John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me this opportunity. Since January, when the budget first began emerging from the White House, through last night, our staff, which is a small staff because we are the minority staff, has worked diligently and really performed Herculean efforts to stay on top of the budget, and I could not ask for more and the House could not either. My chief of staff is Tom Kahn. Richard Kogan is our policy director. Hugh Brady, Susan Warner, Lisa Irving, Jim Klumpner, Sarah Abernathy, Andrea Weathers, Sheila McDowell, Linda Bywaters, Sandy Clark, Kimberly Overbeek, Pepper Santalucia, Sarah Day, an intern from Winthrop College, and Joseph Ortiz. As I said, they have put in Herculean efforts, wonderful work on the budget; and without them we simply could not have mounted the arguments that we have on the floor. I thank the gentleman very much for giving me the opportunity to recognize them for their wonderful work.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to recognize my staff, just as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), has, before we go to the vote.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again let me inform the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that we in committee we did not offer a resolution. We brought our resolution to the floor, and it had $40 billion over 5 years; $150 billion over 10 years for prescription drug coverage; and it was in reconciliation, mandates to the Committee on Ways and Means, with a date certain for getting it done. When we were in committee marking up their budget resolution, we took their iffy, mushy language and we said let us convert this to a mandate, let us send it to the Committee on Ways and Means, and we offered to make it reconciliation language and they refused it. They rejected it in committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his compliments, but I would point out that a tax cut that precludes us from obtaining the very priorities they set out in their budget is potentially an irresponsible tax cut. A tax cut, which we showed here in the well of the House, which would take us perilously close to invading social security again surely is not one that we want to undertake. Yet, we are concerned that the gentleman's resolution leads us in that very direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am offering this motion to instruct the House conferees on the budget resolution, basically to say to the conferees, let us put the Medicare drug prescription benefit first and foremost, ahead of everything else. Let us do it ahead of the tax cuts. Let us put it on a priority schedule, let us go first with it. Just today we read in the newspaper that Medicare beneficiaries who do not have drug coverage typically pay at least 15 percent more than those who have the benefit of insurance. I have the experience just a week or two ago with visiting a pharmacist in my district who by mistake had received a billing from an HMO intended for an HMO in Atlanta, Georgia. And when he opened it up, he saw what the HMO was paying for drugs like Zocor and Vasotec and Cumadin, as opposed to what he was paying, and the difference between what he was paying and charging his customers at his pharmacy and what the HMO was paying was as much as 65 or 70 percent in favor of the HMO in certain cases. That is not right. Mr. Speaker, when we combine that with the fact that drug costs are going up at a rate that is two or three times the rate of the increase in health care generally and the elderly, those over 65 and on Medicare have a greater need for prescription drug benefits than anybody else, we have a crisis on our hands. One cannot go to any senior citizen center in my district, and I dare say this is true across America, without having someone relate some really sad and affecting story about their problem with obtaining prescription drug benefits. We just had a study done by Boston University School of Public Health, they found that a significant fraction of the prescriptions that are written by doctors for their Medicare patients are never filled, they cannot afford it. This is a problem that is not only pressing, it is becoming urgent. We need to deal with it now. Before we turn to tax cuts, before we turn to other major budget decisions, we should put this one first and foremost and try to fit it into our budget. In our budget, the Democratic budget, we did it the standard and time-honored way. We said let us have reconciliation directions to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce, the two committees with jurisdiction, and tell them, ``By a date certain, get your act together. Here is $40 billion for the first 5 years, $155 billion for the second 5 years; within the limits of these resources, report to the floor a prescription drug benefit that will begin to take effect next year for Medicare beneficiaries.'' That is the way to do it. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) chose a less compelling way of doing it. He put $40 billion in a trust fund, so-to-speak, a reserve fund, and said if the Committee on Ways and Means is able to come up with a bill that reforms Medicare structurally or does Medicare reform, then it can also use this $40 billion to report a drug bill. I would have preferred and did prefer something much more compelling than that, but at least the gentleman put the $40 billion on the table. The Senate has done something similar. What we are saying now is let us not just do this for show, let us not just do this to tantalize the elderly citizens in our district with the prospect of getting prescription drug coverage. Let us do it in earnest. We can do it right now by passing a motion to instruct our conferees to go to conference and say to the conferees, prescription drug coverage will come first, and principally this will come first ahead of tax cuts. One of the problems I have with the Republican budget resolution is it puts tax cuts first and foremost, ahead of everything else. Now, our budget resolution provided for $50 billion in net tax cuts in the first 5 years, and $201 billion over the 10-year period of time. We are for tax reduction and tax relief too, but we also had other priorities that we wanted to serve, and not to do tax cuts to the exclusion of those. The problem we had with their resolution as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) presented it, their budget resolution, the tax cut could easily go up to $250 billion over the next 5 years. We showed by charts in the well of the House, if it went that high, if it went over $200 billion, we not only could not fund the $40 billion for the prescription drug benefit, you would risk putting the Social Security trust fund in danger again. We are saying, put the tax cuts second. Do the prescription drugs first. Get in earnest about prescription drug coverage. Do that, and then by a date certain, report your tax bill to the floor; and we will take it up in due course. But, in first course, let us do prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct the conferees on the budget resolution.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman has done is, with his charts there, he has set up a straw man. He has attacked a budget that was never before the House. The minority side's budget, the Democratic side's budget, called for $40 billion beginning in 2001 for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And not only that, to say it once again, we did it the good old-fashioned way that worked. We said to the Committee on Ways and Means, by a date certain, here is $40 billion. Report out, bring to the floor a resolution, a bill that will provide prescription drug coverage. They did not have that kind of language in their resolution. Theirs was totally iffy. That is what we are trying to do here today, stiffen the resolve of the conferees and see to it that we do indeed get some legislation that will provide a drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This whole debate began when the President sent us a budget and said let us do prescription drug coverage; there is a gaping hole in the comprehensive care we ought to provide in Medicare. And I absolutely agree with that. When the Republicans brought their resolution to the Committee on the Budget, they provided for prescription drug coverage in an iffy conditional kind of way. The usual procedure in a budget resolution, the one tool we have to get something done on the Committee on the Budget, is to impose reconciliation instructions on the committees of jurisdiction, to tell them by a date certain to report out language to the House floor so that we can act upon the purpose that we have set for ourselves. We, in our resolution on the Democratic side, did just that. We resorted to the time-honored tool of reconciliation and said to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the Committee on Commerce, reconcile the budget; here is $40 billion for the first 5 years, $155 billion over the next 10 years, establish a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. That is all we want to do today. We want to take this iffy, mushy language now in this resolution and stiffen it up. We want to stiffen the spine and resolve of the conferees and tell them, go to conference determined to see that the first order of business of this House is not tax cuts, it is a prescription drug benefit. Then they can turn to tax cuts. We do not rule that out. We provide in our budget resolution for tax reduction of $50 billion over the next 5 years, $201 billion over the next 10 years, and we say in this resolution recede to the Senate tax proposal, which is $147 billion. Why do we say that? Because, Mr. Speaker, going back to a chart I used repeatedly when we argued this resolution, we think that the other side is coming perilously close to putting us in the position of being back in the red, back into the Social Security surplus once again. The budget resolution the Republicans brought to the floor produces, according to their numbers, a surplus of $110 billion over 5 years, provided they can hold discretionary spending below the rate of inflation to the tune of $117 billion over 5 years. A very big proviso. But if they then go from a $150 billion tax cut to a $200 billion tax cut, that $110 billion is reduced by 50. And then if they do the prescription drug benefit at 40, they take another 50 off. They are down to a $110 billion surplus over the next 5 years. By our calculation, Mr. Speaker, they will have a $10 billion surplus next year, but every year thereafter they will have a zero surplus. They are skating on thin ice. They are putting us in danger of invading the Social Security surplus again. And when that crunch comes, prescription drug coverage will never get done. That is why we say do it first. Now, this is simply a test of their sincerity. If they are earnest, if they are sincere, if they really want to do prescription drugs, vote for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include the following chart for the Record:

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) by saying that if he has a $250 billion-plus tax cut instead of $147 billion, which is what the Senate has proposed, that is $103 billion less debt reduction and $103 billion less to work with, fewer resources to work with to provide for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and that is what this debate is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand). (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on this side.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, shortly the House will pass a $12.6 billion supplemental appropriation bill. I guess it will pass. The House should understand that this bill, this supplemental, breaches the spending levels that were set just last week when we passed the House Republican budget resolution passed. During the debate of the budget resolution, we tried to point out that the Republican resolution assumed 5-year spending cuts of $117 billion, which we did not believe that the Congress, under Democrats or Republicans, was likely to make or would make based on past experience. The supplemental appropriations bill the House will adopt is $4.1 million in budget authority above the funding level that was assumed just last week in the House budget resolution. And since the extra spending is not fully offset, the surplus for fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001, and fiscal year 2002 will be lower. We had a chart on the House floor last week. We have not been able to blow it up again. We do not have the equipment that they do. I have it run on a single 8\1/2\ by 11 page. It picks up where we left off when I was trying to say last week that if we assume that we do the Medicare prescription drug benefit, 45 billion over 5, 155 billion over 10, and you do what you said you were going to do and pass a $200 billion tax cut, that you would soon be back into Social Security. Well, there were objections on that side saying we were not distributing the actual revenue losses due to the tax cut properly. So we said give us the numbers. Give us the numbers. We got the numbers, and we have run the numbers. We have added in this particular bill that we are about to pass, this supplemental, and here is how it distributes. Pass this and pass the budget resolution, enact the resolution that we did last week, and the surplus this year will go to $4.9 billion. Next year, a surplus of $15 billion will go to $7.8 billion. In 2002, pass the budget resolution we did last week, pass this supplemental, factor in the results, in 2002 we are $541 million in deficit. In 2003, we are $172 million in deficit. This is using your numbers and your assumptions and your budget resolutions. In 2004, we are $68 million in deficit. That is where this takes us, if we also pass the budget resolution. If Members voted for the Republican budget resolution last week, and if they vote for the supplemental today, these numbers, your numbers, clearly say we are headed straight into the Social Security surplus. That is where it takes us. Purely arithmetic. These are the consequences of having this ad hoc resolution on the floor and of having a budget resolution which, frankly, is not realistic. Mr. Chairman, I am not contesting the validity of items in this supplemental. I support many of them and will probably vote for it. But I am contesting the validity of the budget resolution and the assumption that we can do the things that we did last week, because it did not factor in the things that we are doing this week. Who in this House, who in this House thinks that the $1.6 billion, or whatever it is we are providing for Colombia, is a nonrecurring item that we will wipe the problem out with this one-time allotment? Who thinks that these adjustments in military pay to get around the food stamps problem and base housing will not recur again or that we will not have the O&M requirements again in the future? My colleagues have understated discretionary spending in their resolution; and based upon that understatement, they projected a tax cut that is simply not sustainable. If my colleagues do that, let me repeat it again, if my colleagues who voted for the Republican budget resolution last week, and if my colleagues vote today for this supplemental, according to our calculation and their numbers, they will be back in deficit in a year's time, back into Social Security.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, early last Friday, the House passed the Republican budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2001 by all of 4 votes. Today, the Republican leadership overrides it. If this rule passes, the House will take up a supplemental appropriations bill that, with likely amendments, is $4 billion above the spending level assumed in the budget resolution the House just passed. Since the extra cost will not be offset, the budget surplus for 200 will drop and so will the surplus for 2001. In fact, by our calculation, this supplemental, along with other actions already taken or likely to be taken, will reduce the on- budget surplus this year from $26.5 billion to $4.9 billion. Last week, when the House debated the budget resolution, we predicted that over ten years, the Republican budget would spend all of the non-Social Security surplus and $68 billion of the Social Security surplus. We pointed out how the Republican resolution assumed spending cuts of $117 billion over five years, cuts we doubted Congress would make. And if those unrealistic cuts weren't made, we warned that you would dig even more into the Social Security surplus. We were convinced that this resolution would be overridden by more spending, as were the budget resolutions in 1999 and 1998, but we never thought you would do it in less than a week. I readily agree that this bill contains funds for national defense and domestic priorities that are important. I am not contesting the validity of most of these items. I am contesting the validity of your budget resolution, for this supplemental shows that your spending levels are a sham. A few days ago, you were calling for draconian spending cuts. Now you are asking for dramatic increases, $12.5 billion in one year, much more than the President requested. The President requested $2.2 billion for non-defense programs for the supplemental. The bill reported out of committee takes that request up to $3.2 billion, an increase of almost 50 percent. About $600 million of this $1.0 billion uses fiscal year 2000 funding to buy fiscal year 2001 items: $282 million for domestic electronic surveillance of drug activities, and $318 million for anti-drug efforts in Columbia. For defense, the President requested a supplemental of $2.3 billion. The bill the committee reported more than doubles that to $5.2 billion. The Spence-Lewis amendment would add $4.0 billion to that. Much of this would use fiscal year 2000 money to buy fiscal year 2001 items, easing the strain on 2001. But many of the defense adds are recurring costs, such as defense health care funding and spare parts and maintenance for weapon systems like Apache helicopters and Navy ships. By making this add, Republicans are disavowing the spending level for defense specified in last week's budget resolution, and not just for 2001. In all probability, Congress will have to continue appropriating these additional sums in future years. Does anyone here honestly believe that this is a one-time request for Colombia? This supplemental is a clever way to turn the flank of the resolution passed last week. It's a scheme that allows Congress to pay some fiscal year 2001 costs using fiscal year 2000 money. I understand the need. But if Republicans find the 2001 spending levels too tight, how will you find the spending levels in 2002, when the discretionary spending cuts get deeper? And at the same time the spending cuts get deeper, the tax cuts get larger. What does this portend for Social Security? Will you be forced to tap even more into the Social Security surplus? This supplemental shows that the Republican budget is not serious. Until Congress has passed a conference report with realistic spending levels and responsible tax cuts, we should hold this supplemental in abeyance.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning, the House passed the Republican budget resolution by all of four votes. Today, the Republican leadership would override it because if this rule passes, the House will take up and probably pass a supplemental appropriations bill that, with amendments, will put spending $4 billion above the level assumed in the budget resolution we passed just days ago. And since the extra costs will not be offset, the budget surplus for 2000 will drop and so will the budget surplus for 2001. Indeed, by our calculation, this supplemental, together with other activities, actions already or likely to be passed will reduce the surplus, the on-budget surplus for this year from $26.5 billion to $5.1 billion. Last week when the House debated the budget resolution, we predicted that over 10 years the Republican resolution which passed would spend all of the non-Social Security surplus and $68 billion of the Social Security surplus. We pointed out that the resolution assumed discretionary spending cuts of $117 billion over 5 years which we seriously doubted Congress would ever make; and if those cuts were not made, we predicted that you would have to dig even deeper into Social Security. We were convinced that eventually this resolution would be overridden as it was in 1999 and again in 1998, but we never thought you would do it in less than a week. Now, I readily agree that this bill contains funds for national defense and domestic priorities that are important. I am not contesting the validity of most of these items. I am making a stronger point. I think this supplemental shows that the budget resolution adopted just days ago contains spending levels for discretionary spending that are a sham. Last week you were calling for Draconian spending cuts. This week you are calling for dramatic increases, $12.5 billion this year. Granted this spending is for this year alone but it is bound to have recurring effects. I cannot believe that what we are doing for Colombia will end this year. I cannot believe that the spare parts we are buying now for 2001 will not be needed next year. We need a realistic budget resolution. I think we should hold in abeyance this supplemental until we come back from conference with a budget resolution that is realistic and it recognizes the costs that we are surely going to incur as this supplemental points out.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself enough time to answer one question the gentleman put to me with respect to fire personnel and emergency personnel. This budget, the base budget, cuts FEMA, the account in which FEMA is included, function 450, by $2.8 billion between this year and next year, and over 5 years by $18.3 billion. That is what you are cutting out of function Community and Regional Development.