John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder if our good friend from New York, when he tells his constituents about their benefits, will tell them that the child tax credit will expire in 2004, that the 10 percent bracket expansion will expire in 2004, that the AMT exemption and that the marriage penalty negation provision will expire in a year. We give with one hand and take away almost immediately with the next. The sun rises and the sun sets. Let me dispel, first of all, one myth about this tax bill, the myth that the President is putting out that this is an itty-bitty tax bill. $350 billion by itself would not be itty-bitty, particularly when you have a deficit as we do. But this is not a $350 billion tax bill. If you assume, as we must, that these sunsets are a sham, and why should we not, because the architects of this bill are all saying, they will be extended, we just put them in there to shoehorn this thing into the budget. If you assume that, then this is what this total tax cut will be, not $350 billion but, in the next 10 years, $1 trillion. That is the result. And since the budget is now in deficit, all of this amount, all $1 trillion, will go to the bottom line and will swell the deficit. That means we will have a deficit this year, a record deficit of $425 billion and the deficit will hover in that range, ratcheted at that range, of 3 to $400 billion for as far out as we forecast. But we do not stop here. Because Republicans have told us, proudly, that they are going to make tax cuts an annual event. If you look in their budget, you will see there are more unreconciled tax cuts still on the back burner yet to be brought forward. If you look in the President's budget, you will see that there are a lot of tax cuts left on the cutting room floor waiting there for next round. Here are three known tax cuts that are yet to come off the agenda. First of all, we all know the tax cuts passed in 2001 have to be made permanent, will be made permanent by the majority if it stays the majority in this House. That will cost 6 to $650 billion in revenues. Second, there is another 2 to $300 billion of various tax cuts lying on the cutting room floor waiting for the next round. Third, there is the alternative minimum tax. We all know that politically it has to be fixed in the next 10 years or else 25 million Americans are going to pay much higher taxes than they now pay. They will pay the alternative minimum tax. The cost of fixing it is reasonably 650 to $680 billion. If you add all of these tax cuts together and make a few modest adjustments for the likely cost of defense and homeland security and Medicare/prescription drugs, here are the results. I have got a piece of paper. I am going to leave it here on the desk. We have calculated them on this sheet of paper. If anybody takes exception with them, come down here and refute it. Here are the results per our reckoning of what is going to happen to the budget. First, from 2004 until 2013, deficits will total, get this, deficits will total $3.959 trillion. Without Social Security, deficits will total $6.527 trillion. Debt held by the public will increase from $3.5 trillion to $7.9 trillion. Total statutory debt will go up to $14 trillion. You can overlook and dispute a lot of these facts, but there are two facts you cannot dispute. They will not go away. First of all, 77 million baby boomers are marching to their retirement, and they are going to double the number of beneficiaries on Social Security and Medicare, and those programs will not sustain their benefits in their current situation. Secondly, what you sow, our children and their children are going to reap. They will have to support the underfunded Social Security program, the underfunded Medicare program, and they will have to bear the burden of $14 trillion in statutory debt that you are incurring as you move down this path tonight. That is the course you choose. That is the moral decision you make tonight if you vote for these tax cuts. If you do it in the name of creating jobs, I do not think this is going to create that many jobs, with one exception, I will grant you. It is going to create a lot of jobs for tax lawyers and accountants. This bill will be a bonanza for those who specialize in tax avoidance; and the real cost, believe me, is going to be beyond calculation. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22MY03.003

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, when the President sent his budget up this year, OMB sent with it a message in which they said that the surplus of $5.6 trillion, which they projected just 2 years ago, was a mistake; that now, from 2002 through 2011, they revised downward that surplus from $5.6 trillion to $2.4 trillion. They made an egregious mistake. We warned our colleagues then not to bet the budget on a blue sky estimate, but they did not take our warning. Now you can blame that on 9/11, you can blame that on this sluggish economy, you can blame it on lots of things, but tonight the buck stops here. The blame rests right there in the well of this House and these meters where you push your card. Because tonight, when you vote for a trillion dollars in tax relief, it goes straight to the bottom line. There is nothing to offset it. It creates a deficit this year which will be a record deficit in the fiscal history of this country, $425 billion, and the deficit stays ratcheted in that range for as far out as we forecast. Those are the consequences of the policy choices you make tonight. You cannot blame it on 9/11. You cannot blame it on the economy. It will be attributed to what you do tonight, unless some economic miracle happens as a result. Here is a chart in which we have calculated this tax cut, the tax cuts to come, other likely actions to be taken, Medicare, prescription drugs, a bit more for defense; and we think it is a fair and honest and even conservative statement. I will leave it here for anybody to refute, but this is what we see as a consequence of what you are doing tonight. We foresee deficits of $3.959 trillion over the next 10 years. Back out Social Security, and those deficits come to $6.527 trillion, a consequence of what you are doing tonight. The debt of this country today, held by the public, is at about $3.5 trillion, $3.6 trillion. This will increase it to $7.9/11 trillion. The total statutory debt will go up to $14 trillion. That is the course you choose to take tonight if you vote for this tax cut. You cannot blame it on the economy. You cannot blame it on 9/ 11. You can only blame it on yourself.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the rule did not make in order an amendment that I sought with respect to cooperative threat reduction, but it does make in order an amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I am here to offer my support for his amendment, which is included in the en bloc amendment. This amendment is drawn from legislation introduced earlier this year by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Security Initiative Act, which I was proud to cosponsor. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, this bill was in the works for a long time, and I can attest to that. In fact, parts of it come from provisions I introduced in prior years. I commend the chairman of our committee for allowing this to be made in order, including it in the en bloc. I think it is a positive addition to the bill, and I encourage support for the en bloc amendment. The rules governing debate on this defense bill did not make in order an amendment I offered with Rep. Schiff that would have restored the President's request on Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs by striking several provisions in the committee bill. Like the Administration, I believe these committee-added provisions will hamstring the program unnecessarily. I was disappointed not to have the chance to debate the amendment, and I plan to work to strike those provisions in conference. And if I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter into the Record an excerpt from today's Statement of Administration Policy on the committee bill. The rule did, however, make in order an amendment offered by my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, and I am here to offer my support. This amendment is drawn from legislation introduced earlier this year by Rep. Weldon, the ``Nuclear Security Initiative Act,'' which I was proud to cosponsor. As Mr. Weldon likes to say, the bill was in the works for a long time, and I can attest to that--in fact, it includes some provisions I introduced in prior years with my colleague Rep. Ellen Tauscher. Like the bill, the Weldon amendment calls for enhanced cooperation between the U.S. and Russia to reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, and establishes what should be useful tools for improved collaboration toward that end. It calls for some important studies, too, including an examination by the National Academy of Sciences of the effect on CTR and other non- proliferation programs of the myriad congressional oversight measures that have been established over the past several years. I must confess I have mixed feelings about reducing the President's request for CTR, even by the modest amount contained in the Weldon amendment, but as the funds are proposed to be shifted into the Department of Energy's companion threat reduction program, I can support it. And the amendment on balance, like the Weldon-Edwards- McHugh-Spratt bill it is drawn from, should strengthen our threat reduction and non-proliferation programs. I urge support of the Weldon amendment. Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record the statement of administration policy with respect to cooperative threat reduction. From the Statement of Administration Policy issued May 22, 2003 Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget Page 3: ``Nonproliferation and Cooperative Threat Reduction The Administration appreciates full funding of the CTR budget request, but is very concerned about requirements imposed by the Committee that would hinder DOD's and DOE's ability to implement more rigorously and effectively Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and Nuclear Nonproliferation activities. Furthermore, H.R. 1588 would limit the President's flexibility to apply CTR resources to the most pressing nonproliferation challenges in support of the Global War on Terrorism and would not clarify that DOE has the authority to carry out such activities outside states of the former Soviet Union.''

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we are going through what is basically a pro forma debate here, because this bill is off limits to serious debate. When you cannot offer an amendment you are only shadowboxing about the provisions of the bill, if you are not really putting in the well the issue itself and letting the House work its will on the bill, and that is the situation we have here. We are seeing procedural devices employed by virtue of this rule which keep us from having substantive consideration for the most contentious parts of this bill. This bill runs rough-shod over two major environmental laws. No recourse. This bill dis-establishes the civil service as we have known it for almost 100 years. Virtually no recourse on the floor. This bill takes a provision that the President of the United States requested for funding a very important project under the Nunn-Lugar Act, Cooperative Threat Reduction, in Shchuch'ye, Russia, where some 75 percent of the deadly chemical weapons in the arsenal of the former Soviet Union are stored in makeshift buildings with porous roofs under woeful conditions that, in my opinion, are security risks. We have finally gotten everything together so we can move forward with a facility here. The funding is requested by the President of the United States to move forward with this facility. And guess what? We are right at the threshold of a significant undertaking that matters to our security and the rest of the world, and this bill hog-ties the President's request, hamstrings everything that is carefully laid in place, so we cannot begin. We cannot use the money that the President has requested. This bill takes $28 million out of that project and puts it in offensive arms elimination, which is fully funded. It then fences another $100 million until they can show us that every permit needed over the lifetime of the project is procured, which is an impossible hurdle to clear. So that is what is at stake here. That project, in my opinion, is not as important as the substantive decision to disestablish the civil service, but it is important. It sets a model for how cooperative threat reduction will proceed in Russia. It is the single most important thing we are doing in that realm in terms of ridding that country of chemical weapons which could one day show up in our subways, on our streets, used by terrorists and rogue states against us. But we will not be able to have a free, full, and fair debate about that because the rule that now prevails prevents us from doing that. What I would say, Mr. Chairman, as one last plea, is that we need a rule that allows us to work the will of the House on this highly important bill. This bill will increase defense spending to $400 billion, makes major allocations within our budget. That is a $110 billion increase over the last 3 years. On a matter of this gravity, of this importance, we need to have full and free and fair debate here in the well of the House. This should be America's forum, a crucible where we work out important issues like this. The rule they have adopted diminishes the stature of the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, the rule governing today's debate on the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization act, we are told, is just part one of two. I hope that in part two we are allowed to debate an amendment I offered, together with Adam Schiff, on behalf of scores of Members supportive of the President's request for Cooperative Threat Reduction. When I testified at the Rules Committee yesterday, I filed and sought consideration of only one amendment, which I offered with Representative Schiff, who has been active on these issues. I can describe our amendment in very simple terms: it seeks to restore the President's request for the fiscal year 2004 program. Let me elaborate. The President's request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program from fiscal year 2004 totaled $450.8 million, and the Armed Services Committee authorized that amount. But don't be fooled: the committee bill makes substantial changes to the President's request for CTR. First, the committee bill transfers $28.8 million from chemical weapons destruction activities in Russia--work at the Shchuch'ye facility--to strategic offensive arms elimination. The cut of nearly $30 million from the Schchuch'ye project will slow construction of this critically needed facility and postpone the day we begin to destroy chemical weapons there. My amendment restores these funds to Shchuch'ye leaving funds for both strategic offensive arms elimination and Shchuch'ye at the requested level. Shchuch'ye represents a wake up call as to urgency of the problem of proliferable chemical weapons. In a building that is little more than a fortified barn, chemical munitions are lined up like wine bottles. Shchuch'ye is home to a majority of Russia's weaponized stocks of nerve gas and sarin. While security there has been upgraded by the CTR program, the munitions at Shchuch'ye remain portable, and the security almost certainly penetrable. None of us that visited left without believing the United States should accelerate the destruction of these munitions, and I was pleased to see the President recommended exactly this course in his fiscal year 2004 request. At Shchuch'ye, the United States has complete access to a critical WMD storage site, where some of the deadliest and most portable chemical munitions in the world are housed with minimal security, and the Russians are saying, come on, we'll work with you to build a facility to destroy the weapons. The bottom line is this: the chemical weapons stored at Shchuch'ye represent a critical threat to U.S. security, and a cut to the President's request for this project is both unwise and unwarranted. My amendment also strikes several new restrictions imposed on the CTR program by the committee bill, found in sections 1303 through 1307. In section 1303, the Chairmans' mark creates an impossible hurdle for the work at Shchuch'ye or any other CTR project, by requiring that all permits ever needed over the lifespan of a CTR project be presented to Congress before more than 35 percent of the cost of the project can be obligated. There is literally no way for a planner or program manager to reliably envision each and every permit that might ever be needed to complete that project. Yet the committee mark says funding for any project, new or incomplete, stops at 35 percent of total cost until every permit is not only identified, but obtained. Our amendment restores the President's request by striking section 1303 and replacing it with a common sense proposal. I agree with Chairman Hunter that the Department of Defense needs to do a better job planning for the uncertainties that come with doing business in Russia. DOD testified on March 4 to the Armed Services Committee that they have taken specific measures to address the issue. Assistant Secretary J.D. Crouch told the committee DOD has ``instituted a program of semi-annual executive reviews with Russia to re-validate project plans, assumptions, and schedules on a regular basis,'' and noted that OSD has asked the DOD inspector general to review how CTR is organized, more broadly. The first phase of the IG review is already complete. That said, I understand that Congress needs visibility into potential problems, like the one at Votkinsk, and I have a proposal that will give us just that. My amendment would require annual notice to Congress of all permits ``expected to be required'' for completion of a project, and an annual status report on DOD efforts to obtain them. To ensure we get this information annually, with the budget submission, only 35 percent of funds for CTR projects would be available each year until DOD submits the report. This information will enable Congress to make wise decisions about specific CTR programs, without grinding important work to a halt, and is in keeping with the administration's request to Congress. Section 1304 of the bill adds another new restriction: it requires on-site managers at any Department of Energy nonproliferation project in the former Soviet Union. The administration opposes the requirement, and has noted that the cost, both in dollars and in diplomatic capital, of such a requirement could be prohibitive. In fact, DOE has noted that it already has strong oversight of its program activities in place, which includes frequent visits to sites, stringent contract access and work-performance requirements, and close cooperation with the U.S. Embassy and DOE Moscow Embassy Office. Section 1305 of the bill is not a fence, but it would undo an important administration request that the DOD be allowed to spend up to $50 million in prior year unobligated balances on WMD destruction outside the FSU, if such work becomes necessary. The committee bill mandates that if any such work is to be done, it be done by the State Department, with funds transferred from DOD to State. This is misguided policy, at odds with both the administration's request and a bipartisan effort last year to create such authority. Our amendment strikes section 1305 and restores the President's request. Another fence can be found in section 1306, which establishes new requirements for any work at biological weapons sites. The administration did not request oversight at this point, and new restrictions will likely only slow progress. Finally, section 1307(b) fences $100 million of the President's request for chemical weapons destruction at Shchuch'ye--that is, of what's left after the $29 million cut in the base bill--until Russia, or some other nation, puts up one-third of the total cost of the project. But our agreements with Russia for construction at Shchuch'ye require no such percentage-based contribution. Our agreement specifies a functional division of labor: Russia builds the infrastructure needed to manufacture a city next to nowhere in the Urals; we construct the chemical weapons destruction facility. According to DOD, Russia is meeting its financial obligation at Shchuch'ye, and further, is contributing a significant resources elsewhere to destroy other chemical munitions, including blister agents no housed at Shchuch'ye. The Congress already gets regular updates on funding and international contributions to Shchuch'ye. And the administration testified earlier this year before this committee that it does not need new oversight measures. Now, with Russia on board and the administration asking to accelerate work at the facility, is not the time to add new and unwarranted hurdle. Let me just conclude by saying again, the intent of our amendment is simply to uphold the administration's request. In terms of policy and funding, that is what the amendment does, with the modest exception the accountability provision I mentioned, which should equip Congress a good tool to enhance its already vigorous oversight of these programs. This amendment should win bipartisan support, and I hope rule No. 2 for this defense bill will make the Spratt-Schiff amendment in order.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there were 99 amendments filed to the defense authorization bill. Nine were made in order: six for Republicans, three for Democrats. Among those not made in order was an amendment that I offered along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) which would simply have restored this bill so that the President's request for cooperative threat reduction, our efforts better known as Nunn-Lugar to get rid of Russian nuclear materials, chemical weapons and biological weapons, could be fully funded and fully expressed, freed of some encumbrances entered into the bill in the committee mark and allowed to go forward basically and only as the President has requested. That is all we sought to do. But this is critically important because it addresses a particular facility in Russia called Schuch'ye which has maybe 75 percent of the deadliest chemical weapons, sarin and VX and other nerve agents, contained in Russia. We are right now at the threshold of beginning a project that would destroy those weapons, and this bill as now written without my amendment would hamstring and hinder the undertaking of that project. Mr. Speaker, I have served in the Congress for 21 years, and all these years I have served on the House Armed Services Committee. I am the second ranking Democrat on the committee. I do not suggest that time served or rank necessarily entitles a Member to be heard on the floor, but when a Member has a serious and substantive provision, there should surely be some deference, some comity. We have always extended it in the past. In the 20 years I have served there, it has been done. I think it has been understood in the past if we are to have good policy, we have to have good debate on the House floor. And when you stiff-arm good proposals, worthy ideas, when you shut us out, you do not just diminish me, the individual Member who would offer the amendment, you diminish the House of Representatives. That is exactly what you are doing here. My amendment is not as important as Nunn-Lugar, as the other amendments which have been addressed here, but it is important. We should have a right to be heard on this amendment, and we are diminishing the House. Every Member who respects this institution and has any sense of comity and fair play should vote against the previous question and against this rule.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us be clear, this is not a $550 billion tax cut. Take out the phony sunsets, the false expiration dates, and it is easily over a trillion dollars. By our calculation, the total impact of this tax package, of these tax cuts is $1 trillion 123 billion. Now, what happens when you force feed another $1 trillion 123 billion to the budget we have got, which is already in deficit? The surplus is gone. It adds dollar for dollar to the bottom line, and here is what happens to the bottom line. This is what you are doing if you vote up this budget, this tax cut today. The deficit this year in 2003 will go to $426 billion. The deficit next year in 2004 will go to $494 billion. Here is the calculation of it. You cannot see it from there, but come look at it and contest it if you disagree. From 2004 to 2013 the total amount of deficit that we will incur, this budget will incur over the next 10 years goes to $3 trillion 953 billion, and that is offsetting the deficits with the surpluses in Social Security. If you back out Social Security, if you put it in the lockbox, remember the lockbox, you know what happens. The total debt of the United States, the accumulated deficits over the next 10 years go to $6 trillion 521 billion. That is the legacy that you are leaving your children, our children, and this country if you vote for this tax cut today. That is the course you are putting us on. Now, here it is stated a different way. The bottom line on this curve shows you that the deficit drops to 3 to $400 billion and never comes out for the next 10 years. There is no recovery. It gets worse and worse if you put the country on this math. Now, you have to ask yourself is there a better way? Is there some way to do it better?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, when I was last up here on the rule, we had this chart here which shows what happens, the damage done to the deficit, to the bottom line. It is $426 billion this year, $494 billion, totalling $4 trillion over 10 years. I ask the question: Is there not a better way? Indeed, we had a better way. We had an alternative which, for no impact on the deficit long term, we could have added, according to the macroeconomic economic adviser's model, the same one they are using, 1 million new jobs stimulating the economy to that effect in calendar year 2003 for seven times the amount of money. For the $550 billion tax cut here, we only get 600,000 jobs. Why would they not at least allow us to come here in the well of this House, this free market, this forum for America, and present what is manifestly a better plan if we want to create jobs, twice as many jobs as their proposal will create, and it has no long-term effect on the budget? That is because what we are going to do here is start up the economy, but we are not going to increase the deficit and the idea is because that will stifle growth and kill jobs. We had a better plan, and they would not let us offer it. The question is why.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Well, this administration is digging deeper and deeper and deeper. As I said, do not take my word for it. We have our own budget shop. As someone earlier said, it is now run by a very able economist who came from the Bush administration. According to their projection of the President's budget, every year, if the President's budget is implemented, every year from 2003 through 2013 there will be a deficit. If we do not include the surplus in Social Security, there will be a deficit of over $400 billion. The cumulative deficit over that 10-year period of time, 2003 to 2013, if Social Security is not included, is $4.398 trillion. That is the Congressional Budget Office speaking, a neutral, nonpartisan agency.

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

Mr. SPRATT. The gentleman will search the budget the President sent us in vain for any such direction or inclination. There is no plan and no process for ridding ourselves of these perpetual deficits. Back out Social Security, as I think we must, and we will find, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that every year from 2003 through 2013 there is a deficit over $400 billion a year. When the Republicans brought their budget resolution to the House floor the night before we adjourned for the Easter break, 2 o'clock in the morning, we scrambled to go through it and understand it as much as we could. I never will forget finally coming upon page 93, page 93. It was a table summing up in their own figures the impact of the budget they were about to ram through the House in the early hours of that morning. It showed that the gross Federal debt this year will be $6.4 trillion. That is what it is today, because it is limited by statute at that level. By voting for that particular budget resolution, they voted automatically to raise the debt ceiling by $893 billion, and they voted to put in train a budget with tax cuts that will lead to a debt accumulation of $6 trillion over the next 10 years. The national debt, the gross national debt, subject to statutory limit, will grow from $6.4 trillion this year to $12.40 trillion in the year 2013. That is absolutely astounding, absolutely frightening, in my opinion, because I do not think the economy can possibly sustain that kind of increase in debt. Not only do we see additional tax cuts proposed in the face of rising deficits, deficits, once again, as far as the eye can see. But if the White House would simply call next door to the Treasury, they would find that we are right now at this moment experiencing a tax cut, a revenue reduction. Let me give the numbers, because last year we had one of the biggest fall-offs in revenues we have seen in recent history. This year we are seeing that trend repeated. Our budget office, the Congressional Budget Office, which is neutral and nonpartisan, projected the budget over the next year, next 10 years. They said this year in fiscal year 2003 they expected income taxes to be about $38 billion over last year, 2002. If we look at where we are thus far since April 15, or if we look at just until March 1, excuse me, we do not know April yet, we will find that the total tax take thus far this year is running $54 billion below last year, which means it is $92 billion below what CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, is projecting. Even though we are having this follow-up of another year on the heels of last year where we have a natural reduction due to the economy and the Tax Code, a realignment of revenues, the administration is still ignoring that and pushing ahead with a mammoth tax cut which can do only one thing: it will make the budget deficits that we see here projected on paper virtually engraved in stone. They will become so difficult to unwind, resolve, work out, that they will become all but intractable. I have seen that happen. I came here in 1983 when we were deep in deficits. The deficits were getting worse and worse and worse. But there is one factor now that is dramatically different from the 1980s. That is something called the baby boomers' retirement. Seventy-seven million baby boomers are marching to their retirement as we speak tonight. The first of them retires in 2008. By the time the peak retirement period is reached, the number of baby boomers on Social Security and Medicare will swell to 80 million, twice today's level of beneficiaries. It will change the budget demographically in ways we have only begun to imagine. What we should be doing now is saving, not dissaving. That is what deficits are, it is dissaving, reaching into the private capital pool and spending that money that should be saved in preparation for facts, demographic facts that are going to occur when the baby boomers retire. We have a package which we have presented since January and will present again next week which would stimulate the economy. If there is any case to be made now for cutting taxes, it would be to try to give this economy, this sluggish, slumping economy, some kind of a kick, some kind of a boost so we can put people back to work. Once they go back to work, it will make it easier for us to deal with some of these budget problems. We have put forth a proposal which does that. But we do not need long-term, permanent tax cuts that have out-year consequences that mortgage the future. We can simply have a tax cut that is focused on 2003, the here and now, when we have the problem. We have proposed such a tax cut: rebates to individual taxpayers, an immediate write-off of plant and equipment for businesses large and small, going after all sectors of the economy, trying to give the economy a boost. For one-seventh the cost we get, according to well- established economic models, twice the effect in resulting jobs in the first year from our economic proposal, and we do not have any out-year consequences. We simply do something on a one-time basis. We give the economy a boost, get it going again; and we do not have any out-year consequences. As a result, we accumulate about $1 trillion, 400 billion less in debt in the budget we propose than the Republicans propose. What they are proposing is not necessary, by any means. It worsens our problem. That is why we are here tonight, to talk about a problem that very much needs to be understood by the American public.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues can surmise, we are here tonight because my Republican colleagues have put another round of tax cuts on a fast track. In fact, by next week, early next week there may be what we call a markup of a bill we have yet to see in the Committee on Ways and Means. Within 24 hours after that markup, that bill may be on the House floor for fast track consideration, probably not amendable. And, in the blink of an eye, we could very well adopt another round of tax reduction equal to $500 billion to $600 billion even more, a reduction in the budget rammed through this House. We have already seen taxes cut by $1.35 trillion. That happened in June of 2001. That was a historic tax cut, given its size. Let us just ask, what are the results of that tax cut? Well, let us look at the economy today, barely eking out positive growth at 1 percent to 1.3 percent annual growth, barely growing, 2.5 million jobs in the private sector lost since January of 2001, 4 million Americans have literally quit looking for jobs, the unemployment rate is between 5.8 and 6 percent; but that is only because 4 million people since 2001 have dropped out of the job pool, quit looking for a job. All of this, and we had a tax cut which the administration said we needed to boost the economy. Where is the boost? Where is the economy? What were the effects? The main effect was on the bottom line of the budget. We had the budget, when President Bush came to office, in the best shape in a generation. In 2000, the year 2000, the budget ran a surplus of $236 billion. It is hard to imagine today, 3 short years later, 2003, because today, all we have are debts as far as the eye can see. In 2001, when President Bush came to office, his Office of Management and Budget, his budget shop said we foresee surpluses equaling $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. And on the basis of that estimate, despite our warnings that it was an inflated estimate, that there were storm clouds gathering over the economy that made us a blue sky estimate at best, he went ahead with a tax cut of $1.35 trillion; and today, the surplus is gone. Do not take my word for it. When the President sent his budget up this year, this year, OMB, the Office of Management and Budget said, the surplus over the same period that we projected 2 years ago, 2002 to 2011, the cumulative surplus over that period is no longer $5.6 trillion as we thought back in 2001. Today, it is $2.4 trillion. Now, that is still a big number, $2.4 trillion; but here is the bad news. OMB went on to say, and of that $2.4 trillion, Congress and the President have already committed $2.5 trillion. So we start the year in the hole, despite the fact that we had a budget surplus in 2000, the year 2000 for the first time in 30 years, we are now back in the soup, back in the red, deep in deficit; and the deficits are getting worse. So what does the administration order up for these dire circumstances? In the face of rising deficits, we no longer have a surplus. There is nothing that will mitigate tax cuts that may be offered now. In the face of these circumstances, the President is proposing more of the same: additional tax cuts, tax cuts in his proposal with his budget this year of $1.45 trillion and a budget, as I said, that is in deficit. There is no surplus anymore out of which to offset or mitigate those tax cuts.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me make it clear to the gentleman, my good friend, the chairman of the committee, in the budget resolution we presented to the House, at the end of the year 2013, which is the last year in the 10-year time frame, our budget produced $1.3 trillion less debt than theirs, $1.3 trillion less debt. We laid it before the House. We got to a balanced budget, a unified balance in 2010. You do not get to one in this budget until 2012, and then it is only $9 billion. Any kind of turbulence in the economy would undo that. There is a drastic difference between the two, and that is one of the reasons we were proud to present our budget resolution, to show there is an alternative. This is not a necessary course of action. This is self-inflicted pain by your insistence on doing $1.2 trillion in additional tax cuts when there is no more surplus and that automatically increases the debt by $1.2 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to my good friend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) by saying in 1990 when we did the budget summit with President Bush and passed it, do you recall who put the votes on the board to pass that? It was not your side. In the second vote, only 80 Republicans voted for President Bush's budget summit agreement. That laid the foundation for what happened in the 1990s. In 1993 we put every vote on the board by one to pass the Clinton budget, and every year thereafter the budget deficit declined for 8 straight years, to the point where in 2000 the budget was in surplus by $236 billion. We also came together in a bipartisan way on the balanced budget agreement of 1997, with President Clinton solidly supporting it. It never would have worked otherwise. So three times with tough votes we bellied up to this problem. And we took the deficit of $290 billion the last full fiscal year of the Bush administration and turned it into a surplus of $236 billion. I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), we put the votes on the board to make that happen. That is a fact, an undisputable fiscal fact. Let me in closing say how far we have come in the wrong direction in the last 2 years. We have got a chance tonight to turn this ship around by voting down this budget resolution. Two years ago we were talking about paying off all the debt held by the public by the year 2008. Now we have raised the debt ceiling, with the passage of this resolution, twice since then. Vote for this resolution and you will vote to raise the debt ceiling $984 billion, and, between now and 2013, to raise the debt ceiling to $12,040,000,000,000. That is a fact that comes from your numbers. That is how far we have come, and that is where we are headed, unless you make a decision tonight to take a different course. I would plead with you. I will say it again and again and again, what we are seeing here are decisions about to be made that will be awfully difficult to undo. Your own numbers forewarn you. They tell the tale. Your on-budget deficit will not get below $300 billion. It is as high as $500 billion. You accumulate $5 trillion to $6 trillion in debt and add it to the national debt over the next 10 years. These are not my concoctions or fabrications. These are your own numbers that tell the tale of what is about to happen. Two years ago you took a blue sky estimate and bet the budget on it. It turned out wrong. Unfortunately, you are not chastened by that experience. But I am willing to say you made a mistake, an honest mistake. But now you cannot claim that this is an honest mistake, because OMB and CBO both told you there is no more surplus, so any tax cut you pass tonight, and you are going for another $1.2 trillion, will go straight to the bottom line. It will add to the deficit. Two years ago it was possibly negligence. Tonight, if you pass this budget resolution, it is willful, wanton and intentional. You are adding to the deficit by direct policy choice. This is your fiscal policy that leads us to the disastrous consequences that are set forth on page two of your tables and charts. $12 trillion in national debt is where we are headed if we adopt this resolution tonight. Your numbers. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this is why legislation of this consequence should not be brought up at 1:30 in the morning with no prior notice. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would say that on both sides of the aisle the staff are the unseen players in this process. They make an enormous effort, and we have a good working relationship on this committee, which we prize because we have mutual respect. I would like to pay tribute to my staff who put a herculean effort to get this budget resolution on the floor through all the processes it has to go. First, to my very able and loyal and energetic chief of staff, Tom Kahn; to Joe Minarik, who is our chief economist and is widely experienced; to Jim Klumpner, who is also an excellent economist on our staff; to Sheila McDowell; to Kimberly Overbeek, who is super with the numbers; to Andrea Weathers; to Linda Bywaters; to Arthur Burris, who is indefatigable; to Sarah Abernathy; and to Pepper Santalucia. I am looking at Antonio Santalucia and Pepper would not come to me. To some new additions to our staff: Mike McCord, who does defense work; Jennifer Friedman, who came over from OMB; Diana Meredith and Andy Smallian, a great group of people, a great team effort and very professional staff. And last but not least, Lisa Venus, who has been with us for several years who is assistant counsel and a very, very able staff member who was here on the floor with us tonight. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity to pay tribute to my staff and to the effort they put in to making the budget process work this year.

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

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a conference report, but everyone should understand there has been no conference in which the House or Senate Democrats have had any role or any part whatsoever. This conference report comes to the floor in the same spirit, under a cram-down rule. Take it or leave it, here it is, a conference report that will spend $2.2 trillion, one-fifth of our gross national product, which we have had less than 30 minutes to look over, 30 minutes to give the most cursory sort of examination to. The rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, prohibit such unseemly haste when things are this important. The rules of the House require that a budget report of this kind lay over for at least 1 day before being called up. But our Republican colleagues, by this martial law rule, would take a chain saw to the rules of the House. That is why this is called a martial law rule, it brooks no dissent. It mows right over the speed brakes we have set up to make sure that our decisions made here in the great House of Representatives of the United States are made carefully and deliberately and thoughtfully. This rule rips up those cautionary measures, those speed brakes, so that this budget resolution can be railroaded through this House. Mr. Speaker, I choose my words carefully. That is what is happening here tonight in the cloak of darkness when this $2.2 trillion budget resolution is being brought up. This resolution shows a disdain, indeed a contempt, for the process of deliberative government which we are all sworn to defend. It says, essentially, the majority has made up its mind; the minority should get out of the way. There is a reason for this unseemly haste. It is not that we are about to go on the Easter vacation and do not have enough time to get it done tomorrow. No, that is not the reason we are pushing this thing, railroading this budget through the House. The real reason is that it will not bear scrutiny. Republicans do not want a lengthy debate because it would reveal that this budget will raise the national debt by $5 trillion, more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years. That is right, this budget will raise the national debt from $6 trillion to $11 trillion over the next 10 years. Everybody who votes for it should understand that this budget entails deficits of that size, debt accumulation of that amount. It raises the national debt of the United States from just over $5 trillion to over $11 trillion over the next 10 years. Those are the plain consequences of it. That is the arithmetic of this budget resolution. There is no way around it. That is why it is being railroaded through here. There is another reason, I think, that our colleagues on the other side do not want this budget debated. This budget is their economic policy. Their economic policy will not stand scrutiny. The economy is sagging, the number of jobs is decreasing, and rather than propose a budget that deals with these problems, they are bending the rules, they are distorting the process, they are doing whatever it takes to pass another round of tax cuts almost as large as the last round, which will go primarily to the wealthy and will drive deficits out of sight. The objective is obvious: it is to pass this budget as quickly as possible and cut off debate before people realize the contents and, even worse, the consequences. When they adopt a rule like this, Mr. Speaker, they diminish the minority and the role we play as the loyal minority, adversaries, ferreting out problems, thoughtfully going through major decisions like this. They diminish our role. When they diminish my role and my colleagues' role, they do not diminish us or our party, but they diminish this great institution called the House of Representatives. They take that well, which should be a forum for ideas, a crucible where we grind out great policies for the good of this country, and they stifle debate, they cut off debate, they truncate debate. When they do that, they do not just cut us off, they stifle this institution, this great institution. They violate the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, this resolution should be defeated by every thoughtful, respectful Member who respects the prerogatives of this House. We should not be taking this matter up in such haste and we should not be taking it up without an opportunity to see it. We should not be rushing this through, railroading it through to passage. This is the wrong way to deal with a matter of such gravity, a budget that will spend $2.2 trillion. Some would say, spend it in such a fashion and provide for tax cuts that will leave us with deficits that are almost intractable for the foreseeable future, well into the future, and will accumulate nearly $6 trillion of debt over the next 10 years.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, for the record and for clarity, we only got this document minutes before coming to the floor. It is hundreds of pages long; but if you turn to about page 70, you will see just for clarity our debt limit now is $6.4 trillion. Vote for this resolution and you will raise that to 7.384 trillion, 984 billion in 1 year. Over the next 10 years, the deficits entailed by this budget resolution will require the debt ceiling to be raised to $12.040 trillion. Those are your numbers in your resolution, and that is what you will be voting for if you vote to adopt this budget resolution.

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