John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

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

Mr. SPRATT. Well, we know that because the chart was changed last night at 1:00 a.m., and we received that information then. We have adjusted the numbers, added the $50 billion to the $150 billion, and increased it at the same rate that the $150 billion tax cut was increased. Using that method of interpolation, the budget is still $5 billion in deficit by 2004 and a billion dollars in deficit in 2005. We are using the gentleman's same numbers, the gentleman's same proportionate increases each year and we come up with that result. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. For the $50 billion tax cut that is additional to that, the gentleman has no year-by-year break out. That is all I am asking for, if we could see the year-by-year breakout of the $50 billion tax cut, too.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a year-by-year breakout for the $150 billion tax cut.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman please tell us then what is the year-by-year impact of the $200 billion tax cut over the next 5 years so that we can put it in the chart correctly and we can tell what the bottom line properly is? Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to respond.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), here is what we are concerned about. Here are the risks that we are really concerned about. The gentleman claims that he generated an on-budget surplus of $110 billion, but he is also claiming a tax cut of $250 billion. We have spread that tax cut out at the same rate as the gentleman increases the $150 billion tax cut over time. And when we look at the bottom line, when we add in the gentleman's $40 billion for Medicare, prescription drugs, add in the additional 50 for additional tax cuts, the surplus vanishes in the year 2003. It goes into the red in 2004 and stays in the red in 2005. The bottom line, instead of being $110 billion of cumulative surplus instead is $11 billion and declining, because it has been in a deficit for 2 years. We are back in the Social Security fund, back into Social Security in 3 years if the gentleman does it this way. That is what is risky. That is what concerns us. If somebody will show us this arithmetic is wrong, we will listen; but until then, we say this is what the budget leads us to, dangerously close to being in deficit again, back into the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say that that is absolutely correct and to further clarify the difference, the very slight difference, between our resolution and theirs, the budget of the President and theirs. Over this year and next year, their budget would add $1 billion for defense. It would increase the President's request of $16.4 billion up to $17.4 billion. When the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) says they provide $17.4 billion, that is a billion more than the President requested. By the way, the President's request is $24.4 billion more than we provided for defense in 2001 when we did the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. Over the 5-year period of time, both budgets provide about $1.6 trillion. The difference between our budget and theirs over that period of time is less than one-tenth of one percent. When my colleagues add what we just provided, we are adding $16.3 billion on top of that, on top of that $1.6 trillion, $16.3 billion to go to military retirees and to be reconciled and designed for application to them by the House Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to introduce the subject that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, is going to address, because it deals with a major difference between our resolution and their resolution. Our resolution contains $16.3 billion over the next 10 years specifically earmarked for health care initiatives for military retirees over the age of 65. Our alternative includes the funding that would be necessary to cover the major provisions of H.R. 3655, a bill that was introduced by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) who is the ranking Democrat on the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who is the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). Over that 10-year period, our Democratic alternative provides $5.4 billion in Function 550 for a prescription drug initiative and $10.9 billion in Function 570, the Medicare function, to provide for what we call around here Medicare subvention, to make military retirees over the age of 65 able to use their Medicare benefits at military treatment facilities. This is a major initiative and a major distinction between our budget and their budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in response to the last speaker, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun). Every President while I have served here has sought to reduce Impact Aid, and I agree with him that we should increase it. I would say to him that its chances of being increased are far greater under our budget, with $20.5 billion over 5 years more for education, than their budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say in response to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), by my reading of their budget, it pluses up the President's budget $1 billion this year and no more than $300 million in the out year. It basically tracks the Clinton budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to answer the gentleman and say, if the gentleman's proposal is real, why did he not put reconciliation directly to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget? If your proposal is real, why did you not say here is $40 billion, not here is a reserve fund, if you can reform Medicare and if you can report a bill? Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Price.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand). (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. I take it the gentleman's question is rhetorical.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution, the Republican resolution, sets up a so-called reserve fund. It basically says if and when the Committee on Ways and Means reports a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, along with, coupled to, Medicare reform, whatever that means, then $40 billion is provided for that purpose. Unlike their resolution, our resolution has reconciliation language. That is the whole purpose of having the reconciliation power vested in the Committee on the Budget. We can use this resolution to tell committees they should change basic law to provide for things like drug benefits. We have directed it and we have put up $40 billion also.

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