John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the fifth point that we would make about our budget as opposed to the base budget deals with Social Security and Medicare. There is a distinct difference, indeed there is a chronic difference, between the way we deal with Social Security and Medicare and the way they deal with it. First of all, our budget protects, preserves, and defends the Social Security Trust Fund. Over the next 5 years, we are going to rack up $48 billion in surpluses under our budget. What do these ensure? They ensure that the Social Security Trust Fund will remain intact and untouched. The Republican resolution, on the other hand, puts the budget back in the danger zone, on thin ice, close to the edge. We have been talking about this chart all day long. The numbers can be argued over, but we have run the numbers different ways and the chart stands uncontradicted. To begin with, to do what they propose, to achieve this surplus that they claim of $17 billion, $110 billion over the next 5 years, they have got to do $117 billion in real reduction in discretionary spending over the next 5 years. That has not been done over the last 10 when we had deficits. It is not likely to be done over the next 5. And if it is not done, if that assumption is not met, the budget is back in the red again. It is that simple. Secondly, even if that unlikely assumption were somehow met, if you claim a drug benefit for Medicare which you have got on all your posters, if you claim it, you have got to count the cost of it. That is $40 billion. And if you claim that you are going to do a $200 billion tax cut, then you have got to calculate in your calculation of the surplus the $200 billion tax cut. And when you put the $40 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and the $200 billion tax cut over 5 years into this budget, the surplus is wiped out in 2003 and you are in the red, back into Social Security in 2004 and 2005. Our budget stays out of Social Security, it stays in the black; it has a $48 billion cushion over that 5-year period of time. That is the first reason ours is better for Social Security. By the way, we would also buy back Treasury bonds. With the surplus built up in Social Security, we would pay down debt held by the public. We will pay down $976 million of debt just as you will with your proposal, so long as you stay out of Social Security; and over 10 years we will pay down $2.3 trillion in debt, and by the year 2013 we will wipe out the public debt if we abide by the budget that we are proposing. Now, there is a second, more important, reason that our budget is better for Social Security, Medicare and distinctly different from the base budget. The Republican budget does not add a dime to Social Security or Medicare over the next 5 years or 1 day to the solvency of either program. Over the next 10 years, our budget contributes $300 billion out of the surpluses that we will accumulate. It takes $300 billion from the general fund and puts that money into the Medicare trust fund. I have heard this talk over here about IOUs. If anybody has a government bond lying around that is an IOU and he would like to put it somewhere, I will be glad to receive it. It has a lot of value to it. It gives you secured status. We are going to put $300 billion in government bonds into the Medicare trust fund paid for, a net addition to national savings out of the general fund. And in 2011, we propose to calculate how much we have saved in the way of debt service on the last year and take that amount of money and transfer it into the Social Security Trust Fund. As a result, we extend the solvency of Medicare by 10 years and the solvency of Social Security by 15 years. These are profound differences and good reasons to vote for our substitute over the base bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is a very significant difference between our bill and the base bill. We have something in our bill that there is no semblance of in the base bill, and that is $16.3 billion to provide for military retirees' health care at military treatment facilities. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell my colleagues that the third thing we would emphasize about our budget is debt reduction; that we provide for a Medicare prescription drug benefit; that we provide $20.5 billion more for education, but we also reduce spending and we save $48 billion in cumulative surpluses over the next 5 years. $364 billion. This side has said repeatedly they are paying the debt down by $1 trillion. So are we. We are all going to use the Social Security surplus, $976 million over the next 5 years, to pay down debt held by the public. But we have $48 billion more in debt reduction over the next 5 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) to talk about the difference between our budget and the base budget when it comes to debt reduction. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, no challenge faces our country like the challenge of education. We, in our budget resolution, rise to that challenge. We pay down the debt, we provide for tax cuts, but we also provide for priority spending on things like education, which we believe the American people want. What is the difference between our resolution and the base bill? $20.5 billion more in our resolution for education. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who was a college professor at Duke University before coming here; and to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who was a high school teacher before coming here, to talk about the difference between our resolution and the base bill.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have considered a number of budget resolutions today. Naturally I think the one we are now presenting is the best of the lot. I want to give the Members of the House five strong reasons that this resolution is the best of the lot. First of all, prescription drug coverage, a gaping hole in Medicare for many years, we need to close it. We provide reconciliation instructions and $40 billion to the Committee on Ways and Means with the directive to do it. We provide seniors with prescription drug coverage. Education, the difference between our resolution and the base resolution is clear and distinct, $20.5 billion more for education over the next 5 years. Debt reduction. Our resolution would lead to debt reduction cumulative surpluses of $48 billion over the next 5 years, $364 billion over the next 10 years. Social Security and Medicare solvency, the two are directly related. We extend the solvency of Social Security, and we extend the solvency of Medicare. The base bill does not. Finally, the clear distinct and very important distinction, civilian and military retirement. We provide $16.5 billion to keep the promises we have made to military retirees, particularly those reaching the age of 65 who have not been able to use their Medicare benefits at military treatment facilities. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), going to the first aid that I mentioned, prescription drugs, a distinct difference between us and the base bill. (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what concerns me, and I think many on my side of the aisle, about this proposal is that it looks a lot like 1981. First of all, what we have is an enormous tax cut, $270 billion over 5 years, bigger than anybody has yet proposed for this period of time. We have shown earlier today how if one tries to fit a $200 billion tax cut over 5 years into the other numbers assumed in the Republican budget resolution, the base bill, it goes into deficit. In 2003, the surplus vanishes. In 2004 and 2005, the budget is in the red. This would go even deeper. It avoids the deficit only by having enormous cuts in nondefense discretionary spending. Right out of the box, this particular resolution, the CATs resolution, proposes an immediate cut of $16 billion; $16 billion between this year and next year in nondefense discretionary spending. Look at last year and ask if that is realistic. Look at 1998 and ask if that is realistic. Look at the entire period of the 1990s. Just 1996, since the Republicans have been in control of the House, we have had an annual rate of increase in nondefense discretionary spending of 2.5 percent real increase. So what is being assumed here is an abrupt, radical about face, a cut of a magnitude in one year we have not been able to achieve in any recent year that I can recall. The whole surplus is being bet. All of this that we have worked to accomplish and achieve and have finally been able to succeed on, it is all going to be bet on a big tax cut and very unrealistic discretionary spending cuts. If those discretionary spending cuts are not attained politically here on the House Floor in the Congress, because of presidential vetoes or for whatever reason, we are in the red again, big time and in a hurry. That is what is scary about this resolution. It promises a lot, sure. I would like to go home and talk about $270 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years, but I could not realistically tell my people that we could make those cuts when I have been here 18 years and I have not seen the Congress, Democrat or Republican Congress, muster the will to make cuts of that magnitude. I think this is a very risky venture. I think extremely thin ice is being skated on, and I think the budget that we have worked so hard to get in the black is being put back in the danger zone, back in the zone where we are likely to be in deficit. Once we go into deficit, we are right back into the Social Security trust fund. That is where this resolution leads us.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman in the well, who is one of the strongest proponents and advocates of defense in this House, and I sit on the same committee with him, week after week he has bemoaned how much the President had sought in defense for next year and the next 5 years. I thought surely the gentleman would persuade his conference, the Republicans, to come forward with a resolution that provided more for defense. What do we get? One-tenth of 1 percent over the next 5 years. That is all the increase the gentleman could muster.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to the gentleman on my own time, this is not about the Veterans' Administration health care system. This is about retiree health care at military treatment facilities, base hospitals, not VA hospitals. However, I would add, if I can continue on my own time, that we do better in our resolution by veterans who have a claim, I think, on the Federal Government for the services they have rendered and the promises we have made. We have more than a billion dollars provided over 5 years than they have provided in their resolution for veterans' health care. We have an additional $16.5 billion for retiree health care. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Reclaiming my time, the point still remains, you have put all this additional money into defense and forgotten the men and women who fought to defend this country. We in our resolution, everybody should know this, have included $16.3 billion, $5.4 billion for a prescription drug initiative for Medicare retirees and another $10.9 so that they can use their Medicare benefits at military treatment facilities. We are doing something about subvention. We have put it in a budget that is balanced and pays down the debt and also provides a modest tax cut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman has explained that his resolution, which we are trying to understand over here because there is a huge paucity of information about it, but he said that it provides more for defense; but I think it probably forgets an essential element. There is something in the Democratic resolution that we will bring up shortly that distinguishes it sharply from what is being proposed here and, that is, we have specifically included in our resolution $16.3 billion over 10 years specifically for health care initiatives for military retirees who are over the age of 65. We have not forgotten defense, and in particular we have not forgotten the men and women who fought to make this country free. We provide for them. We keep the promises that were made to them by military health care. We put the money in function 550 and function 570. We provide $5.4 billion for a prescription drug initiative, $10.9 billion to allow Medicare eligible military retirees simply to go to a military treatment facility and use their Medicare benefits to gain admission. Today most of those over the age of 65 are not able to be treated there. I would like to ask the gentleman if he makes any provision anywhere in his resolution for these men and women who are military retirees.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, in the time remaining, I would urge every Member to look in earnest at these two proposals. We have made the House a budget proposal that pays down the debt, provides for tax relief, but also provides for the real needs of this country.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good presentation of exactly the point we have been trying to make all day long. We have called it risky and dangerous. What we are talking about is skating on thin ice. For the first 5 years, this resolution, which has $200 billion of tax reduction in it, comes perilously close to putting us back in deficit. If we do, we are back into the Social Security trust fund.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, we have come a long way since 1992 when the budget was in deficit $290 billion. We have wiped out the deficit. Now we stand at a fiscal fork in the road, deciding whether or not we take on the second biggest and toughest problem, and that is the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, or whether we take another fork and ignore those particular problems. We have presented to the House a budget resolution which cuts taxes, not by as much as our Republican colleagues, but it is a significant tax cut, $50 billion net tax cut over 5 years, $201 billion over 10 years. We provide for tax cuts. We also pay down our mountainous national debt, at long last, $48 billion over 5 years in debt reduction, $364 billion over 10 years in debt reduction. But we go further. Given the opportunity that we have, we step up to the problem of the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare by transferring over the next 10 years $300 billion into the Medicare trust fund, extending its life by 10 years, and then by transferring funds from the general fund into Social Security and extending its life by 15 years. We do this, and at the same time we provide for things that the country needs. I come from a district where there are a lot of military retirees. I have heard their complaints about the kind of commitment we have made to them and the extent to which we have kept it. So, consequently, we have made room in our resolution to provide for a major increase in retiree health care benefits. We are going to say to them, Medicare subvention, we can do it. If you want to use your Medicare benefits at a military treatment facility, we have provided for it in this resolution. Furthermore, for those over 65 who do not have a drug or pharmacy benefit anymore, we are going to reinstate it. We are going to fully fund the Abercrombie-Skelton bill. When you look at these things, the $20.5 billion for education, the additional amounts we provide for law enforcement over and above what they provide, the realistic level of funding we provide for community and regional development, as opposed to their cut, which is $2.5 billion in CDBGs, EDA and these agencies that help us help the hardest hit parts of our country, there is no question about it, we have not just a balanced budget in the sense that the bottom line is in the black, thank goodness, but it is balanced as to its priorities. It is the better budget of the two, and I urge support for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Price.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, one more time let me put our chart up. The reason we had zero in allocating the $50 billion tax cut to 2001 is that is what your resolution provided, until last night at 1 o'clock. Your resolution now provides $5 billion, no more in that particular year. We have, therefore, taken that single number, the only one you provided in breaking out the tax cut, and we have increased the $50 billion tax cut at the same rate that your $150 billion tax cut increased it every year. The same proportion. When you do that, in 2001 the tax cut becomes $15 billion. In 2002, the total tax cut becomes $29 billion. In 2003, it becomes $41 billion. In 2004, it becomes $55 billion. In 2005, it becomes $59 billion. The total tax cut over that period of time is $200 billion. As a result, using simple arithmetic, as a result of those adjustments, just trying to figure out how your $200 billion tax cut would distribute, we get a bottom line that is $5 billion in deficit in the year 2004, and in the year 2005, still negative, minus $2 billion. You are back in deficit, back in the Social Security surplus. If these numbers are wrong, come change them.