John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, that is the very point we are trying to make. The fund as it is is overobligated from beneficiary expectations, so we are simply saying, do not overload another obligation on top of a fund that is already short of meeting its scheduled obligations.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Trust Fund is currently slated to become insolvent in 2028 or 2029. Social Security, fortunately, could last until 2038, 2039, for 10 more years. So the Medicare Trust Fund is intended, for the same reason, to sequester these funds, to confine them for use for Medicare; and we have reached certainly an accord on both sides of the aisle, both Houses and the White House as to Social Security, and I think the same logic applies to Medicare. It is not an idle concern. We have a handout, if anyone cares to see it, and they will see that under the House resolution, as early as 2005 by our calculation, that resolution will take us back into the Medicare Trust Fund. The Senate resolution is even worse. By our calculation, in 2002 the Senate resolution would lead us into the trust fund to the tune of $11 billion, that soon, and we will be invading the trust fund in Medicare again.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is correct.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is correct.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, just in response, what we are trying to do here is make a decision as to which is better. The Senate had a choice. They could do more for tax cuts and less for education, or more for education and less for tax cuts. They decided to do substantially more for education. By the same token, they decided to adequately fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) to talk about double counting and overobligation of the Medicare Trust Fund.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, basically this is what this motion to instruct does: The Senate has added $300 billion to education. We say go as far as you can, conferees, as far as feasible in the direction of the Senate's plus-up for education. Secondly, the Senate has provided $147 billion to the $153 billion provided in the House for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is the minimum amount that will actually provide the benefit. We say adopt the Senate provision. Thirdly, we say as to Medicare, do not double count. Do not take these overobligated underfunded trust funds and use them for new obligation. Take the money out of the general fund to provide for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. If one is for education, if one is for Medicare prescription drugs, if one is for making Medicare sound and solvent far into the future, one should vote for the motion to instruct conferees because that is what it does.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to explain the motion. Mr. Speaker, this motion has four purposes. First of all, it says to the conferees on the budget resolution, go as close as they can to what the Senate provided for education. Basically, the House resolution endorses and puts forth the President's budget. The President's budget provides an increase in education next year, fiscal year 2002, of 5.8 percent. That is an increase, but it pales in comparison with last year where the increase was 18 percent and the last 5 years over which the increase in education has averaged 13 percent. The Senate, given a choice, a choice we did not have here on the House floor, between a higher tax cut and less for education, opted to do more for education on four different occasions. As a consequence, their plus-up for education over and above the President's baseline budget is nearly $300 billion. We are simply saying go as far as they feasibly can toward the Senate on education. Secondly, with respect to Medicare, and in particular with respect to Medicare prescription drugs, the President's proposal again was to put $147 billion out for the next 10 years to provide for a temporary helping-hand benefit and eventually to have some kind of benefit possibly integrated with Medicare. Over 10 years the amount he provided for this purpose was $147 billion, but when that proposal came from the House and to the Senate, Members in both bodies said it is totally unrealistic. It will not even get Medicare prescription drugs off the ground. The Senate, once again, had a choice. They had an amendment on the Senate floor. The Senate plussed-up its allocation for Medicare prescription drugs to $300 billion, a minimum amount that is realistic to provide for a decent benefit. We say go to the Senate, be realistic, be faithful to their commitments about providing prescription drug coverage under Medicare; provide the full amount that the Senate allocates in its budget resolution. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we say with respect to funding that new benefit, this money should not come out of the Medicare part A trust fund. It is already obligated, over-obligated, scheduled to run short of funds in the second decade of this century. Rather than putting another obligation on funds that are already short and over-obligated, we think that the funding for the Medicare prescription drug benefit should come from the general fund of the Treasury and not from the hospital insurance trust fund of Medicare. That is what this budget resolution provides. Take the money out of the general fund to pay for Medicare prescription benefits so that the HI trust fund is not made insolvent any sooner. Finally, we say as to the HI trust fund, the hospital insurance trust fund generally, protect it. Go to the language that we passed here on the House floor, where we said that Medicare should be treated just the same as the Social Security surpluses; that is to say, it will be used only for benefits provided under those two programs, and in the meantime to buy up outstanding debt in which the trust fund surpluses will be invested. This is not an idle concern. The President's budget came to us claiming that it had unprecedented reserve funds or contingency funds. In one place it says it is providing a contingency fund of a $1.2 trillion. Towards the end, that contingency fund is whittled down to $842 billion. When one looks more closely at the $842 billion, they find that of that amount $526 billion comes from the consolidation of what is left over with what is in the surplus, the surplus accumulating and the HI trust fund. Those two numbers add up to $842 billion. We say that the contingency fund should not include the Medicare trust funds. In keeping with the resolution that this House passed by an overwhelming margin, that money should be confined exclusively to Medicare. Mr. Speaker, these are the four principles that we raise in our motion to the conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is this: From 1982 to 1992, we increased the national debt of this country, which we will leave to our children, by more than $4 trillion. It is time we paid some of that off, and the budget we brought to the floor would have done that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. SPRATT. The difference is, the surplus is----

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to the gentleman before yielding to the gentleman from Florida. Let me make clear that this budget passed by the House provided a 5.8 percent increase for fiscal year 2002 in education. In over 10 years, the President's budget, which was basically endorsed, provides just above the rate of inflation. Now, 5.8 percent is an increase, but it is less than half the increase of last year and less than half the increase of the last 5 years, and less than a third of the increase of last year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Let me say in response to the gentleman's statement about the bite the government is taking out of our economy. In 1984, 1985, the peak of the Reagan years, the government was consuming 23.5 percent of the national pie known as GDP, gross domestic product. Peak of the Reagan years, 23.5 percent of GDP being consumed by the government. Today, under this budget, the budget we have this year, which is the Clinton administration budget, less than 18\1/2\ percent of our GDP is devoted to government spending. That is five full percentage points, five full percentage points less than in the peak of the Reagan years. In addition, let me clarify where we are with respect to education. The President came here to this House and made his State of the Union. He said the account plussed-up by the most in our budget will be education, 11.4 percent. Our spirits were lifted. We got the budget and started looking at it, started dissecting it; and we saw that he was claiming for his increase for next year $2.1 billion that the House appropriated last year for 2002. When we back that out, because he is not providing, it was previously provided, when we back that out, we saw that the increase was 5.8 percent. As I have said, 5.8 percent is an increase; I will grant one that. But it is nothing compared to last year, 18 percent. It is nothing compared to the last 5 years, 13 percent. Furthermore, when the Senate had an opportunity, amendment by amendment, to add to education, they added through four amendments $300 billion. When we say in this motion to instruct conferees provide the maximum feasible funding for education, we also say within the scope of conference, the text of the resolution. What does that mean? Get as close to that $300 billion increase as you possibly can. We will not dictate it in numerical terms. But within the scope of conference, that means you can go up to $300 billion plus-up in education, provide the maximum feasible funding for education.

Mr. SPRATT. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House who served with Representative Robin Tallon of South Carolina should know that on January 28, 2001, his father passed away. Robert M. Tallon was 78, and died of a heart attack while doing what he loved, bird hunting in South Carolina. Bob Tallon was an airborne infantryman in World War II, one of those soldiers of whom it was said, ``uncommon valor was a common virtue.'' As a staff sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division, Bob Tallon fought his way from Sicily up the boot of Italy. After waging some of the fiercest fighting of the war in Italy, he parachuted with the 82nd into Holland as part of the bloody operation that Cornelius Ryan immortalized in ``A Bridge Too Far,'' and fought his way from Remagen into the Rhineland. Bob Tallon came home with his chest full of medals, including Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. Though worthy of being called a hero, he never thumped his chest or boasted of his valor. He lived his life with the quiet abiding confidence that he had served his country and done his duty. Though he distinguished himself as a soldier, Bob Tallon's finest accomplishment in life was in marrying Mary Williamson Tallon, a school teacher and a dear woman loved by all who know her. Indeed, anyone who has met Bob and Mary Tallon understands how Robin Tallon got his affable personality and affinity for politics. In addition to Robin, our former colleague, Bob and Mary Tallon had another son, Terry, and a daughter, Cameron. Bob Tallon returned home from the war to Dillon County, South Carolina, and became President of Tomlinson Stores. He was a mainstay in the Methodist Church and a pillar of the community, involved in every good cause from the Lions Club to the Hospice Society. Though Bob Tallon lived most of his life within the radius of Dillon, a small town in South Carolina, he lived the kind of life that made this country great. As President Clinton said at Anzio of his own father who also fought in Italy, ``They made possible the world we live in.''

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of total repeal of the estate tax now for 99.5 percent of all estates; all Americans who may die, 99.5 percent. This means repeal today, not 10 years from now. That means the family businessmen, the family farmer for whom they profess so much concern, they bring them forth when they present their case, will be exonerated, sheltered from estate tax; and not only that, he or she will get stepped-up basis on all of the assets. The heirs will take the assets with an investment basis equal to the value at date of death, which means when they settle that value, there will be no capital gains. Under the Republicans' bill, all assets over $1.3 million will have a carryover basis; not a stepped-up basis, a carryover basis. On both scores, this bill, this substitute, is manifestly, unquestionably better for the people they are professing so much concern for, small business people and family farmers. This is the way to vote: Total repeal for 99.5 percent of all decedents.