John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we offer a budget substitute which offers a difference, because, you see, our budget will return the budget to balance by the year 2012. In the interim, it will run smaller deficits and rack up less debt. Our resolution will hold non-defense discretionary spending to the level of current services over the next 5 years, showing that we can exercise discipline and control without making devastating cuts in the essential services. The Republican budget, the base bill, never reaches balance, and, in my opinion, presents no plan or prospect of wiping out the debt or reducing the deficit. I just outlined a few minutes ago some of the draconian cuts that are made over time. They may not seem that to start with, but they are relentless over a 5-year period of time. Education, for example, will be cut $45 billion; the environment will be cut substantially; and so will health, public health. NIH, Center for Disease Control, Graduate Medical Education for Children's Hospitals, on and on and on, rural health care programs that people depend upon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), to discuss the health implications of the base bill and the difference between our substitute and the base bill when it comes to public health.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me just point out to the gentleman that amongst those who support the idea of closing the tax gap, using it in the budget, is the President himself. In his 2006 budget, he requested $446 million in extra funding for tax enforcement. The Senate side has bought into the idea. They have provided in the 2007 budget resolution $500 million, unanimously approved in the Senate for the same purpose. So it is not just a pipe dream by any means. It is something we should be about. What we are simply proposing in PAYGO is what Mr. Greenspan asked on three occasions before our committee strongly recommended, that we reinstate the rules. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to close to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished minority leader.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this budget already cuts, the base bill on the floor, education by $45 billion over the next 5 years; wipes out 42 programs; eliminates the Perkins plan for vocational education. Public health, the cuts come to $18 billion. That is the NIH, Center for Disease Control, Graduate Medical Education For Children's Hospitals, rural health care programs, on and on and on, cut $18 billion. Veterans, who should have a greater claim to our sympathy and support now than at any time, you see the sacrifices they are making, 18,000 grievously wounded, veterans health care will be funded at $6 billion below current services if this budget passes. To go deeper, to cut more is just unconscionable. I simply cannot imagine it. In truth, what you have got here are $162 billion cumulative cuts in programs on which people depend over 5 years. You have already gone beyond the reasons of limit. Going even further would be truly unconscionable.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentlemen before yielding to Mr. Hoyer. What we have provided here is that there will be $150 billion of tax cuts before the PAYGO rule applies. Otherwise, we just would take the PAYGO rule, which worked so well for us in the 1990s, which on three occasions, the gentleman heard him, Alan Greenspan said we should reinstate, double edge, applicable to tax cuts as well as to entitlement increases. And what we are saying is, applying the PAYGO rule, go through the Code, as we did in 1986, $2\1/2\ trillion, surely the deductions and credits and exemptions and preferences there that can help you offset the taxes that will come up for renewable in 2010. That is what we are proposing. You have got $228 billion in this budget resolution alone calls for tax cuts of that amount. It does not have a dime of them covered. And that is why, one of the reasons, that the deficit next year will be $545 billion on budget, before applying Social Security surplus. And 5 years from now it will be $428 billion. That is assuming no fix of the AMT and no additional costs after 2007 for Iraq. That is why they do not get anywhere. It is a tread-water budget. So what we have proposed simply is that there would be additional tax cuts, of course, up to $150 billion without having to apply the PAYGO rule. But after that they would have to be offset so we can get about the business of working off these enormous deficits, which everybody knows are not sustainable into the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 376, pursuant to House Resolution 817, the amendment that I have placed at the desk may be in order in lieu of amendment No. 3 printed in part B of House Report 109- 468. This amendment modifies the amendment I submitted to the Rules Committee last month to increase the emergency spending for natural disasters from $4.348 billion to $6.45 billion. The House has just passed a rule increasing the base bill by that amount, and my amendment, the amendment at the desk, raises the level in my substitute to the chairman's new level. It simply puts the two of them on parity with respect to this particular number.

Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman will yield, the chairman is correct. First, unlike your bill, the base bill, we do not create a reserve fund within the budget resolution. Instead, we rely on the powers granted to the chairman under section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act. Second, we do not establish emergency criteria. And, thirdly, we do not create a procedure that further involves the Budget Committee.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. I have great respect for the distinguished majority leader, but I have to take exception when he says if we hold the line on spending and let revenues continue, we will balance the budget in 5 years. The deficit this year without offsetting Social Security per this resolution for next year will be $545 billion. In 5 years, according to this resolution, it will be $428 billion. During that same period of time between 2002 and 2011, the debt of the United States will grow to $11.3 trillion. That is twice its level when President Bush came to office. I don't think we are making the progress that we must make if we are really to get this problem under control.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarification, there is no assumption in our budget resolution about a tax gap, realizing a tax gap. We did use that concept as an offset in the budget markup, but it is not in the budget resolution. There is no assumption to that effect at all.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask, why are we resorting to this extraordinary procedure, where we override all the rules of the House, on a matter of this magnitude including a rule that requires that a bill of this kind, a budget resolution, lay overnight for our examination before we bring it to the floor? The martial law rule mows down all exceptions, all of those procedural guards and guidelines, and makes something immediately subject to consideration by the House. We have no idea what is going to be in that resolution when it comes, yet we are put to a vote here on a martial law resolution. It simply isn't good procedure, a good way to run the House. I think that the reason we are playing this game of ``hide the ball'' is that the Republicans cannot muster the vote in their own ranks, still not yet, to pass their own resolution. Democrats aren't going to vote for it, because we haven't found it to be worthy of our support. But the reasons for their reluctance are they can't close the deal on their side either, plainly because it is a bad deal. I want to show you just a few highlights, Mr. Speaker, of this particular bill to understand exactly why it is not a good piece of legislation and why we should adopt the Democratic substitute, a far superior approach to the problem at hand. First of all, let's go back to what Mr. McGovern just said. When this Congress passed President Bush's first budget, we were assured by the Office of Management and Budget, that even with their tax cuts, $1.7 to $1.8 trillion, even with their tax cuts, they would not be back to us to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, the limit to which we can legally borrow, for at least another six or seven years. 2008 was the year they indicated. But the next year, hat in hand, June of 2002, they came back and said, we erred a bit and we will need to increase the debt ceiling by $450 billion. This Congress, with Republican support, voted for that debt ceiling increase. The next year, May of 2003, they were back again, and this time they wanted a phenomenal sum of money, $984 billion, the biggest single increase ever in the debt ceiling of the United States. You would have thought that would have taken us for some period of time. But under the budgets of this administration, in order to accommodate those budgets, the debt ceiling had to be raised again in November of 2004, within 15 months after this huge increase of $984 billion, by another $800 billion. Two months ago, just 2 months ago in March, this Congress raised the debt ceiling of the United States by $781 billion. That was 2 months ago, last March. Now, in this resolution, when you vote for this, and I will show you an excerpt from the budget resolution right now, when you vote for this, everyone should read and be aware of page 121 of this resolution because it effectively says in voting for this, you are voting to increase the legal debt ceiling of the United States by $653 billion. Don't take it from me, look at the hard copy, the black and white print shown here on this poster, reproduced from page 121 of the budget resolution. This resolution will increase the debt ceiling of the United States by $653 billion, or at least it will be the action of the House must take. The Senate would have to follow through. This will be the vote in the House, raising the ceiling by $653 billion. When you add those increases, $450, $984, $800, $781 and finally $653, all of which have been necessary to make room for the budgets of the Bush administration with their enormous deficits, when you add all these together, you get $3.668 trillion, $3.7 trillion since June of 2002. In 5 years, 5 years, we have had to raise virtually by 50 percent the debt ceiling of the United States, by $3.7 trillion. That is why we have got a martial law rule now. This budget won't stand scrutiny. These numbers simply are indefensible. Let me show you, for example, what has happened to the deficits since the Bush administration took office. Over the last 5 years, with this budget we will experience the five largest deficits in nominal terms in the history of the United States. Once again, this is why, not only on our side are we not supporting it, but on their side, too, the votes are not there to pass this resolution, because it will not bear scrutiny. Now, one of the things the administration and also the Budget Committee is attempting to do in order to begin squeezing this budget back into balance is they are coming down hard on one particular sector of the budget known as domestic discretionary spending. Domestic discretionary spending includes education, it includes highways, it includes the government basically as we know it, including the operation of the government. It does not include defense, it does not include foreign affairs, it does not include entitlement programs; it includes the money we appropriate every year in 10 appropriation bills. That is the one sector of the budget which constitutes less than 15 percent of the budget which they are bearing down on, and here is what is happening to those different functions in that particular part of the budget. Over the next 5 years, the purchasing power, the real value of the amount of money that we appropriate for education, for health care, for research, for scientific endeavors, for the operation of the government, the park system, the court system, you name it, will decrease in value by $167 billion cumulative over that period of time. This will begin to hurt. Let me illustrate how. Education. Surely this is a time in our national history when we should be unstinting in what we spend on education, because our survival in the global economy depends critically upon it. Education will be cut $45.294 billion below current services, $45 billion over the next 5 years. This budget will lay the basis for what the President has proposed, namely to eliminate 42 programs in education, and, for the second time in a row, to cut what we appropriate for education below the level of the previous year. Veterans. If there is ever a time when we should appreciate what our veterans do for us, it is now. There were 17,000 grievously wounded in the Persian Gulf. Surely, surely we should be providing amply for veterans health care. But this budget is $6 billion below what we call current services, maintaining what we provide now over the next 5 years. It cuts veterans. Health. Now, that is a broad category, a big category, because it includes the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control. It includes a number of rural health care initiatives, a whole host of health care programs. This budget cuts those programs $18 billion. Just 5 years ago, when we had a surplus, a $236 billion surplus in the year 2000, we resolved, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, that we would double the budget of the NIH, but we are now reneging on that commitment. We achieved that goal; we are now backing back down the slope, and each year NIH is going to take a hit under this budget because it is $18 billion short of current services for health. And then finally the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Water Drinking Act, the Corps of Engineers, which has extraordinary demands on it because of Katrina, the National Park Service, this budget imposes a cut of $25 billion below current services over the next 5 years. Why are we here? Why are we seeking a martial law rule? Why? Because this budget will not stand scrutiny. Thank you.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, on the whole this is a good bill. I commend the ranking member and the chairman for the excellent work they have put into it, and I intend to support it. This bill gives strong support to our troops in the field by continuing to give them the equipment they need and the compensation they deserve. In particular, due to an amendment that I offered, it provides for the waiver of premiums for those soldiers in combat, Iraq or Afghanistan, on $400,000 of Servicemen's Group Life Insurance, the maximum amount available to our troops, so that all of our troops in combat can take full advantage of what is available without being concerned about the cost. We put them there. The least we can do for them and their families is give them the security of more life insurance. This bill, I am happy to say, does just that. On an issue closer to my domain, this bill adds $30 million to the cost of cleaning up some of the most radioactive waste in the country precariously stored in 51 steel tanks at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. It also contains provisions that will allow work to begin on a facility to fabricate 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium into mixed oxide fuel. In 2002, as a result of agreements with Russia, South Carolina agreed to accept 34 metric tons of plutonium at Savannah River Site to be fabricated into MOX fuel and burned in light water reactors. Russia agreed likewise to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium with a similar MOX fuel plant. For 4 or 5 years, this agreement to move in parallel tracks was awaiting the outcome of disagreements and discussions of the liability for the plant. These were finally resolved last year only to find out that these were not Russia's only concerns, and now they have indicated a reluctance to pursue the parallel track of building a MOX fuel plant. So this bill provides that South Carolina can proceed on its own on a separate track, subject to DOE's agreement of course, and subject to several conditions which have been imposed by the bill. One is that DOE certifies to us that they are still convinced that this is the best way to dispose of weapons grade plutonium. Secondly, DOE will have to indicate to us in a report that they have made adjustments and addressed the criticisms of this particular project, particularly its cost escalation, that were mentioned by the IG the last time they took a look at the project. Thirdly, we ask for a report on the disposition of off-spec plutonium, plutonium that cannot be processed into MOX fuel. These provisions are important for South Carolina, but they also are important for our national security and nonproliferation and for the workers that will build and operate the MOX fuel plant. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy has an important program called Megaports, which is to help foreign countries install radiation detection equipment so that we can interdict radioactive material in cargoes headed for the U.S. before they reach our shores. For some reason, the administration this year cut the program by $33 million. Many of us have argued for some time that we need to do a lot more to protect our ports. This bill recognizes the gravity of that problem by authorizing an additional $15 million for the purchase of radiation detectors. By helping foreign countries bolster port and border detection, we help ourselves. The bill contains one other notable provision on nuclear nonproliferation. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is a comprehensive initiative to secure and remove high risk nuclear materials, many times in insecure places, from around the world, typically in research reactors. By working with the committee, we have been able to increase the GTRI budget by $20 million over the President's budget and allow the Department of Energy an additional $30 million of previously appropriated but as yet unobligated funds. This amounts to an almost 50 percent increase in funds available for this important program. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this bill contains important language which restricts spending on space-based missile defense interceptors. We now have five ballistic missile interceptor systems in various phases of development. I think it is important that we stick to our plan, that we keep focusing this system and that we bring further along these five systems before we start up another, particularly one with the complications that the space-based interceptor will entail. All things considered, it is a good bill. I intend to support it. I commend those who have crafted it and helped bring it to the floor.

Mr. SPRATT

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the President sent us a budget that was woefully deficient when it came to homeland security, which is a pressing concern for all of us. The Republican budget, I will give them credit, to some extent corrects that woeful deficiency by $11 billion. But over 5 years that funding level for homeland security, a pressing, critical domestic need, is still $6 billion below current services. We restore homeland security at least to the level of current services. Thus we would be funding programs that are critically needed to deal with what most of this House recognizes is a tremendous deficiency, namely, seaport security, which pales in comparison to what we have done for airport security; and it is one of the reasons for the outcry over the Dubai ports deal. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, to discuss the consequences and the differences between our budget and theirs when it comes to homeland security.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget resolution, I want to emphasize again; is exactly the same when it comes to dollar funding for national defense-national security, function 050. We are at the very same level, exactly the same as the House Republican resolution. That includes the $50 billion they provide toward the cost of operations in 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our resolution also funds foreign affairs, function 150, a bit above the House Republicans, but below the Senate and below the President's request. Though the funding levels are the same, the Democratic budget resolution calls for a better distribution of the defense budget. The Democratic budget resolution calls for, among other things, forgoing higher TRICARE fees on retirees under the age of 65, as the President and Pentagon have requested; not granting that request; increasing pay and reenlistment bonuses, badly needed to ensure recruitment and retention; increasing family support center funding, badly needed for troops who are deploying now, some for their third tour of duty, leaving their families behind; funding cooperative threat reduction and nonproliferation at higher levels; funding the Army National Guard at 350,000 troops, not 17,000 less than that; ensuring $115,000 in death gratuities, funded retroactively to May 5, 2005; funding free life insurance in combat zones at $400,000. Then, to pay for these things, funding missile defense at a substantial, but lower, level, among other things; de-emphasizing space-based interceptors; funding transformational, next-generation satellite development, being pushed along a fast track, at a substantial, but lower, level; and, finally, implementing the financial management recommendations that the General Accounting Office has made in order to make the Pentagon and the Department of Defense more efficient, particularly in the acquisitions. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking and long-time member of the House Armed Services Committee, here to discuss the budget for national defense.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).