John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell me how much time is left?

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

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend my good friend, the chairman. We do not agree about everything; nevertheless, I hope that is not a sign of what is about to come. He does a wonderful job of chairing the committee, and he has brought to the floor a good piece of legislation. We thought it could be better. I wish there were more amendments in order, but I do not want to diminish the significance of what is in the bill. Mr. Chairman, with troops in the field being bombed and shot at, we cannot be stinting about what we provide our troops. We have got to give them the resources they need to do the tough tasks that they have taken on. But with the defense bill before us running at a level of $422 billion, that is an increase of $125 billion in 3 years, and with the costs of our operations in Iraq alone approaching $200 billion by the end of next year, military and economic reconstruction, Congress also cannot relax its oversight responsibilities and we should not rubber-stamp what the administration sends us. That is why I thought more of the 100-odd amendments we offered should have been made in order. We could have a good, full debate on the House floor about priorities. That is why I wanted to take the ballistic missile defense account, which the administration wants to increase by $1.2 billion, to make it twice as big as any other program in the procurement and R&D accounts; why I wanted to take just a little bit, $400 million off the top of that, leaving an increase of $800 million; take a little off the top of that and then spread it to someplace else in the budget where I think it would do a lot more good, and that is in compensating the backbone of our military services, our NCOs and warrant officers, with a pay raise above the level provided other troops, at least in the rate of increase. In addition, I wanted to provide $25 million to $50 million, that is all, so we could say to every troop we send into combat, Uncle Sam will pick up the premium and we will see to it that every one of you has $250,000 of group life insurance. Now, there are some good things in this bill, as I said. I want to congratulate the chairman for leaning on DoD to send us a supplemental, because we were sailing into the next year under the artificial representation that we had enough money and we could move it around and we could get to the next calendar year. We cannot do it. But I do not think we should give the administration a blank check, and, to a great extent, we have not done that; and I commend the chairman for that. We have provided some line item specificity in title 15 of this bill. We have also, in response to the administration's request for transfer authority, we said to them you can have transfer authority for $3 billion, but not for $25 billion. All of that is an improvement over the request. But nobody should think that $25 billion is going to get us through the year. We will be lucky if it takes us to March. That is because we are spending $4 billion to $5 billion easily every month in Iraq; it is not likely to go down. We are spending $700 million to $900 million every month in Afghanistan; it is not likely to go down. We are spending $500 million a month for Noble Eagle, United States air defense and other things like that. It is close to $6 billion a month. The arithmetic is easy, even on the back of an envelope. $6 billion times 12 months is $72 billion. We have only provided $25 billion of it. We could easily have another supplemental coming in 2005 of $50 billion. That is why I want to remind everybody of the budget. It just so happens we are going to have the defense bill back to back with the budget; and let us keep in mind when the administration talks about runaway spending, the increase in spending in the budget, that much of it is occurring in the defense accounts. That is not to diminish or damn the amount of money that is being spent there; it is essential. But it also gets added into the calculation, and it is having an impact. If you look at current services for everything in the discretionary budget and look at the spikes that are really standing out, what you will find is that 90 to 95 percent of the increase in discretionary spending over the last 4 fiscal years, every year has either been defense, homeland security, and our response to 9/11. Quickly, let me show you a chart that is almost too much to read from this perspective. Basically, what we show here is the FYDP, the Future Years Defense Program, run out of 10 years, when Mr. Bush came to office was about $3.6 trillion in 2001. If you include what he has added, plus the costs just through this year of Iraq, it is about $4.6 trillion. If you go back and make some reasonable adjustments for policy changes in procurement and also add in the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan after 2005, you are easily up to a $1.5 trillion increase in spending. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that we cannot forget the budget; we cannot forget the deficit. It has a huge impact on the economy. The economy is the first instrument of our national defense. Secondly, sooner or later, if these costs keep running at this level, we have got to turn to the American people and ask more than our troops to share the sacrifice; we have to ask the American people to pick up some of the costs that we are running here for our defense and homeland security. The bill has to be paid sooner or later, the day of reckoning is coming, and we are only postponing it with the budget we will take up after this bill is considered today.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I humbly suggest that if we want to make the poppy in our lapels more than a mere gesture, we should vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule that will make in order the defense authorization bill. Because by voting ``no,'' we will make in order the consideration of an amendment that I have offered which contains two key elements that go to the very heart of what it is we are discussing here right now. We would take a little bit of money out of a huge increase in ballistic missile defense and put it in a place where it will do a lot of good, namely, in targeted pay increases to our enlisted personnel, particularly our NCOs and our junior warrant officers. It costs $300 million. It is not something I pulled out of the air. It was recommended 3 years ago by the last quadrennial review. For 2 fiscal years we have done it; this year we have not in the bill before us. We can rectify that by voting ``no'' and then voting for the amendment. In addition, we do something else in the amendment that I would offer, that is, we say to every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine going into combat, into harm's way, Uncle Sam is going to see to it that you get the maximum in servicemen's life insurance, group life insurance, $250,000. The premium will be paid by an increase in your imminent danger pay, two things that will say volumes to our soldiers about how much we appreciate what they are doing for today, the risks they are taking; two things that we can say that will make more than just this mere gesture a sincere commitment to those who have gone in harm's way and laid their life on the line to make this the home of the free and the land of the brave.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Lula Bell Houston of Davidson, North Carolina. Ms. Houston retired in May 2004 from Davidson College, my alma mater, after 57 years of service in the college laundry. The significance of this milestone in the Davidson community is matched only by the devotion that Ms. Houston has brought to her job everyday for over half a century. Born in 1923 (just three years after the current laundry building was constructed), Ms. Houston worked for a year in Davidson's dining service from 1943-44. She spent the next few years raising a family, but returned in 1947 to work at the college laundry. She has been there ever since, waking up every weekday morning at 4:15 a.m., to ensure that she would be there for the 6:30 a.m. start of the work day. Ms. Houston originally took the job as a means of supporting herself and her two young children after her first husband left them, but the students have kept her here long after her children have grown up and had kids of their own. The biggest legacy that Ms. Houston leaves the college and the town of Davidson is her warm personality and loving nature. She was always ready with a hug and a smile to all who came to drop off their laundry. Student after student shared stories and memories about Ms. Houston and all spoke of the genuine love in her voice when she greets them and how she has been like a grandmother to them all. The college has figured that she has cared for the laundry of all but 1,226 of the college's 19,731 living alumni--a lot of surrogate grandchildren. Davidson College honored Ms. Houston in the best way possible, naming the laundry building after her. The Town of Davidson commemorated that sunny day of April 29, 2004 by declaring it ``Lula Bell Houston Day.'' At Spring Convocation the day before, the Omicron Delta Kappa honorary leadership fraternity presented Ms. Houston with its Staff Appreciation Award, and in 2002, the SAE fraternity presented Ms. Houston with $500, a dozen roses, and a trophy recognizing her as ``The Spirit of Davidson.'' As an article featured on the college's ywebsite puts it, ``Few retirees in local history have been so royally heralded.'' Ms. Houston deserves every bit of that recognition for her long and tireless service to the college and her part in the lives of thousands of Davidson students over the years. I join my fellow Davidson alumni and other members of the Davidson community past and present in commending Ms. Lula Bell Houston and celebrating her achievement. I submit for the Record a news article with more about Ms. Houston. [From the Davidson, Apr. 30, 2004] Campus Honors Retirement of ``Spirit of Davidson'' in Laundry's New Name (By Leslie Hempson) As if fifty-seven years of work weren't enough, in a sense Lula Bell Houston will never leave her job now. That's because the college on Thursday afternoon affixed her name forever to the laundry building, naming it in her honor. Hundreds of well-wishers turned out to honor the eighty- year-old Houston at her retirement party, and cheered when President Robert Vagt made the surprise announcement of the building's new name. In praising her loyalty to Davidson and irrepressible good cheer, Vagt called her ``a biological mother to four children, but a mom to all who needed her.'' ``This is a grand moment in the history of Davidson College,'' he said. When asked to respond, Houston could find few words. ``What can I say? What can I say?'' she asked. ``I just want to thank everyone for being here, for letting me see your beautiful faces. I love all of you.'' Few retirees in local history have been so royally heralded. In a whirlwind twenty-four hours that capped her long career sorting student clothes and folding sheets, President Vagt also read a proclamation from the Town of Davidson declaring ``Lula Bell Houston Day,'' and the student membership of the Omicron Delta Kappa honorary campus leadership fraternity presented her with its Staff Appreciation Award at Spring Convocation. Alumni and current students turned out at the retirement party to honor the woman who greeted them with a smile on their regular trips to the laundry. Joey Harris '02, former student body president, took a day off his job in a Congressional office and drove from Washington to attend. ``I couldn't miss it,'' he said. ``Ms. Lula Bell has been a good friend over the years, and we still keep in touch. There's no other place I'd rather be right now than here.'' McKinley Glover '04 said, ``I've known Ms. Houston since I was a freshman, and she's always shown a genuine interest in people's feelings. She's about the sweetest lady I've ever met.'' Born in 1923, Houston worked for year in Davidson's dining service in 1943-44. She spent the next few years in New York City and Washington, but The Lula Bell Houston Laundry has been her home-away-from-home since 1948. She has cared for the clothing of all but 1,226 of the college's 19,731 living alumni. Even more valuable than her laundry services, Houston has bestowed grace and affection on students, offering them that same comfort of being in a home-away-from-home. A retirement tribute to her stated, ``Lula Bell has been greeting anyone and everyone with a warm smile and a kind word and a hug. Students drop off their dirty clothes, and leave with their spirits lifted and a reminder that there's more to life than their next test or paper. They know someone is working tirelessly and without complaint to take care of them, someone who doesn't care what their grades are, whether or not they won their last game, or how their love life is going. They know Miss Lula Bell's unconditional love.'' One former Davidson student, lonely and discouraged far away from his home in Nicaragua, wrote her a letter thanking her for her kindness. Even though he graduated years ago, he still keeps in touch, and called her a few weeks ago to wish her a happy Easter. Another former student, Matthew Arbuckle `02, organized his SAE fraternity brothers two years ago to show their appreciation by giving her $500, a dozen roses and a trophy recognizing her as ``The Spirit of Davidson.'' That trophy is proudly displayed in front of the cubby in which she keeps her keys and papers, next to a few small seashells and a list of laundry employees that dates back to the 1950s. What few students know is that Houston's work has provided a refuge in a life that has not been easy. Houston began working in a time when racial discrimination was still prevalent in the South, and a black woman had very limited job prospects. After her first husband left her in 1947, she took the $12 a week job at the laundry to support herself and two young children. Houston had watched her mother, Rosa Potts, provide for a family without the help of a husband, and knew what to do. Her mother had risen at the crack of dawn to milk the cow, clean the house, and prepare breakfast for her two children before going off to a day job. Houston was determined to work just as hard. She has always waked at 4:15 and arrived at the laundry by 6 a.m., assuring that she would be on time for the 6:30 a.m. start of the work day. When her children were young, she brought them to the laundry with her. They played amidst the washers and driers with children of other workers until it was time to go home. Davidson's laundry has always encouraged that feeling of family, and Houston's association with generations of students has reinforced it. ``The sense of being family makes the time fly by,'' she said. ``My family gets bigger with the bunches of clothes coming in. Students come in with smiles on their faces and hope in their eyes.'' In 1959 she married Arthur Houston, with whom she raised two more children. She continued to work at the laundry, and he worked at two jobs, until 1988 when Arthur died of a heart attack. She has suffered more losses recently, with the death of a brother from Lou Gehrig's Disease five or six years ago, and the death of her mother three years ago. It was hard for Houston to keep going after the deaths of her brother and mother, but work has always been a salve for her wounds. She likes the predictability of her laundry duties, her co-workers, and the students. Church, and particularly church music, has also been a constant solace. She has been a member of Gethsemane Baptist Church for seventy-eight years, attending services and Sunday school every weekend, and spending three hours on Saturday mornings practicing with the church choir. In addition to the choir, she is a member of the Gethsemane Baptist Church Gospel Singers, a group that performs at churches all across the region and has even appeared on television a couple of times. Houston said her immediate plans for retirement are to finish thoroughly cleaning her house. She said she might also take a little break to visit relatives in Las Vegas and Baltimore, and maybe take a trip back to New York. She has also always wanted to learn how to play the piano. Co-workers have been urging her to retire for years. They tell her to hurry up and leave so that she'll have a chance to enjoy some of her life before it's too late. But even as she planned her retirement, Houston was already talking about returning to work part-time at the laundry. She insists, ``I am enjoying what I'm doing. I am enjoying my life.''

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman, and he and I served together, as he will recall, on one investigative panel that looked into what happened in Beirut in 1983. We had both been there a month before, both talked about what happened, and that was an investigation that really did unearth new facts. And it is a good illustration of why we need to have a similar investigation here where our committee has searched its constitutional authority and gets to the bottom of this matter.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing we hold in trust more sacred than the good name of America, and the good name of our great country is at stake. We have been defiled, maligned, if not damaged irreparably in some parts of the world; and we cannot diminish the consequences. Just as the world has been fixated on those revolting photographs, the world is watching now to see what America will do, not what we will say, but how we will respond in fact. We should first of all rise up in indignation and outrage and condemn these atrocities and not diminish them. I do not care whether six soldiers or 600 were involved. We should make it unmistakably clear that this is conduct that Americans will not tolerate, we will not diminish, we will not excuse, and we will punish with severity. But our response cannot end with just indignation or even an abject apology. We must make every effort to find out what was involved in these atrocities, who was involved in these atrocities, directly involved, and involved in a supervisory capacity up the chain of command and down the chain of command, wherever it leads; and we must punish everybody who is culpable in a way that makes clear this is despicable conduct which we will not abide in the United States of America. That quest for facts must ask candidly, painfully whether or not these were isolated acts, these atrocities were isolated acts of poorly trained, undisciplined reservists, or whether they arise out of a culture that permitted and allowed interrogation techniques that call for hoods, sleep deprivation, and incessant questioning. These are hard questions. We have got to ask them. Was this military intelligence, military police, or was it both? Where did the system break down? In the committee room of the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Speaker, we have cast in bronze a plaque with article 1 clause 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to raise and support an Army, a Navy, and provide for their regulation. This was the way that the Parliament in the 17th century gained control of the government by gaining control of the military, among other things, by keeping on a short leash the law that permitted courts martial. The Department of Defense is and ought to be conducting its own investigation; but if we are worth our salt, if we are up to the powers the Constitution vests in us, we must conduct our own investigation. Woodrow Wilson once said that our greatest power is the power to investigate, to inform, to check the Commander-in-Chief, to notify, to make the American people understand what is happening in their government. So this is not a matter that we can delegate. This is not a matter that we can trust anyone else. This is a matter where we must not take the role of outsiders looking in. We should launch our own investigation. And one of the places where this resolution stops short, I would say to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, is that it does not emphatically call for our own independent investigation to lead wherever the facts may take us. We should do it because it is our duty. We should do it because of the trust we hold. We should do it for the sake of the soldiers, the vast majority of soldiers, who have are served honorably, who have served and sacrificed and secured the interests of our country. But here, as in many places, this resolution pulls its punch. I support it. I will vote for it, but I think it should be more emphatic, more outraged, and I think it should be more of a beginning to our effort than an end, to the constitutional trust that we all hold, to find the facts, to ask why we are so late ourselves in being informed, and to see that the truth and the whole truth comes out.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, there is nothing wrong with this bill as far as it goes. What we are trying to argue here is we need to go further, particularly at this point in time. The gentleman mentioned the Committee on Armed Services. When we had the last supplemental appropriation on the floor, $87 billion, I offered a package of benefits that went to family assistance, family separation pay, imminent danger pay, Tricare for reservists, a number of different things that we could and probably will have to do because of recruitment and retention problems that we will face down the road, but should do out of gratitude for our troops and particularly our Reserve and Guard components. So I hope we can get the cooperation of both sides of the aisle in crafting a package for the upcoming mark of the defense authorization bill which will address many areas here where things can be done positively that go far beyond this bill.

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1779 amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow penalty-free retirement account withdrawals for national guardsmen and reservists called to active duty for an extended, and further authorizes a 2-year period to reimburse their accounts up to the amount withdrawn. I think you would be hard pressed to find a Member of Congress who opposes this low cost bill to benefit our troops. My only question is: Shouldn't we do more? The answer is clearly yes. I agree in spirit with this bill, but when I compare it with what the troops truly deserve, I'm reminded of the commercial, ``Where's the beef?'' come up short. The mere fact that we are considering legislation that allows guardsmen and reservists to withdraw funds from their retirement accounts indicates the problem. A solution for this problem must include more ``beef'' than simply allowing our service members to borrow from their long term savings to meet their short term obligations. A true solution lies in the form of better benefits. Our troops, both active and reserve need and deserve better family separation and imminent danger pay. Reservists serving in Afghanistan and Iraq need TRICARE military health coverage. Retirees deserve better survivor benefits for military widows and our military families deserve better housing. Recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq highlight the perils of war. In the FY03 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, imminent danger pay, additional compensation provided to servicemen and women in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while service members are away, was raised from $100 to $250 a month. Congress should act now to make these increases permanent. This will show our troops that we are aware of the hardships they face not only in the field, but also at home. The Supplemental Appropriations bill also provided limited and temporary TRICARE benefits for Reservists. It stopped short of providing expanded health care benefits to members of the selected reserve and certain members of the Individual Ready Reserve and their families. Representative Jeff Miller's bill to end the survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) widow's tax has 303 co-sponsors, but may never make it to the floor for a vote. Congress should act on this important legislation. We have thousands of service members and their families living in substandard housing. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) was passed to remedy this injustice. A spending cap was set as a safeguard. We anticipate reaching the spending cap by November 2004, and the problem has not been solved. We must raise or eliminate this cap in order to continue this necessary program. Instead of rewarding our troops and retirees with tangible benefits, the legislation we are debating today simply permits select Reserve Component members to borrow their own money in the short term at the expense of their long term goal of a comfortable retirement. While H.R. 1779 allows a two year period to replace the withdrawn funds, I am doubtful that a financial strain that would require tapping one's retirement savings would permit complete reimbursement within 2 years. We can do better for the men and women of the world's greatest military. Rather than simply removing the 10 percent penalty for early retirement account withdrawal, I urge my colleagues to support a permanent increase in imminent danger pay and the family separation allowance, provide adequate funding to include reservists in TRICARE, eliminate the SBP widow's tax, and raise or eliminate the MHPI spending cap. H.R. 1779 is a low cost morale booster for our troops in the field, and I urge its passage today. However, the mere fact that we are considering this measure highlights a bigger and more lasting problem for our troops. Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes on this bill, but I urge my colleagues, especially the Republican Majority to follow up H.R. 1779 with the more meaningful and substantive legislation I have outlined, which is specifically spelled out in the ``Military Benefits Proposal,'' which I am attaching and submitting for the Record. This list contains benefits I proposed when the $87 billion Supplemental Appropriation was offered last year. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not make my proposal in order as an amendment. I intend to offer many of these benefits again when the Defense Authorization Bill is marked up in Committee and considered here on the floor. Military Benefits Proposals Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay: Makes increase from $225 per month to $250 per month permanent. Family Separation Allowance: Makes increase to $250 per month permanent. Hardship Duty Pay: Increases from $300 per month to up to $600 per month during FY2004. Eliminate Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs: Accelerates from 2005 to 2004 the final year of the bipartisan effort to increase the Basic Allowance for Housing to completely cover average out-of-pocket housing costs for military families living off base. Family Assistance Centers: Provides $48 million for increased demand on family assistance centers for National Guard and Reserve to assist with problems related to increased deployments. Transition Assistance for Disabled Servicemembers: Provides $50 million to enhance DOD-VA transition programs for disabled servicemembers. Deployment Notification to Reservists: Directs DOD to provide maximum advance notice to mobilized Guard and Reserve personnel on the timing and duration of their duty. Small Business Loans for Reservists: Provides $25 million for loans or loan guarantees for reservists whose small businesses have been disrupted by their mobilization. Vocation Development for Reservists: Provides $25 million for SBA grants for vocational or technical training for reserve-owned small businesses.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, as we meet tonight, this country, our government, is headed towards a deficit of $521 billion. That is not my estimate, that is the estimate of the Office of Management and Budget, the President's own budget shop. We have watched the initial returns from April 15 come in to see if there might be a revenue surprise, a bounce that will alleviate this problem, and thus far there is no early indication that there are any surprises coming. We are stuck with a $521 billion deficit this year. Now, that would be bad by itself, $521 billion is a record deficit, but it is worse when you put it in context. Our budget, the budget of the United States, was in surplus by the amount of $236 billion as recently as the year 2000; in surplus by $127 billion in the year 2001, when Mr. Bush came to office. Indeed, he inherited a fiscal situation unlike any President who has taken office in recent years, yet now we find ourselves, 3 to 4 years later, in deficit by $521 billion. The administration portrays itself as the hapless victim of circumstance. In truth, it is a victim of policies that it itself has chosen. It is a victim of the consequences of these policies which it has freely put in place against the warnings which they failed to heed on all sides. What we have had to witness here is painful for those of us who have committed our careers in the Congress, and I have been here for nearly 22 years, to putting the budget in balance and institutionalizing conservative fiscal policy. We have been forced to witness 15 years of fiscal discipline, 15 years during which we took a deficit of $290 billion and moved it into surplus, become this huge deficit in just the last 3 years. As Yogi Berra used to like to say, you can look it up. This is a matter of historic record. Every year during the Clinton administration, for 8 straight years, the bottom line of the budget got better. It moved out of deficit into surplus. Every year for 8 straight years it got better. Every year, for the last 4 years, the bottom line of the Bush administration's budget has gotten worse and worse and worse, until we now find ourselves with a budget deficit of over $520 billion this year. The Congressional Budget Office took the President's budget in February of this year, as they are required to do, and in March they sent us their analysis of that budget. They told the Congress that if we adopt and implement the President's budget as he has proposed it, then over the next 10 years the Federal Government will accumulate $5.132 trillion of additional debt to be added to the $7.4 trillion of debt we already have, and in which case we will leave our children a negative legacy of unheralded, unprecedented proportion. We will be $13 trillion in debt on top of a Social Security program that is underfunded and on top of a Medicare program which is even more underfunded. Now, just as a preface to other remarks that other Members are going to make, let me give a quick summary of where we are. This was the surplus that was projected for this year, $397 billion, only 3 years ago. This is what CBO says it is going to be: $477 billion. If you want to see a roller coaster ride, here it is: $290 billion. That is the deficit the Clinton administration inherited. They turned it, through 8 years of fiscal discipline and unrelenting attention to the deficit, which is one of the top priorities of the government, to a surplus of $236 billion, the largest in the Nation's history. This is what has happened since Mr. Bush came to office: A precipitous decline from a surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $477 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And here is the dire prediction for the future: There will be a little bounce, a little uptick due to the economy, but the prediction of the Congressional Budget Office is that these numbers will only deteriorate over time. We developed during the 1990s a series of budget process rules that helped us bring to heel these deficits, diminishing every year and moving the budget so into surplus. They were embodied in an act called the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. A lot of people scoffed at this. I was here. They said Congress is dodging the problem again. They are coming up with procedural rules instead of substantive changes in the budget. But two of the rules we adopted were of signal success. One was a rule called PAYGO, which I will come back to in just a minute. The other was a rule called discretionary spending caps. In effect, what we did was impose a numeric or dollar cap every year for 5 successive fiscal years on discretionary spending, the amount of money that we appropriate every year in 13 different appropriation bills. That is different from entitlement spending, which is mandatory spending and is not changed annually. The discretionary spending caps were imposed in 1990 in an agreement we made with the current President Bush's father and reimposed in 1993. When President Clinton came in, a new set of numbers was imposed as our targets, or mandatory ceiling on spending, and then finally in 1997 they were extended once again. They worked. But there was another rule that worked even more significantly, and that was the PAYGO rule. The PAYGO rule simply stipulated this: It provided that if any Member of the House or any committee wanted to increase an entitlement, then it had to be paid for. That simple. It had to be paid for, or another entitlement had to be cut by a commensurate amount so that the effect of that enhancement in benefits was neutral upon the deficit, the bottom line of the budget. By the same token, the PAYGO rule applied to taxes, and tax cuts in particular. And what it provided was that if you want to bring a tax cut to the floor of the House while we have a budget deep in deficit, then it cannot have an impact upon the deficit and make the deficit worsen. You must do one of two things: You must either identify another tax increase to offset your tax decrease, or take some permanent spending, entitlement spending, and cut it by an amount over 5 years equal to the amount of our revenue reduction affected by the tax cut. That was the so-called PAYGO spending rule. We are going to talk about that tonight, because one of the bones of contention right now in the budget resolution conference, which is ongoing, is whether or not we should take those rules, which were developed and successfully employed in the 1990s, to the extent that we put the budget back in surplus, take them in the form that they were proposed and used in the past, or whether we will take some faint facsimile of those rules and impose it. In particular, when the House passed the Republican resolution several weeks ago, they included in it the recommendation that a PAYGO rule be reinstated, but it was a one-edge PAYGO rule. It applied only to entitlement increases. It did not apply to tax cuts. Even though an entitlement increase has the same impact as a tax cut upon the bottom line of the budget, the tax cut aspect was left out. So it is half a loaf, half a bill, and half a rule. One of the reasons that the budget resolution is stuck in conference right now is that there are others in the other body who disagree with that position, who realize that we have an intractable problem on our hands, and apt to get worse unless we do something dramatic and develop a plan to deal with it. For starters, we have two proven rules, rules that worked in the 1990s, a PAYGO rule being one of them, and there are lots of us who would like to impose those rules again so we can begin attacking this horrendous problem. And not just for our generation. No, the real problem of the deficits occurring today are for our children and grandchildren, because we are shoving off onto them the debt with a budget that we will not fully fund ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for comments along the lines of the PAYGO rule and other aspects of the budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Everybody promised. Both parties, both the White House and the Congress, promised that never again, now that we were finally in this position, would we borrow from Social Security and spend the proceeds again. But that is the inevitable consequence. When you reduce that $5.6 trillion projected surplus by 55 percent, the result is about $2.6 trillion instead of $5.6 trillion. That $2.6 trillion is roughly equal to what is in the Social Security Trust Fund, so if you wanted to keep your promise now that you have adjusted downward the realistic estimate of the surplus, there was no room for additional tax cuts without violating that solemn promise never again to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for the operation of the government.

Mr. SPRATT. It turns out it was not. Now they have recanted and said it was probably overstated by 55 percent.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, $5.6 trillion was the estimate of the surplus by his own budget shop, the Office of Management and Budget, $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011.

Mr. SPRATT. It is actually worse.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few points in closing about the budget. It is often said, particularly by the President and by others, that we have had an explosion of spending. Indeed, there has been an increase in spending, a big increase in spending, in the last 3 years. But this chart, these four bar graphs show that 90 to 95 percent of the increase in spending over the last 4 years has occurred in defense, homeland security, an account that did not even exist in the budget a couple of years ago, our response to 9/11, the bailout of New York City, the bailout of the airlines, and this is where most of the spending growth remains in the budget. The President has a budget which he claims will cut the deficit in half in 5 years, but he leaves out one major element, among others: He makes no provision for what it will cost to maintain 125,000 to 135,000 troops in Iraq and another 12,000 in Afghanistan. When the cost of that is added to it, he does not come anywhere close to his claim of cutting the deficit in half over 5 years. The President has also said the tax cuts were necessary because we have had horrendous job losses, and it is true. Our economy went into recession in March of 2001 and came out in November of 2001. It was a short and shallow recession, but the effect on jobs has persisted. This is the first administration since the Hoover administration not to see a substantial increase in jobs during its tenure. We have had a loss in the private sector of 2.7 million jobs, unrecovered since the start and duration of the recession. So what has happened, despite the $2 trillion to $3 trillion in tax cuts measured over 10 years that we have had in 2001, 2002 and 2003 under the Bush administration, this is the curve here for what the postwar recession typically has been. It has lasted about 27 months. You would have a downturn for 13 or 14 months, an upturn for 13 or 14 months. By the 27th month, the jobs lost would be regained. Look what happened in this recession. Notwithstanding three successive substantial tax cuts, we still have a loss of 2.7 million jobs in this country. That is a fact. As was said, once again, you can look it up. You can get it from the Department of Labor. One other point I would like to make before closing is Social Security and Medicare. One reason that we are so concerned about the deficit, the mounting national debt, is that in 2008 we will have a demographic change in this country like none we have ever seen. The baby-boomers will begin to retire. There are 77 million of them marching to their retirement right now. They are already born. They are not going anywhere. They will soon be claiming Social Security and then their Medicare, and in 10 to 20 years the number of people on Medicare and Social Security will almost double. The resources required will be substantial for those two programs, which are underfunded. Most people look at these numbers and say there is no way feasible to deal with this problem, we will just have to restructure the programs. That means we will have to cut benefits, we will have to reconfigure the programs, cut the costs in order to make them affordable. In truth, if you look at the first bar graph over here, this big fat bar graph of $14.2 trillion at the top, that is the total amount, the present value of all the tax cuts that the 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax cut laws will necessitate or allow over the next 75 years, 75 years being the timeframe we look to make Social Security solvent. If you compare the requirements that would be imposed, that are imposed to make Social Security solvent and Medicare solvent, the two come to $11.9 trillion, the green and the blue here. So the amount of these tax cuts over 75 years is actually more than what is required to make Social Security and Medicare solvent. We can have this. So those who say this is a set of circumstances we did not foresee and could not control, here is the answer: These are freely chosen policies, and they choose. They choose additional debt, additional deficits, over deficit reduction, and they choose tax cuts over Social Security solvency. There is a choice here. There is a deliberate choice being made. Those who today say we are victims of circumstance will say the same thing then, but here is the proof right now. If you want to save Social Security, the wherewithal is there to do it, if you do not prefer doing it otherwise for tax purposes.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just for clarification and an additional point, one beneficial result of our fiscal policies in the 1990s was that we brought down the national debt by $400 billion between 1998 and 2001. We also, because the government was not borrowing money, but actually putting money into the pool of savings in this country, helped bring down interest rates. As a result, debt service, the interest paid on the national debt, net interest paid on the national debt, dropped from around $240 billion to $250 billion a year to about $160 billion a year. That is a dividend that we had available to do things that people needed and wanted us to do. Because of the Bush administration policies, that interest payment is going to go up steadily, so that 10 years from now, if we follow the course that CBO plots for the President's budget in its March analysis, debt service, interest paid on the national debt, will be close to $370 billion. It will more than double from its current level. What does that do? That is $370 billion we will not have for education in North Carolina where the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) used to be the superintendent of education. That is $300 billion we will not have for the environment in Oregon, which is a near and dear thing to the heart of the gentleman. Furthermore, it builds a sort of cynicism about our government, because people will pay substantial taxes. These are not tax cuts. When you are borrowing the money to finance the tax cut, you are just postponing the event, the inevitable. What will happen is people will be paying more in debt taxes and not seeing anything in return for it, and they become cynical of our government, because so much of what they pay in taxes goes up in smoke, so to speak, because it goes to interest payments.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for participating. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we do indeed. I was just looking for the chart that is most applicable. This is one right here. And what we have done here on the bottom line is we have taken, first of all, the baseline projection of the Congressional Budget Office; and as the gentleman noted, they have to assume certain things because those are the rules handed down to them by law. But we have adjusted their projection for political reality. For example, we have assumed that there would be some continuing expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have assumed that many of the Bush tax cuts when they reach the expiration date, because most of them have implanted in them a sunset expiration date, that is the way they will pass to begin with, that most, when they reach that sunset date, will, in fact, be renewed and therefore the revenues will not be recouped. When we do that, what we find is that the deficit improves a bit. We get a bounce from the recovery we are experiencing right now. We are not stuck at 521. It improves to about $389 billion next year and then bottoms out in the range of the mid-$300 billion level until we get to the far end of our table, at which point it declines again to about $500 billion. So, essentially, we tread water. The deficit does not get better. And this is a point everyone should understand: the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, in making these dire predictions of unending deficits, this assumes a growing economy, a robust economy, growing at 3, 3\1/2\ percent a year, even more this year. And notwithstanding the growth, the budget does not grow out of the deficit. It assumes that the economy will be on a pretty even keel for all of this period of time and still we will have these deficits when we know, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) just said, I do not think this economy can sustain the growth rate we are at right now with the deficits of the magnitude that we are looking at

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, no question about it. This year for the second year in 3 years, we will have a mammoth increase in the debt. Last year alone we had a 1-year increase of $900 billion in the debt. We will have to increase that debt limit again before we leave here this year, or we will be perilously close to bumping the ceiling. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has been here for some time, and he knows that during the late 1990s and in the early years of this century, we all took solemn vows out here, different forms. We had something called the ``lockbox,'' corny title, serious subject, because essentially what he said was that now that we finally have a surplus for the first time in 30 years, we are going to foreswear forever borrowing from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds again. Those trust funds have been building up balances in anticipation of the retirement of the baby boomers ever since 1983. And ever since 1983 until about the year 2000 when we finally hit surplus, we have borrowed to make ends meet from the Social Security trust fund. We have given the trust fund a bond back, but in effect the government has borrowed from these trust funds. Both Houses, both parties, everybody subscribed to the notion that we should quit that practice. Guess what? The Bush administration's budget every year that we have a projection from OMB or CBO, regardless of who it may be, everybody projects that every year fully the budget will consume the Social Security trust fund surplus and the Medicare trust fund surplus. And they are not small numbers; $160 billion for Social Security, 20 to $30 billion per year for Medicare. Every year, every year, when we give the number $521 billion, we have already taken the surplus in those two trust fund accounts, consolidated it with the other accounts which are in the red, in deficit, and offset or diminished the deficit by the amount of the surpluses this year.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).