John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. That is correct. The Budget Enforcement Act of January 1991, President Bush.

Mr. SPRATT. No, it is not included. And what I am saying here is this additional debt will be stacked on top of what is already monumental statutory debt of the United States growing every year because of the deficit in our regular budget, growing every year.

Mr. SPRATT. The gentleman is correct. When the President came to office, we had before us in Congress a novel idea, which would have been truly a conservative fiscal proposal, namely, that we would take the surplus in Social Security alone and instead of buying up new debt and funding new spending, we would use that surplus to buy old debt, retire that debt. We would add that money, $3 trillion-plus, to net national savings, bringing down the cost of capital, boosting the growth of our economy; and then in 2020, when the Social Security beneficiaries, the baby boomers, begin to press their claims for benefits, Treasury would be more solvent than ever to meet those obligations. That would have been the first long step we could have taken toward Social Security solvency. There was support for it on both sides of the aisle. The President rejected that in preference for his own budget, which has led us to the deficit which appears there now.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, first of all, the gentleman is absolutely correct. When the President came to office, he had an advantage that no President in recent times had enjoyed, a surplus projected to be $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011, over a 10- year period of time; $5.6 trillion. That surplus is now gone, vanished. In its place there is a deficit over the same time period of $3 trillion to $4 trillion. This shows you how the $3 trillion to $4 trillion accumulates over that period of time. We have had a swing of $8.5 trillion to $9 trillion in the budget over a 4- to 5-year period of time, a swing in the wrong direction of $8 trillion to $9 trillion.

Mr. SPRATT. The big red bar is the amount of interest, or debt service, that we pay, first in 2004, and then to its right, 2010.

Mr. SPRATT. No.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we received last week the budget of the United States, as requested by President Bush, for fiscal year 2006. And having looked at it to some extent, I have to say we regret that it continues the same bad choices that have led to huge deficits and mounting debt during the last 4 years. For the third year in a row, the Bush administration's budget sets a record level deficit, $415 billion, and offers no plan to put the budget back in the black again. Unfazed by these deficits, the Bush administration proposes tax cuts on top of them which can only go to the bottom line and make the budget's bottom line worse. To offset a small portion of these plans, the Bush administration calls for cuts in services to students and veterans, small business and law enforcement, environmental protection and urban and rural development. And although most of these cuts are significant to those who will be taking the hit, they barely make a dent in the bottom line of the budget. Let us start and look at where we have been in order to appreciate where we are today. Just to show the Members that the budget can be balanced, this chart shows that in the year 1992, the United States had a deficit of $290 billion. This was the deficit inherited by President Clinton when he came to office January 20, 1993. By February 17 he had on the doorstep of Congress a plan to cut that deficit by more than half over the next 5 years. That plan was ridiculed here on the House floor, only passed by one vote here, only passed by the Vice President's vote in the Senate, but look at the results. Just to show that it can be done, the budget can be balanced, under the administration of President Clinton over 8 years, the bottom line of the budget got better year after year after year. Starting with a deficit the year before of $290 billion, the President lowered that to $255 billion; $164 billion a couple of years later; then $22 billion; and, finally, in the year 2000, due to the Clinton budget passed in 1993 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the budget was in surplus by $236 billion, 5 short years ago. The year before President Bush came to office, the budget was in surplus by $236 billion. President Bush came to office committed to substantial tax cuts. We warned him at the time to be careful about assuming that these surpluses would continue indefinitely and keep rising. He nevertheless pushed through his substantial tax cuts and his other spending policies, and we can see what has happened every year since. The bottom line of the budget has gotten worse and worse to the point where 3 years ago, it was $378 billion in deficit, a record amount. That was 2003. In 2004 it was $412 billion in deficit, another record level. And this year the Office of Management and Budget, the President's budget shop, tells us recently that they expect a deficit this year of $427 billion. A dubious record, but that will be the third year in a row that the bottom line of the budget has registered a worse deficit than the year before, $427 billion. Now, the President set a goal last year looking at these dismal results for improving the bottom line of the budget. He said over 5 years we are going to cut that deficit in half. In my book, 5 years is not good enough. Nevertheless, that was the goal he set for himself, and he claims that the budget he submitted this year will achieve that result. But in truth, the budget he submitted this year is more notable for what it omits, excludes, than for what it includes. The President has not included in his budget for 2006 sent up last week any reasonable allocation of likely expense for the deployment of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. I would like to think they would not be there, but we have to be realistic. We know from 3 years' experience approximately what it has cost to maintain those deployments. They should be recognized in the budget, but they are not. The President proposes to privatize or partially privatize Social Security and he gives us a likely cost for the first few years of implementation of those privatization plans between 2009 and 2015. His cost, OMB's cost for that time period, is $749 billion. That is nowhere to be found in these numbers. Even though it falls within the 10-year time frame of the budget, it is not included in the numbering. The President asks for additional tax cuts. He asks for the tax cuts that he passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that expire for the most part on December 31, 2010, to be renewed and made permanent. Even though we now know that given the bottom line of the budget, the red condition, the fact it is a historic deficit, $427 billion, the bottom line can only get worse if those tax cuts are extended and made permanent. The President says, ``I want to do that.'' In addition, there is another $383 billion of expiring tax cuts that will have to be handled as well. But there is one big item called the Alternative Minimum Tax. Over the next several years, this tax will affect more and more tax filers. Last year, to buy us a little time so we could repair that particular formula of the Tax Code so that it does not hit middle-income taxpayers, for whom it was never intended but is hitting now because it is not indexed to inflation, we built a little patch in last year's budget to at least leave the effect of it in constant status for 1 year.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the deficit is worse, and the gentleman makes an excellent point. When the surplus, and Social Security is running a surplus next year and this of $150 billion to $160 billion, that amount is actually offset against the gross deficit in the regular budget of the United States. So if you remove that offset, the surplus in Social Security, which is netted out against the deficit, that number becomes $687 billion instead of $427 billion.

Mr. SPRATT. That is correct. I had another chart up which the gentleman is familiar with which shows you on the back of an envelope in a simple form the net effect of the three Bush budgets sent up in 2002, 2003, and 2004. When the President sold his tax cuts to the Congress, his Treasury Secretary and his Director of OMB both said, We will not need to come back to you until 2008 to ask for the debt ceiling of the United States to be increased. They were back the next year, 2002. They said, We have incurred so much debt, despite our intentions, that we need to raise the legal ceiling on the debt of the United States by $450 billion. The next year, 2003, they were back again. The tax cuts were beginning to be fully implemented, taking a toll on the bottom line, with other effects like a recession, like increased military expenses. But all of this added up to a need to increase the debt ceiling by $984 billion. Let me put that in context. The entire national debt of the United States before Ronald Reagan took office was less than $984 billion accumulated since the beginning of the Republic. Then last November, before we could adjourn, Treasury was back, the administration was back, and they said, Before you can leave here, unless the government is going to shut down, the ceiling on the debt of the United States has to be raised again by $800 billion. That means that this $984 billion increase made on May 26, 2003, lasted only 16 months. We are in effect adding $1 trillion to our national debt every 18 months. Nobody in his right mind thinks that that course can be continued. This is the net total by which Congress had to raise, Republicans for the most part voting for it, had to raise the debt ceiling of the United States in order to accommodate Mr. Bush's budgets for the first 4 years, $2.234 trillion. That was the amount we had to raise the debt ceiling over 3 years in order to accommodate his budget. Let me go back to the things that were left out of the President's budget, because, as I said, it is more notable for what it excludes than what it includes. As I said, there was nothing in the calculation of the taxes that he wanted to make permanent to fix the AMT, though all know this is a looming problem that politically has to be addressed in the next several years. There was not even money to patch it over for another year to study how to fix it. Secondly, there was not a dime for Social Security privatization. Ten years of budget, not a dime for Social Security privatization, even though the President has made it his number one agenda initiative. Thirdly, there was nothing for the cost of the war in Afghanistan, the insurgency there, nothing for the cost of our deployment in Afghanistan or Iraq or enhanced security in North America. The Congressional Budget Office, recognizing that that is a number that is there and has to be somehow or another estimated and included in the budget, captured, in order to have the budget be a complete and full account of what we are likely to spend, did a model. They said, assume we can reduce our forces beginning in 2006, between 2006 and 2010, down to 40,000 troops in the theater, the CENTCOM theater, not necessarily Iraq, but in the CENTCOM theater, with 18,000 troops remaining in Afghanistan. What is the cost over the 10-year period of this budget? The cost to do that is $384 billion. Let us hope we do not have to incur that, but some significant number has to be included in this budget to make it a realistic budget. Finally, when you add those three items, then we have less surplus. When you have less surplus, you have a bigger deficit, you have more debt service, because you borrowed more principal on which you have to pay interest. You add all of those items together, you get a $2 trillion adjustment to the budget. This, therefore, is what we see, adjusting for the four items that I have just outlined, the budget path that the Bush budget will take over the next 10 years. $427 billion, third year in a row, it sets a record level, a deficit of $427 billion for the year 2005. It goes up the next year and levels off in the range of $400 billion, and then comes out at the end of 10 years at $566 billion. We are not reaching to make this point; we are simply putting back in the budget costs we think are realistic and need to be captured in order to have a truthful portrayal of what the budget looks like. This is the course that the Bush administration is plotting for us in the budget they have just submitted, and most people think that this is not a sustainable course. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. SPRATT. When those adjustments are made, the numbers the gentleman just gave will only get worse.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we had two rules in the 1990s that applied from 1990 through the year 2000, really until 2002, and those rules effectively said, number one, the pay-go rule, if you want to increase an entitlement, liberalize the benefits of an entitlement program, you have to pay for them with an identified new source of revenues, or you have to cut some other entitlement somewhere else of the same amount. Secondly, if you want to cut taxes, you have to have another tax to offset the revenue loss, or you have to cut entitlements enough so the bottom-line effect is neutral. Those two rules, with a discretionary spending cap, those rules that helped us put the budget in surplus for the first time in 30 years to a $236 billion surplus, what the Bush administration did was let those rules lapse, expire.

Mr. SPRATT. That is correct; and in the Senate.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the gentleman from Virginia, but if I could briefly demonstrate, before I yield. This chart right here shows something else that is left out of the budget for 2006. The President, acknowledging that he has a deficit in 2005 of $427 billion, and it is likely to be at least that large in 2006, nevertheless asked for renewal and making permanent tax cuts that total 1 trillion, 7 billion dollars. As for the effect of these tax cuts, this chart right here is pretty simple, but pretty instructive. This blue line at the top indicates the level that the administration told us projected the individual income tax revenues would follow if their tax cuts were passed. As my colleagues can see, it projected that revenues for last year would be 1 trillion, 118 billion dollars from the individual income tax. In truth, they were $804 billion. That is more than $300 billion short of what was projected. Do it on the back of an envelope. It is simplistic accounting. But we cannot avoid the conclusion: that is three-fourths of the deficit in the year 2004. This is the effect, undeniable effect that tax cuts have had on the bad bottom line that we are looking at now.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we discussed this a bit earlier, and the gentleman is absolutely right. The numbers we are talking about are the unified deficit numbers. That is to say, we consolidate all of the accounts of the budget. Social Security is actually in surplus now and will be for some years to come, so the surplus of about $160 billion in Social Security is offset against the deficit and the rest of the budget, making that deficit appear smaller than it truly is.

Mr. SPRATT. We can balance the budget and also balance our priorities. In 1997 when we did the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, we had the biggest plus-up in education in 15 or 20 years. We will have a budget resolution, a Democratic budget resolution on the floor, and it will adequately fund education. That will be the last thing that we will cut. Certainly we will not have 38 educational programs eliminated in our budget. Now, in the time remaining let me recognize the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. SPRATT. There is no other individual in the Congress I could point to who is a better testament to that principle than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), who I believe has four degrees. Am I correct?

Mr. SPRATT. In 4 years.

Mr. SPRATT. Your debt service goes up, too.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have just put up a chart to show exactly what the gentleman was just saying. Privatization means that tax funds that are now put in a public trust fund will instead go into private accounts that will cause the government to borrow more and more and more over time. The Bush administration acknowledges that between 2009 and 2015, when it first implements this particular proposal, that the cost will be $754 billion. We have obtained, using the Social Security actuary numbers, the true impact for the first 10 years of implementation and for the second 10 years of implementation, fully implemented. The cost right there, that little blue bar chart, bar on the graph there, the plan that the President is proposing adds $4.9 trillion to the unified deficit of the United States by 2028. But we are only halfway up the slope at this point. The borrowing in the trillions goes on and on and on until the year 2055 to the mid- 2050s, an enormous increase in the national debt. So we even if the budget were to be cut in half, the deficit were to be cut in half by 2009, which it will not, the numbers simply will not support that outcome, there is a huge change in the budget deficit looming on the horizon at that point in time which means that the deficit will not be balanced again or anywhere close to it in our lifetime when this debt is added to it.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise with heavy heart to pay tribute to a dear friend, an exemplary Member of this institution, and a great American. Bob Matsui did more than represent the Fifth District of California. He represented the best in American politics. Indeed, if one asked me to describe an ideal Congressman, Bob Matsui would be Exhibit A. In an institution that is sometimes short on comity and civility, Bob was mellow and civil by nature. He had a first-class temperament as well as a first-class intelligence. But make no mistake about it: he was a fighter for what he believed in. He was a politician of principle and passion and prodigious energy as proved by the way he stumped the country for Democratic candidates, even as he suffered from the blood condition that finally claimed his life. Whether the issue was taxes or trade or Social Security, the earned income credit, he always had an arsenal of facts at his disposal. On whatever the issue, your issue, you were always better off if you ran your arguments by Bob and sought his support here in the well of this House. He became a leader in this House and an influence, not so much because of seniority or position, but because everyone liked him, respected him, and knew his intelligence. When Bob spoke, he knew his stuff. He spoke with authority. He spoke substance and sense. I was last with him on December 15 for the better part of the day. We had a teleconference with 36 reporters calling in. It lasted for more than an hour. We literally had to cut it off. Afterwards when I spoke with Bob, he was on the ceiling, just delighted with the response we had gotten, and ready to suit up, ready to do battle over Social Security. It was this sort of zest that made Bob Matsui a delight and a joy to work with. On our side we have a deep bench and we will fill his committee position with a competent successor, but no one can surpass Bob's mastery of the subjects which were his domain on either side of the aisle. The Congress has lost a great leader and the country a true patriot, a citizen, a third generation American who was interned as a child with his family who suffered an awful, terrible, unforgivable injustice. But he loved his country nevertheless and committed his life to making it better. We do not ask today for whom the bells toll. They toll for all of us, but especially for those of us who served with Bob Matsui, loved him as a friend, and wonder if we will ever see his like again. To Doris and to Brian and Amy and little Anna, our hearts go out. But just as Bob lives on in all of you, he lives on in all of us who worked with him for years and years. His legacy is one that will last in this institution. Indeed, this great old institution of the Republic is a better place because he served here sacrificially for 26 years.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to salute two radio stations that have brought years of broadcasting excellence to the citizens of North and South Carolina. On December 14, 2004, WRHI marks its 60th anniversary, and its sister station, WRHM, joins in celebrating its 40th anniversary. WRHI, 1340 AM, serves much of York County, South Carolina, including my hometown of York. I was two years old when it first went on the air in 1944, and, I'm proud to say; its been a part of my life and a bedrock of our community ever since. WRHM, 107 FM, covers 15 counties, from the Upstate to the State Capital, and from Rockingham to York. WRHI and WRHM have prospered all these years because of people like Manning Kimmel and Allan Miller. Together, they make up the leadership of Our Three Sons Broadcasting. They acquired WRHI in 1984 and WRHM in 1987, and along with their cracker jack staff, they have spent years making sure the stations were top-notch facilities. But above keeping pace with technology, they've kept pace with their community. As Manning says, ``We have an obligation to be its voice, to discuss the issues which affect us, and to ensure we keep our sense of community and the qualities which make this such an exceptional place to live. This is where we live, work, play, and pray. York County is just a great place to live.'' Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for the Record the proud history of WRHI, written by Haney Howell, of Winthrop University. And I encourage all of my colleagues, who find themselves in the York County area, to tune in to 1340 AM or 107 FM and hear some of the best in news, talk, sports, and country music. Happy Birthday, WRHI and WRHM, and thank you, together, for giving the Carolinas ``100 Years of Broadcasting Excellence.'' WRHI Radio: Broadcast Pioneer Continues to Serve Rock Hill (By Haney Howell) December 1944 was a time to dust off dreams. Allied forces were pushing at the Germans from both sides, the Normandy invasion a success. The Japanese were retreating toward the home islands in the Pacific, setting the stage for their final push. People could again afford to pursue their dreams, to think of a life without war. In the Carolinas, another delayed dream came true. WRHI Radio in Rock Hill, South Carolina, broadcast for the first time, becoming the ninth station in the state and one of the first 600 in the nation. Few stations signed on in the United States during the war, first because of a freeze on building permits then restrictions on equipment purchases. WRHI made it on the air despite overwhelming odds, wartime restriction and one of the dreamer's deaths at Normandy. The 250-watt signal on 1340 was as much a bureaucratic miracle as a technological one. The story of WRHI is also the story of one strong-willed individual with a dream of community service. While the forces of war delayed plans for radio in Rock Hill, the efforts of this man brought it to reality. James S. ``Jim'' Beaty, Jr., was a young broadcast engineer who believed in community broadcasting. He felt that Rock Hill needed more than a newspaper and regional broadcast stations. He was a sick child, almost dying of pneumonia in the second grade. He quickly ruled out physical activities and searched for areas he could conquer with his mind. He witnessed the phenomenal growth of radio during the 30s, listening to stations across the nation late into the night. ``I was interested in radio since the time I was old enough to recognize a radio crystal set.'' He started in radio as an amateur, building receivers and transmitters from scratch. An aunt promised him a kit radio while in high school if he made A's. Not only did he receive the kit, he located a man who was an expert builder to teach him. Friends were amazed at his skills with building electrical circuits and other detailed work. Beaty overcame the slight shaking of Parkinson's Disease and became a master builder. However, he avoided work with high voltage and high gage wires, fearful that he'd have an accident. Beaty grew up in Greenville, South Carolina, while part of the family remained in Rock Hill. He attended Clemson University for one year in the mid 1930s before his Parkinson's Disease and the Depression forced him to drop out. He loved electronics courses and asked more questions of his professors than most. His health would play a major role in the history of the station, forcing him to stay behind during World War II. He soon turned his skills to broadcast engineering, building and maintaining equipment for stations. His first job was at WMRG in Greenville, and he vividly remembered that job interview 50 years later. ``I walked into that station--a combination transmitter and studio building--and there was this fellow leaning on the carpet putting a mike receptacle in, and I asked him, `How about a job?' and he said, `What field? Announcing or engineering?' I said engineering, and he said, `Hand me that pair of pliers over there and get on the other end of this wire.' '' Beaty learned the basics of putting a station on the air. When the Greenville station changed management, he followed the man who originally hired him to Burlington, North Carolina. That is where he spent most of the war, and pulled together his hometown radio station. As he gained experience, he planed for a station of his own. He gained another supporter when he married Anne in the late 30s. Rock Hill was covered by WBT and other regional stations. What Beaty sought was a voice for his own community, a station that represented the people of Rock Hill and South Carolina. While only 25 miles separated Rock Hill from Charlotte, North Carolina, those miles and a state line created a major gulf. In the early 1940s, Beaty convinced his older brother, William, that a radio station was both needed and wanted in this textile mill and farming community south of Charlotte. No county in the upper tier of South Carolina had a station and the Beatys did not feel that the local newspaper fulfilled the need for more instant news and live local entertainment. The brothers approached Ernest Carroll, a local soft drink distributor and a founding member of Rock Hill National Bank. His son, Ernest Carroll, Jr., had an intense interest in theater and performing. The elder Carroll thought the radio station would give his son a challenge, and he also agreed with the Beaty's for the need for a station in Rock Hill. Carroll put up $10,000 in seed money, and offered them space in the new Rock Hill National Bank building downtown. Jim Beaty's dream was now moving forward, and as with other challenges in his life, he wasn't about to give it up. By late 1941, plans were well underway and an application was filed with the FCC. There were others seeking to put a station in Rock Hill. It was the largest of a number of small to mid-sized towns which dotted the Carolina Piedmont. A large part of the economy was based on textiles and cotton. It was a town dominated by a handful of powerful people, and Ernest Carroll was one. Jim and Bill Beaty's father, Dr. J.S. Beaty, was a local physician who rapidly established himself in the community. Their reputation and Carroll's financial backing greatly influenced the Federal Communications Commission. Jim Beaty memorized the rules and regulations, closely monitoring the application each step of the process. It seemed only a matter of time. Then came the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The application was frozen and the lives of the dreamers changed. Bill Beaty became an Army officer, serving in the Pacific. Ernest Carroll, Sr., became a Marine officer, and his son later entered the Army. Only Jim Beaty, with his physical deferment, was left to tend the dream. Jim Beaty correctly guessed that a license might be granted long before the freeze was lifted on equipment. Commercial and even amateur production was taken over for military and war related communications. Amateurs were off the air, and many basic parts were in short supply. It was ``somewhat like the used car business. There's plenty of used equipment, and I started making friends with different stations and with the chief engineers and finding the surplus equipment.'' Beaty started collecting spares from various stations, putting together the needed pieces for a transmitter. He purchased metal trunks from the YMCA to use as cabinets. A used tower found in Roanoke, Virginia, wound up stored in sections in his mother's back yard. Earnest Carroll, Sr. kept up his interest from afar, providing Jim Beaty with a large room in his home to store the needed equipment. Ernest Carroll has no doubts about how the station got on the air. ``The reason we were able to get on the air was that Jim shopped around everywhere he could find pieces and parts and he got lockers from the YMCA, old lockers, and he built the equipment into those lockers . . . That's the way we got on the air. There were several groups . . . at least two that I know of . . . who were planning on attempting to put a radio station in Rock Hill, and planned and talked about it for several years, but they couldn't . . . they didn't have Jim Beaty . . . they would have to buy new equipment, so they were stalled while we went ahead . . . and Jim got it on the air.'' Bill Beaty remembered the first time well. ``Jim . . . a first class engineer . . . who knew everything about building and maintaining equipment, started assembling parts for a radio station wherever he could find them. All the stations have certain parts, duplicates so to speak, and he was able to find a lot of pieces of equipment, which he was able to buy. He built the first transmitter from scratch. It was not a commercially built transmitter.'' Others watched the process with amazement. ``Jim Beaty, who was great at this sort of thing, put the thing together with haywire and whatever he could find, and got it on the air . . .'' By mid-1943, some of the restrictions on licenses were lifted by the FCC. Jim Beaty pushed the paperwork and continued gathering needed equipment and parts. His application won out over the others, and on August 2, 1944, Beaty received a construction permit. It specified direct crystal control on 1340 kilocycles, 250 watts output with two RCA 805s in the modulator for high-level modulation. The antenna would be 177 feet tall with 120 copper wire radials buried in the ground. ``That was when the FCC ruled that anyone who had the equipment or could get it and could show cause for the need for a station . . . Rock Hill didn't have a radio station and there wasn't one in the Fifth Congressional District.'' The FCC regulation on the types and quality of equipment used at broadcast stations was, and continues to be, strict. Not only did Jim Beaty construct the first transmitter from spare parts, it passed muster with the field inspector as well. The original control room console was constructed in a steel YMCA trunk, and early announcer Buddy Fields remembers having to give the board ``a kick from time to time'' to free up the relays. Jim Beaty located and purchased a lot for the tower and transmitter, and Ernest Carroll sent a couple of hands from his family farm to Rock Hill with a mule to plow the ground and lay the radials for the tower. The source of the wire for the tower radials is still a mystery. Copper was in very short supply, and it's thought that the ground radials Beaty was forced to use have a high steel content (they are still in use). Whatever the source and composition, the wire arrived by train and was taken to the transmitter site in a mule-drawn wagon. Choosing the call was left up to Jim Beaty. He later told Carroll that he wanted Rock Hill reflected in the letters, and said that the ``I'' on the end was simply available at the time. His choice was good. The station still uses the same call. While Jim Beaty moved toward the fulfillment of his life goal, fate stepped in and shook the original group to the core. Ernest Carroll, Jr. died in combat during the invasion of Europe. His father was serving in the Marines in the Pacific, and was sent home and eventually discharged following the death of his son. Bill Beaty was in the Philippines, fighting not only the enemy but tropical diseases which would plague him for the remainder of his life. He would not join the station until 1946. Jim Beaty said that the next six months seemed like an eternity. ``It was slow. First we had to get a building . . . we had to get a fellow to modify the building to house the transmitter.'' Once the station was transmitting, it was time to build a staff. Jim Beaty brought in Al Drew from Roanoke Rapids, Virginia, to help him set up the station and train the announcing staff. First hired was Bob Carroll, a local high school student and assistant manager of the local theater who had singing experience. One of his teachers contacted Drew, who auditioned Carroll and gave him the job. Carroll's only previous radio experience was singing with the Winthrop College choir as a boy soprano on WSOC during the late 1930s. Jim Beaty was concerned about more than just getting a signal on the air. Before the official sign on, the station ran numerous test programs from midnight until 6 a.m. to test the equipment and more. ``We ran full occupational capacity, we ran 15 minute shows, 30 minute shows, the widest diversity you could think of, everything from disc jockey shows to religious shows to interview shows, anything you could think of to give us the background experience before we went on the air.'' Carroll felt that Al Drew was a key element to the success of the basics of good radio broadcasting. Despite the death of his son, Ernest Carroll continued to help with the station. ``When I got back and had not been discharged from the Marine Corps, I would drive up here from Beaufort--Paris Island--and for several months I kept listening when I'd come up . . . I knew what the frequency was going to be and hoping to hear it on the air. Actually, it was several months after I got up here (after my discharge) before we signed on.'' If his son could not be a part of the station, at least Ernest Carroll could see his son's dream come true. December 14, 1944 was a bitter cold day. The staff arrived by 5 a.m. and awaited the 5:30 a.m. sign on. Al Drew asked Bob Carroll if he'd like to sign the station on for the first time. ``I was so thrilled. He was so gracious to do that, to have a young greenhorn come in and sign the station on was just prodigious. When Al signaled me, I threw the switch and said, this is WRHI in Rock Hill, South Carolina, 1340 on your radio dial, signing on for the first time.'' The staff understood that they were making history, but they also kept in mind the times. ``It was a very poignant sign on, because at that time there were still troops all over the world, and we were telling the listening population that we were remembering the men that were fighting on foreign shores all over the world, and wishing the best for them, and that the war would soon be over and things would come back to normal.'' At sign on, Jim Beaty was at the transmitter, and in the control room that morning was Al Drew, Fred Lowery, and Bob Carroll. As soon as they signed on, they started their normal schedule. Ernest Carroll remembered the first day of broadcasting. ``I remembered the dedication ceremony quite well. We had special programs . . . had a good friend of mine from Fort Mill who was an expert pianist, and he played `Danny Boy' for me. The station was dedicated to the boys who had lost their lives in the Second World War. That was the theme of it. Of course to me, that was really important. We got a lot of comment, publicity, and a good many people were kind enough to complement me on my dedication address . . . which I made over there and dedicated the station . . . The war was fresh then, you know . . . to those loss of lives. We had a good many here in Rock Hill who lost their lives in the Second World War. ``You know how wars are, like the little boy sliding down the roof and saying, ``God, don't let me say it, don't let me fall . . .'' People are very much that way, you know . . . they forget very quickly and for several years now . . . they don't believe George Washington slept here and all that kind of thing, then when the war comes against the military people are very prominent . . . right now they are held almost in contempt.'' When the station signed on, WRHI was independent, and filling the air time ``ran us ragged''. Later the station joined the Mutual Network before switching to CBS and finally ABC. Most of the programming was live and local, since transportation was expensive and rare. Most important were the early morning programs, focused on the listeners in the then predominately agricultural and textile community. ``It was a wonderful proving ground for a young man starting in radio, because you did get such a wide diversity of programs. You had to learn to do a little bit of everything.'' Fifty years later, WRHI continues to serve the community. In an age of AM stations loosing focus and going under, the current ownership took a hard look at Jim Beaty's original dream and realized that he was right. WRHI has remained a station that focuses on Rock Hill and serves the community. He understood his home town then, and made certain that the staff understood as well. Bob Carroll spent his career in broadcasting, both radio and television. Yet one of the things he learned at WRHI stayed with him. Jim Beaty told him, never underestimate your audience. This is really true, and I think today that too many people do that. Jim Beaty remained involved with WRHI until it was sold in the mid 1970s. Brother Bill returned from the war and handled the business side of the operation. Ernest Carroll and his wife, Virginia, sold their interest in 1947 to Harper Gault, a local newspaper writer. Years later, Carroll still regrets selling out, and considers his involvement with establishing WRHI as one of his significant achievements in a life filled with success in business. 1While WRHI ranks as a pioneer broadcaster, it represents more than just another radio station. It is the fulfillment of one man's dreams and a community's needs. The technology and programming have changed, but the basic thrust of serving the community has not. What made WRHI a success in 1944 continues to carry the station into its second half-century.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have 2 minutes and three or four charts that I think I can tell the whole story with. The year 2001. The President saw, looking out 10 years, surpluses of $4.6 trillion, and he said we can have it all, tax cuts and surpluses too. So he sent us a budget with enormous tax cuts. We warned against buying into those projections, but it was not heeded. They told us at the time that we could pass these tax cuts and we would not even have to consider an increase in the debt ceiling until the year 2008. That promise lasted 1 year. The next year, in 2002, there was a $450 billion request for another hike in the debt ceiling. The following year, 2003, there was a request for an increase in the debt ceiling of $984 billion, the single largest increase in history, a bigger amount than the entire national debt in 1981 when Ronald Reagan came to office. Add those three together and they tell you a lot: $450 billion, plus $984 billion, plus tonight's request, $800 billion, comes to $2.234 trillion. $2.234 trillion. That is the amount by which we have had to increase the debt ceiling of the United States in order to accommodate the budgets and fiscal policies of the Bush administration: $2.234 trillion. Now, that is bad enough, but we asked CBO last September to take its latest economic forecast and to project the Bush budget 10 years, through the year 2014, and tell us how much debt would be accumulated in that period of time if we stayed on this course. This is what is to come. Tonight is only the beginning. This is what is to come if we follow those policies for the next 10 years. We will accumulate a national debt of $14.545 trillion. And here, the final chart tells it all. Our debt is increasing twice as fast as our GDP, or income. This cannot be sustained, and that is why we do not believe this bill in its present form should be adopted.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are here because the Secretary of the Treasury has warned us that he has run out of tricks. Five times he has written the leadership of the Congress and told us that he was approaching the legal limit which Congress has imposed by law on how much debt the United States can incur. We call it the debt ceiling. Now he has told us that he is out of tricks and he is having to do things he does not regard as prudent unless we increase the debt ceiling. So it is right that we are here to do just that. But it is also right that we take an hour or two to ponder what brings us to this juncture, to raise the debt ceiling again by $800 billion, when we have already raised it twice in the last 3 years. Let us go back to January 1, 2001. The Bush administration takes office, and the fruits of our labor in the last two administrations of the Clinton years are laid before him. They look out and see surpluses of $5.6 trillion and decide that this warrants huge tax cuts. We warned them against buying into a blue-sky projection which might not be obtained, and surely enough, that happened. They told us, nevertheless, that even if we adopted their tax cuts, they would not have to be back to request an increase in the debt ceiling due to the fantastic surpluses they foresaw, until the year 2008. In truth, they were back in 2002 asking for $450 billion. And then on May 26, 2003, just 18 months ago, the second request from the Bush administration was passed raising the debt ceiling by $984 billion. And now we have the third debt ceiling increase in 3 years, equal to $800 billion, before us. Let me just take a minute to go through some charts which will explain more graphically why it is we are here and what it is we need to do at this point in time. This was the debt ceiling when Mr. Bush came to office in January 2001, $5.950 trillion. This first increase took it to $6.4 trillion. The next, where we are today, $7.384 trillion. That was a $984 billion increase just 18 months ago. Today, they would like to take that up another $800 billion because they have rung up $984 billion in debt in the last 18 months. Just consider that. Every 18 months the government of the United States under the Bush administration is incurring $1 trillion in additional debt. Every 18 months. That is the rate at which we are running right now. This next increase will take the debt ceiling to $8.2 trillion, up from $5.950 trillion. That is quite a statement about the fiscal policies of this administration. Now, the administration assured us that they would not need to come back until 2008; that we could cut taxes by immense amounts not only in 2001, but 2002 and 2003, because there have been three tax cuts, and even more, and still enjoy an increase in revenues. This was the path they plotted when they sold their tax cuts to the Congress of the United States showing that tax revenues would rise from a little over $1 trillion to $1.118 trillion, individual and corporate income taxes. Instead, the revenues of this country have followed this descending path here, and we can see the gaping hole, the difference of $300 billion today between what they predicted and where we actually are. This is an underlying cause. In addition to that, there have been things that have taken their toll on the budget: defense. Much larger than anybody anticipated in 2001. Homeland Security. We did not even have a heading called Homeland Security 3 years ago. And the 9/11 response. But the increases in spending that have affected the bottom line of the budget have all been sought by the Bush administration. Ninety percent of the increases in spending over and above current services have been things they have sought and we have appropriated because they were urgently needed. So where are we? A $450 billion increase in the debt ceiling in 2002. In 2003, we had a $984 billion increase in the debt ceiling. And today, an $800 billion increase in the debt ceiling. That means this administration has had to come to Congress and ask for the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.234 trillion. Let me say that again. It is so fantastic: $2.234 trillion to accommodate its budgets over the last 4 years. That is the bottom line. It is inescapable. And how much is $984 billion, the last increase we had 18 months ago? Well, $984 billion is more than the entire debt of the United States in the year 1980-81 when Ronald Reagan came to Congress. The last increase 18 months ago exceeded it. Let me just wrap up by saying that this calls for action. Sure, the ceiling has to be increased, but we should not just increase the ceiling and leave the problem unattended. The very least we can do is reinstate the PAYGO rules which have worked so well and put the budget in surplus for the first time in 30 years in the 1990s. That is what we ask today, an opportunity to put up an amendment that would at least take one solid step towards stopping this head-long descent deeper and deeper into debt.