spending bill, there was slipped into it a provision increasing the debt ceiling by $781 billion. And still pending there is another increase. It is hard to believe. Back of the envelope sums it up better than any possible way I could. When they passed the budget resolution in the House this year, it included an additional increase of $653 billion. If you add all of those debt ceiling increases together, you will find that the total amount of debt ceiling increase in the Bush administration comes to $3.7 trillion. $3.7 trillion, that is how much we have had to raise the debt ceiling, the legal borrowing rate of this government, in order to make room for the deficits caused by the Bush administration's budget.

Mr. SPRATT. No question about it. That is one of the problems you have with the line item veto. It says we need to let the President get involved even more. I voted for an expedited rescission, a line item veto before, here on this House floor. But really I think that Congress itself should turn to its own problems and start addressing those as opposed to going outside the Congress for solutions. We know what the problem is. We do not have a budget resolution this year adopted by both Houses. One of the things we learned in the 1980s and again in the 1990s was that you need a multi-year plan. Typically a 5-year plan. Not just a 1-year budget but a 5-year budget so you can see the implications on the tax side and on the spending side of what everything you are doing does to the bottom line. And we do not have a 5-year budget at this point in time. And the budget process rules like the PAYGO rule and the discretionary spending caps that we adopted in the 1990s no longer apply. The law elapsed. The Republicans allowed it to elapse and did not renew it. And consequently we do not have those disciplines that we had in the 1980s and 1990s that finally brought the deficit to heal and, furthermore, in the year 2000, put it in surplus to the tune of $236 billion. The last full fiscal year of the Clinton administration, that is where it was, $236 billion in the black.

Mr. SPRATT. Does that mean I get to join the 30-Something Working Group?

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce the Deficit Reduction and Effective Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. The United States is facing structural deficits of $300 billion to $400 billion; a rising mountain of debt, held increasingly by foreign interests; and a $3 trillion tax-cut agenda of measures yet to be renewed or enacted. We have all of this and more, but no effective tools to deal with any of these problems. In fact, this year, for the fourth time since the Budget Act was passed, and for the third time in the last 5 years, Congress has failed to pass a concurrent budget resolution, much less a 5-year plan. That's why today I am introducing this bill. It contains a package of tools to get the budget crisis under control and help get the budget back in balance. My legislation reinstates the two-sided Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rules. It allows reconciliation to be used only to reduce the deficit. My bill provides members with the information they need to review legislation before voting on it. Finally, a well-crafted expedited rescission authority could be a useful budget tool--and I have brought to the floor and voted for versions of that authority in the past when there were other budget enforcement tools in place, as well. That's why my bill includes expedited rescission authority, but addresses the broader budget control issues as well. Let me review some of the details of my bill. If we are in earnest about bringing down the deficit, we need rules designed to reduce the deficit. Congress created the reconciliation process to make it easier to reduce the deficit by setting up special procedures for hard-to-pass budget cuts, yet this Congress now uses reconciliation to pass legislation that enlarges the deficit. The Republican bill granting the president expedited rescission authority, H.R. 4890, could become an accessory to that outcome. A President with expedited rescission powers could push a big spending bill, call members of Congress when a vote was coming up, solicit their support, and if it was not forthcoming, back up his request with a thinly veiled threat--the rescission of something that members dearly wanted for their districts. My bill addresses these concerns in several ways. First, it prohibits reconciliation procedures from being used to increase the deficit. Second, it prohibits the President or anyone in the executive branch from wielding rescission threats as a bargaining tool on other legislation. If we are serious about rooting out wasteful spending--and I think we should be--we need to provide members with adequate time to look over legislation before voting on it. The Republican Rules Committee routinely waives the rules to rush bills to the floor hours or even minutes after bills providing for billions of dollars are finalized. My bill requires that members have copies of a bill to review at least 24 hours prior to a vote, and a full three days for a bill with earmarks, unless two-thirds of the House votes to waive that rule. In addition, my bill contains earmark reform provisions from H. Res. 659, Representative Obey's bill, that will make publicly available relevant details about any earmarks contained in a bill, including who sponsored the provision and who benefits from it. I am convinced that we can reduce the deficit while protecting vital entitlement programs from expedited rescission authority and the sort of summary changes that fast-track provisions would permit. H.R. 4890 allows the President to propose line-item rescissions even to entitlement programs such as Social Security, veterans' benefits, and Medicare. My bill would protect these programs. The Deficit Reduction and Effective Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 will put in place these measures we need to address our budget crisis. Merely granting the President expedited rescission authority alone, as H.R. 4890 provides, will do little to require that Congress set budget priorities, put the budget on the path back to balance, and stick to its budget promises.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with my colleagues a stirring story about Sergeant Cedric Caldwell, one of my constituents, from Rock Hill, South Carolina. His story is one example of the brave men and women serving in Iraq. [From the Herald, May 28, 2006] Rock Hill Soldier Saved Lives of Comrades in Iraq When Bomb Shredded Convoy Truck (By Andrew Dys) The U.S. Army convoy rolled where death lives. About 30 miles north of Baghdad. Night in Iraq couldn't have been darker. Late April, a little more than a month ago. Rock Hill's ``Corn Dog,'' Sgt. Cedric Caldwell, manned the front machine gun on one of the convoy escort trucks. A sergeant from California named Torres was beside him. A private first class named Squires drove. The truck looked like America. A black guy, a white guy and a Hispanic guy. But Iraq in the night is not like America where so many spend nights howling about blacks and Hispanics. In Iraq in Alpha Battery, 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment, your brothers who don't look like you are all you've got. No color matters but the indigo of night and the yellow of fire and the red of blood. ``All of a sudden, there was a loud explosion, and I fell down inside the cab on Torres,'' Caldwell remembered. The truck rolled and tipped over on its top. ``I must have gotten knocked out for a minute,'' Caldwell said. ``Then all I could see was fire and smoke everywhere. Except for the picture in my mind. It was just like a photograph. My wife and my daughter. It's true. Your life does flash in front of your eyes. I saw it.'' Caldwell saw the hatch opening for the truck and climbed through as the calls of ``I'm hit! I'm hit'' pierced the night and cut through the flames. Caldwell didn't run for the safety of the roadside ditch. He didn't call for a doctor for himself. He pulled Torres to safety through the hatch. Then he dragged Torres about 20 meters from the truck so the explosions wouldn't kill him. The munitions in the truck were blowing up in the fire. Bullets, shells, shrapnel designed to kill the enemy now trying to kill them. ``I could still hear screaming,'' Caldwell said. Putting others' needs first Again, Caldwell didn't run for safety. ``All I could see was Squires' hand,'' Caldwell said. ``So I reached in, grabbed on, and pulled him out.'' Squires was burning alive. ``It was like a stunt double in the movies,'' Caldwell said. ``His whole legs were on fire. I rolled him around to try and put the fire out, but it didn't work. So I took off my vest and my shirt and tried to smother the fire.'' Finally, the fire was out, but Squires' clothes were so hot Squires was still burning. Shirtless, bare-chested in a place where snipers are the law, Caldwell knelt in the road and pulled off Squires' clothes. Finally, he got Squires to the ditch. Before the medics arrived, Caldwell poured what water he could find over Squires' wounds. ``I kept telling him he was going to be OK, that he was going to live,'' Caldwell said. ``He was yelling. I was yelling. But I wasn't going to let him die. Both of them are really good soldiers. They would have done the same for me.'' Torres suffered a broken arm and other injuries and is now back at Fort Bragg, N.C., where all three soldiers are based. Squires is in intensive care at the Brook Army Medical Center burn unit in San Antonio, Texas, hospital officials confirmed. Caldwell suffered a concussion and has a dent in his forehead where an ammunition box thumped him. He has shrapnel in his leg. He has cuts and bums on his face and hands. His back is covered with an I8-inch burn. Strong sense of honor, duty He is a sergeant with responsibility for 14 men. He said his superiors have put in for a Purple Heart for his wounds in action and a Combat Action Badge, and either a Bronze Star or Silver Star for valor. Caldwell could have come home, too. But he chose to stay in Iraq. ``My men here need me,'' Caldwell said by telephone this week. Caldwell's wife and parents were distraught that he was injured, but they rejoice he is alive. Maybe even more, they take pride that Cedric Caldwell did what every man hopes he would do when an overturned truck is on fire with men underneath that truck. Caldwell did not run. He didn't ask for help for himself. He helped his men. ``He went back,'' said the Rev. Willie Caldwell, the father. ``I prepared myself when he left that my son could come back in a pine box. I supported this war then and now. I believe in freedom. It's not cheap. And then when he was at the hospital, he saw all those other guys who are hurt worse. He told me, `Daddy, I need to stay. These guys need to come home, not me.' '' Caldwell's wife, Tiffani, is a military child whose parents are both immigrants from the Caribbean. Her father came from Jamaica to the Air Force. He served in the first Persian Gulf War. Her mother came from Barbados to the Army. Torres came from Mexico, Caldwell said. Americans gnash their teeth over immigration, ask for fences to be built or borders to be shuttered, while the sons and daughters of immigrants or immigrants themselves fight the wars over freedom. ``Corn Dog'': A local hero ``My best friend is a hero,'' said Travis Canty, who has been ``like a brother'' with Caldwell since both were little kids in Rock Hill. It is Canty who spilled the beans that the nickname ``Corn Dog'' comes from Caldwell eating corn dogs for lunch during school. ``He didn't run. He didn't hide. He saved those guys,'' Canty said. Caldwell went first to Kosovo when the war on terror began. He was home a short while, then spent almost a year in Afghanistan. A few months with his wife and then Iraq. Caldwell was home for a few days in January, just missing the birth of daughter Tiffanie. He saw her, kissed her and his wife a few times, then went back to Iraq. And then he cheats death. And still he stays in Iraq. ``I guess my military background prepared me for this,'' Tiffani Caldwell said. ``I haven't cried yet. My husband is alive. He is a soldier. He'll come home when his deployment is finished.'' Return to a simpler life Caldwell's enlistment is up in February. He said he's not staying in the Army. ``No way, no more Iraq,'' said Williatte, his mother. ``We are done,'' said Tiffani, his wife. Caldwell plans to come back to Rock Hill with his wife and daughter. He'll play music in his father's Abiezer Baptist Church. He wants to be a Realtor. ``I truly believe that without God, me and Torres and Squires would not have survived,'' Caldwell said. Caldwell may be right. Maybe God wanted the black and the Hispanic and the white guys to live. But one thing seems to be for sure. A Rock Hill guy, Northwestern High class of 1998, who joined the National Guard while still in high school then leapt into active duty and never left, didn't leave his brothers to die in the dirt and flame and blood of Iraq. Monday, on Memorial Day, no monuments will be etched with the names Torres or Squires on granite.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the House a milestone in the lives of an all-American family. Fifty years ago, on June 14, 1956, Samuel R. Foster and Jestine Wright were united in a marriage that inspires all of us who know them. Both dedicated their lives to public service as school teachers and administrators. Early in the era of school integration, Sam Foster was selected as principal to start a new school, Northwestern High School in Rock Hill, South Carolina. This was a great challenge for an African-American educator, but Sam rose to the challenge and won the respect of students and parents, white and black. Sam Foster moved from education to elective office and served with distinction in the South Carolina General Assembly. He became known throughout the state for his wisdom and ability and especially for his facility to see all sides of an issue and cut to the essence of an argument. Sam Foster completed his career in public service as a commissioner on the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. All who know the couple well know that Sam Foster has derived much of his wisdom and insight over the years from the counsel of his wife, Jestine. Two sons were born to Sam and Jestine Foster, Sam and Alan, both of whom have been successful in their own right, bringing further distinction to their parents. Mr. Speaker, I call the Fosters to the attention of the House because their marriage and family are exemplary and worthy of recognition throughout the Nation.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his indulgence and for the recognition, and I want to focus on something that has been little discussed in this debate, and that is how much this war is costing us. Cost is not the ultimate determinant. When we have troops in the field, we should be unstinting in their support. But when the cost runs into hundreds of billions of dollars, it has to be a consideration. The greatest cost, of course, is counted in human lives: 2,514 killed so far, 17,774 wounded so far. The dollar cost is not nearly so precious, but it is substantial. First, for comparison, here is what the first Persian Gulf War cost us: $61 billion. But our allies contributed $10.6 in kind, $48.4 billion in cash contributions, and so out-of-pocket we were $2.1 billion. That, my friends, is the benefit of having allies. Now, look at the annual cost of the war we are fighting. Notice that it has increased by almost 100 percent from 2003 when the war itself was fully going on, to this year, 2006, an increase from $51 billion to $104 billion a year, annually. The next chart then sums up the expenditures year by year, and you can see the bottom line. Thus far through this year, the cost is $318 billion. Thus far. Iraqi Freedom alone is $318 billion. To express that in monthly terms, something the Pentagon calls the ``burn rate,'' the average expenditure per month for the troops we are maintaining there, 130,000 strong, is running at $8.4 billion a month. That is $8.4 billion a month. Now, we have asked CBO, and CBO itself decided to set up a model to estimate what the outyear cost of this deployment would be, assuming that after this year there is a substantial drawdown to the point where 50,000 troops remain in theater, Afghanistan and Iraq. This covers both. The total cost of this, over a period of 10 years, is $371 billion, assuming a modest increment in our deployment to that theater of 50,000 additional troops. This is CBO speaking. Now, if you add $371 billion to $318 billion, you get $689 billion. That is what this war could cost us if its goes on at its current level. And we have not reflected in this number the accrued costs we are incurring daily due to the harsh environmental conditions in the desert. The Army says it will cost $24 billion alone over the next 2 years to restore and repair and replace equipment. Now, as I said, cost is not the ultimate determinant, but it has to be a consideration when it reaches this magnitude. I do not think we can debate the deployment in Iraq in existing troop levels in a vacuum, as if the cost does not matter, as if we had infinite resources. Cost matters if we are ever to balance our budget. Cost matters in meeting other military needs for operations elsewhere in the world, for transformation, and for modernization. It is too bad we cannot have a full debate where we could express fully all of the grave issues facing us due to the deployment in Iran.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the mission in Iraq has been plagued from the start by poor intelligence, by poor planning for the post-war, and by disdain for the advice from our allies and even our officials. Ignoring the Army's Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense deployed too few troops, failing to foresee the insurgency that followed the war. Many of those deployed were not properly equipped with body armor or armored vehicles, forced to improvise in the field. The troops were assigned duty that they were not trained for. But let me add here they have performed magnificently. They rose to the challenge. They showed they still have that GI genius for field expedience. They improvised. But the lack of planning and the lack of preparation has cost us dearly; 2,514 Americans have paid the ultimate price: they have died. 17,774 have been seriously wounded. Since this is the end of the debate, let me go to the bottom line. First of all, let me say the most important cost we have incurred is for the precious lives that were lost, 2,514; 1,774 who were wounded. But the costs also are considerable. They are not a determinant, obviously. We have troops in the field and are unstinting in our support of them. But when the costs run into hundreds of billions of dollars, they have to be considered. Here is what the cost of the first Persian gulf war was: $61 billion. Of that our allies chipped in in kind $10.6 billion, in cash $48 billion. The total cost to the United States out of pocket was $2.1 billion. That is what happens when you form a real coalition and have allies and do not go it alone. Here is what happens when you go it alone. This has been the ascending cost of the war in Iraq, Iraqi Freedom: starting out at $51 billion, it rose to $77 billion in 2004, to $87 billion in 2005, and to $100.4 billion this year, the estimated cost. And here is what the cost per month is: $8.4 billion. That is what the current cost works out to. That is a burn rate in Pentagon jargon; $8.4 billion a month is the cost of the war currently. Finally, adding all of that up, through the year 2006, you can see that the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom has been $318.5 billion. The cost is not the determinant. We can afford whatever it takes to defend this country. We want to be, as I said, unstinting in support of our troops. But when the cost gets to be $318 billion, $8.4 billion a month, it has to be a consideration. And that is similarly what we are saying tonight. The President spoke several weeks ago and said that probably his successor in 2010 would be the person who decides whether or not and when American troops would be redeployed. He did not even mention the cost of the current undertaking. It is not just a dollar cost. It is an opportunity cost. For every dollar consumed here is a loss of dollars otherwise that could be spent on modernization and on the transformation of our forces. Last year when we passed the Defense Authorization Act for 2006, the House and Senate, and the President by signing the bill, enacted a provision that 2006 would be the year of transition, when Iraqi troops would begin to take primary responsibility. This is simply what we are calling on the President to do, to begin moving us in that direction as we resolved we should have done last year, particularly in view of the cost.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago this House passed a bill to get tough with illegal immigration. It stiffened sanctions, it increased penalties, and it promulgated a new get-tough approach to illegal immigration. It lacked, however, one essential, the resources to carry out this new step-up in enforcement that it proposed. The bill took steps to open up the door to State and local law enforcement so that you could have local sheriffs and local law enforcement personnel more involved in criminal alien assistance, but it still left the program proposed woefully underfunded. Some years ago I called Atlanta, the regional office of the INS, to report what I thought was a serious immigration violation and to ask for an investigation. I was told there were only two investigatory agents in all of South Carolina, and they had to be used for criminal matters, for really serious deportations. The supplemental that came through this House in March, was passed on March 16 and then went to the Senate, offered a golden opportunity to do something about that shortcoming. The Senate, for its part, seized that opportunity, beefed up enforcement and helped bolt down our borders far better than they are now. The Senate seized the opportunity. Senator Gregg offered an amendment. When the bill was finally finished in the Senate, it added $2.548 billion for border security and for port security in this country, both of which are woefully underresourced at the present time. The bill, as I said, included $1.9 billion of the $2.5 billion for sealing off and securing our borders far better than they are now. The Bush administration then proposed an additional amendment of $1.9 billion, but insisted that it supplant, not supplement but supplant, the proposal that Senator Gregg had passed by a substantial margin on the Senate floor. Now, what is in the Bush package we don't oppose. We have, in fact, been proposing more detention beds and more border security agents and more effort there for some time now. So we don't oppose that $1.9 billion. But look at what Senator Gregg put in the bill, which was not pulled out of thin air, basic meat and potatoes, practical requirements that are needed if we are really going to bolt down our borders. The P3 fleet, which serves as our border security's primary air surveillance, is 40 years old. That is a Lockheed Electra platform, an old turboprop plane, 20 years beyond the average life of even this type of plane. Two months ago the entire fleet was grounded due to a safety issue uncovered during a routine inspection. Senator Gregg would have put money here, and emphatically we believe it should be put here. Outdated vehicles, this is a harsh environment, this is a border, roadless terrain that vehicles have to travel. There are nearly 1,700 vehicles, virtually unusable due to the wear and tear of the desert, extreme environments and high use. Senator Gregg's amendment would have put money there. Lack of sufficient patrol aircraft. We currently detect three out of every 10 boats carrying smugglers. Of the boats detected by patrol aircraft, 75 percent are stopped, apprehended. More aircraft obviously are needed to act on actionable intelligence regarding human and drug smuggling activities. Finally, armed helicopters. You want to get tough? Only nine out of 150 helicopters are armed, allowing human and drug traffickers to cross our maritime border virtually unimpeded. Armed helicopters could stop 100 percent of the illegal smugglers whom they encounter. This is what is lacking and missing in this bill. It was there, taken out in conference. As a result, this bill leaves security gaps, serious gaps in our national security and our national borders and ports underfunded. This is a real deficiency and a missed opportunity that unfortunately this conference report did not seize.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman and the ranking member for the work they have done here, and I take small exception here because you have cut back the $250 million the President requested. I think that is a good move, but this would simply level out the funding so that next year will have as much funding as this year. If you go to the Savannah River Site in my State, you will see the K Reactor, on which we have spent close to $2 billion, it never was operated again; the NPR, on which we spent $40 million on the environmental impact statement; the MOX fuel facility, which is being abandoned today after millions were spent; and Agnes, where we trod down this road once before toward nuclear reprocessing and realized it was not the way to go. And today more than ever, when we do not want to open up new nuclear processes which give rise to more fissile material, there are really legitimate doubts about this path. I respect the course that the committee has taken, but slow it down. Let us take a closer look at this before we plunge headlong into something that could cost $20 billion, $30 billion, maybe $40 billion before it comes to full fruition.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment, which would cut $40 million from the so-called GNEP, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. GNEP is an exceedingly ambitious set of proposals. It runs the gamut, from expanding the use of nuclear power, to closing the loophole in the nuclear fuel cycle, to developing a new generation of advanced ``fast'' nuclear reactors. Among other things, it calls for restarting nuclear reprocessing, a risky venture abandoned by the Carter Administration in the 1970s out of cost and proliferation concerns. It moves us ahead before we know the long term costs or international implications. On issues of this consequence, we should tread lightly. I have concerns over GNEP on several fronts. First, I am concerned about reprocessing of nuclear spent fuel, because it lends itself to the production of fissile material. On its face, the idea of reusing spent nuclear fuel sounds appealing. Proponents point out that we only use 3-5 percent of nuclear fuel in the first reaction. They claim that reprocessing will allow us to recycle spent fuel and captured the untapped tap energy potential. But recycling nuclear fuel is not so easy, and there is a limit to the number of times you can put a fuel rod through reprocessing before fission by-products make additional recycling impractical. So, the amount of reusable energy that the process yields is questionable. As explained to me by DoE, reprocessing is really more about reducing the heat from spent nuclear fuel, to facilitate storage, than it is about generating more usable fuel. Questionable energy yields are only one problem with reprocessing. The other problem is that re-running nuclear fuel multiple times is one means of converting commercial nuclear fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium. The Department of Energy has told us that the new reprocessing technology they hope to use (UREX+) is ``proliferation resistant'' since the radioactive emissions will still be lethal to unprotected handlers. But there is no such thing as being completely proliferation-resistance. A suicidal terrorist could find a way to steal, handle, and transport any nuclear material, and increasing the neutron flux simply brings them one step closer to using this material for a nuclear weapon. On another front, I am greatly concerned about the potential cost of the GNEP proposal. Though the President's budget request called for only $250 million this year, estimates have ranged up to $40 billion over the next 10 years. This is huge price-tag for an amorphous program. As an example, the Department of Energy has indicated that, as part of GNEP, they would like to build a scaled-down facility to demonstrate UREX+ reprocessing technology. But when pressed for details, DoE has said that this facility could range in scale from 1 ton throughput per year to 200 tons and on up to 500 tons per year. This is almost as large as commercial scale reprocessing operations overseas, and is hardly a demonstration project. Moreover, the Department of Energy does not know where the demonstration facility will be sited, what the environmental or engineering costs will be for the facility, or what the ultimate cost will be to construct it. Even further, they do not know how many of these facilities will be needed if we ever move to a commercial scale. We are running a budget deficit of $300-350 billion this year alone. The Department of Energy itself is has more major acquisition projects on its plate than it can carry to fruition. I am wary of adding another $40 billion liability with GNEP before we know fully what we are getting ourselves into. The Markey amendment before us today takes a pragmatic approach to this problem. It does not eliminate funding for the program; rather, it reduces the $120 million remaining for the program by $40 million, effectively freezing GNEP funding at this year's funding level. Before we rush headlong toward the latest acronym, GNEP, we should make the Department come to us with concrete proposals, more definitive costs and benefits, so that this far-reaching project can be measured against other priorities. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep concern about the subcommittee's decision to zero out funds for the Mixed Oxide, or MOX, fuel fabrication plant at Savannah River Site in South Carolina. In a nutshell, the MOX fuel plant would take weapons grade plutonium and convert it into fuel usable in commercial reactors. In 2002, the state of South Carolina, in an arrangement with the Department of Energy and Congress, agreed to allow 34 tons of weapons grade nuclear material for MOX processing be stored at the Savannah River Site. In exchange, the state of South Carolina received assurances that the MOX fuel plant would be completed on schedule. And to be sure, we put in place penalty payments for the Department of Energy if the MOX fuel plant's construction delayed beyond 2011. In parallel with this U.S. effort, the U.S. and our allies agreed to help fund a MOX facility in Russia, where the Russians would likewise convert 34 tons of their own plutonium into MOX fuel. To nearly everyone, this seemed like a good deal--and in any event, a done deal. In the U.S., we would eliminate the expense and risk of safeguarding weapons usable nuclear fuel. In Russia, we would eliminate the risk that weapons grade nuclear material would fall into terrorist hands. And for the nuclear power industry, we would provide a new source of nuclear fuel. For four years, we have been told by the Department of Energy that liability concerns for U.S. contractors in Russia were the hold-up for the MOX facility--a problem we believed was resolved last summer. Unfortunately, earlier this year it came to light that there was a more fundamental problem. In February, the Russians informed U.S. officials that they would only move forward with the MOX fuel facility in Russia if the MOX fuel could be used in new so-called fast reactors, which pose proliferation concerns, or if the international community paid for the whole project. This development called into question the nonproliferation benefits that the U.S. might expect from MOX. I can understand Chairman Hobson's concern about these changes to the MOX fuel program. In fact, I share them. But that does not change the fact that without the MOX program, South Carolina is stuck with 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium with no clear pathway for disposal. When South Carolina agreed to take the Nation's plutonium, it did not do so to become plutonium's final burial place. We only took the plutonium with the promise that a processing facility and ultimate removal would be forthcoming. The penalty payments imposed on the Department of Energy were our ace in the hole to make sure this happened. In the Defense Authorization bill, we even included language attesting to the fact that the South Carolina MOX facility was worth doing on its own, separate of the Russian facility if need be. We learned of Russia's decision shortly before the Defense Authorization bill was marked up in the Armed Services Committee, and we took sensible steps to account for these new circumstances. What the House Armed Services Committee did is fence the funds sought for the MOX fuel plant, pending a report from the Department of Energy that reaffirms this process as the preferred technology and most cost- effective means for disposing of weapons-grade plutonium. Millions of dollars have been spent in the expectation that the MOX fuel decision was a done deal. An EIS has been prepared. Tons of plutonium have been shipped to South Carolina, based on the iron-clad promise that it would be processed into MOX reactor fuel and shipped out on schedule. The contractor for the project has put together an impressive engineering team, and begun design work. Duke Energy has obtained MOX fuel assemblies from France and loaded the fuel rods in its light water reactor. To cancel this substantial project so precipitously, with no input from the Department of Energy, with no consideration of sunk cost, and with the enormous cost to terminate for convenience does not seem wise or right to me, particularly when we lack an agreed-upon alternative that has been studied and found superior to the MOX fuel option. I am not dogmatic about MOX; if other treatment options are available and cost effective, I am open to those options. But with over half a billion dollars already invested in the MOX facility, I am wary of scrapping the whole idea and starting over. I understand that Chairman Hobson put $111 million of the MOX cut into exploration of other treatment options at Savannah River Site, and I commend him for that. But I think we should withhold judgment on MOX fuel until we have at least received the report sought by the House Armed Services Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky either to restore funding or to find an alternative that is mutually agreeable. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this issue of great importance to my state, out country, and our nuclear complex.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say something first on a personal note. For 6 years now, Jim Nussle and I have sat side by side on the Budget Committee and collaborated and worked together in the spirit of cooperation and comity. We have had our vigorous disagreements from time to time; but there was always, always, the civility and friendship born of mutual respect between the two of us. We never had the pleasure of converging and collaborating on a budget itself, and I am sorry for that, Jim; but we always had I think the same goals in mind, the good of the country. We are going to miss you here. I am going to be the first to come to the well and salute you for your service to the House and to the country and for the work you have done in particular on the Budget Committee. Mr. Chairman, with all the jargon and all the numbers and all the rhetoric, it is hard to find your way around this budget maze, so let me start with just the basics, so basic that let's do something revolutionary, read the resolution before you. Read this resolution and you will see that right here, page 1, the public debt of the United States will be $11.3 trillion in the year 2011, 5 years from now. At the end of 2001, 5 years ago, the day President Bush took office, the public debt was $5.7 trillion. That means that between 2002 and 2011, under the policies of this administration and this budget resolution, the public debt of the United States is going to double. In a 10-year period of time, we are going to double the debt from $5.7 trillion to $11.3 trillion. It is right here in your own resolution. Keep on reading and you will see that the on-budget deficit for next year, the year 2007, is $545 billion. Now, on-budget, that means before you offset that against the surplus in Social Security. But there is a reason it is listed as an on-budget surplus or an on-budget deficit in this resolution. The law requires it, just as the law requires that Social Security be taken off budget. Off budget, when it is treated that way, the deficit is $545 billion in the year 2007. In the year 2011, the on-budget deficit will be $428 billion. But that doesn't include anything for fixing the AMT. We all know that has to be done. It will have a significant effect on revenues when it is. Nor does it include anything after 2007 for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So when you make adjustments for those two factors, you are really back up to $550 billion. For 5 years we will tread water, go nowhere. It is right here, the numbers in this resolution, the first two pages of this resolution. That is why I say this budget resolution presents no plan and no prospect of ever balancing the budget. Indeed, our calculations show, from the staff of the Budget Committee, our calculations shows that this budget will actually make the deficit $400 billion worse over 5 years than if we just stood still and had a current services budget. We actually lose ground if we pass this budget tonight, and we certainly do not move into a future that any of us thinks is fiscally sound. Mr. Chairman, I want to show you one other chart which we used several times today so that you all will be aware of something when you vote on this budget. Buried in this budget on page 121 is a provision that is written in legalese, but it says that the joint resolution, if enacted to raise the debt, the debt will be increased, the debt ceiling of the United States will be increased by $653 billion. Tonight if you vote for this budget resolution, you are, in effect, according to this language on page 121 of the budget resolution, voting to raise the debt ceiling of the United States by $653 billion. Now, let me put that in context. Let me put it on the back of an envelope for you. This simple chart right here shows you the increases in the debt ceiling of the United States, the legal limit to which the United States Government can borrow that have been passed by this Congress over the last 5 years. June 2002, those of you on the Budget Committee will recall that the Bush administration came to us selling their budget. They told us, look, pass this budget with $1.7 to $1.8 trillion in tax cuts, and we still will not be back until 2008 to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling. That is how much spare capacity we have got. They missed it by a mile. A year later they were back, hat in hand, and they said, we need an increase in the debt ceiling of $450 billion. That was 1 year. The next year they came back with a phenomenal increase. May 24, 2004, the increase was $984 billion. That lasted 15 months. Following the 15-month period there was another increase, $800 billion. Just 2 months ago, in March, there was a $781 billion increase. And now tonight, if you vote for this resolution, you can add $653- to that. Those will be the 5 increases over 5 years in the debt ceiling of the United States in order to accommodate the budgets that this Congress has passed during that period of time, all together $3.7 trillion in 5 years. On the back of an envelope that is as dire as I can present it to you. In this budget, as I said, look at the numbers on the first page, $545 billion in 2007, $428 billion in 2011, does not take us anywhere. It does not present a plan or a solution or anything. At best it treads water. Now, let me show you one other thing that is a problematic feature of this budget. The cuts in this budget are not, at least do not seem to be, Draconian, at least not at the outset, but they are relentless. And they take a toll over time, and they come down on one small segment of the budget, something we call nondefense discretionary spending. Nondefense discretionary spending. Now, it is odd that this would be the object of all of the deficit reduction effort, because, number one, this is not the source of the problem. This is not where spending has been growing by any means. And, number two, it is less than 15 percent of the budget. You will never get a $400 or $500 billion deficit resolved out of an account or series that do not come to more than $380 billion all together. But that is what you have chosen to do in this resolution. That is why for another reason it will not work over time, but it will hurt. It will hurt people who depend on programs that are essential, such as transitional Medicaid assistance, such as education. This budget takes a $45 billion hit on education. What you see is that over time, as you freeze, this is what our Republican colleagues call this budget on its effects on discretionary spending, a freeze, if you simply hold it in place and do not allow it to increase, actually cut it a bit below inflation over a 5-year period of time, the total effect of spending is $162 billion. That is coming out of NIH, that is coming out of CDC, that is coming out of education, that is coming out of veterans health care. The list goes on and on and on. And there are some things in there that are real anomalies. I was out here on the floor for much of the debate on the immigration reform bill. You remember that, I am sure. And often the question came up about stiffer sanctions and tougher rules. Obviously the issue was raised, how do you enforce them? And frequently the answer was, we go to State and local government; we are going to use them in addition to the immigration service and the Customs Service and the Border Patrol. We want to enlist, engage our sheriffs and our deputy sheriffs and our city policemen to get involved in immigration enforcement, too. Well, guess what is cut out in this budget? State criminal assistance programs, $400 million. This is not the budget that will take us to the future that we all want. The best thing that we can do tonight is to take this budget, take this budget, reject it, send the budgeteers back to the drawing board, and come up with something different. That is not going to happen. I know it will not happen. So we will just kick the can down the road one more time. But I warn you, you know as well as I, this problem will only get tougher with time, only get harder to resolve with time. But sooner or later the day of reckoning is coming. In the meantime, what we have got with this budget is more deficits, more debt and more denial. Vote against this budget resolution.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Maryland 1 additional minute.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas, let me say that there are certain promises that we are bound to keep in government, and I think one of the most important are promises we have made to our veterans, because they were purchased for a dear price and usually therefore services are sorely needed, particularly veterans health care. I yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas to talk about the difference between our budget substitute and the base bill when it comes to this vitally important thing called veterans health services.