John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do not take it from me; take it from the chief actuary. Our plan extends the life of Social Security to 2052; the Republican plan does not extend it 1 day. Mr. Speaker, I yield 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My motion to instruct conferees demands that Congress deal with the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds before we enact huge tax cuts that could drain the budget of the very funds that are needed to save, protect and make solvent for the long run Social Security and Medicare. By our calculation, in the first 5 years this proposed tax cut will take $143 billion out of the resources of the Federal Government. The next 5 years it will be $788 billion. And in the third 5-year period of time, occurring around the year 2009, just when Social Security and Medicare need it most, in that 5-year period of time alone by our calculation, this conference report, if enacted and reconciled, would drain the Treasury of $1.066 trillion and leave Social Security and Medicare high and dry. The motion we make is similar to a motion I made in committee and it is similar to an amendment that we brought to the House floor. It simply says, let us deal first with Social Security, then with Medicare; let us establish them as priorities. Mr. Speaker, we have come farther than anyone would have expected since 1993 in eradicating the so-called budget deficit, the year-to- year deficit. We now face the next big challenge. If we can step up to it, we can turn the corner into the next century in better fiscal condition than this country has been in in a long, long time. But we cannot lay claim to that until we have dealt with Social Security and Medicare. We cannot deal with Social Security and Medicare and make them solvent for the long run, assuredly solvent, 50 to 75 years, unless we deal with them first. If we first pass a tax cut of the magnitude proposed by this budget, we will leave Social Security and Medicare unattended, neglected, and we will leave the budget without the resources necessary to do anything about those programs in the future. In the well of the House just a couple of weeks ago when this budget resolution passed, I pointed out the fact that I am not opposed to tax reduction. We have got it in our own budget resolution. I think in due course it is very much in order, given the surpluses that we see projected. I think they should materialize before we commit ourselves to a big tax reduction, but their budget, the resolution before us, is fixated on tax reduction to the extent that when it comes to dealing with national defense, they flatten the President's budget out in the last 5-year cycle. In dealing with veterans, they actually cut the allocations for veterans' programs at a time when our World War II veterans are swelling to the point that they need it most. They deal with crop insurance for 5 years and then cut the money off in order to provide for more tax cuts. They say that they are for funding more for the NIH, but they take the function for health in the budget and actually give it less, all in the name of maximizing the tax cut. What we are saying is, as to these other programs, the time and day will come when we can sort through those priorities, but as to Social Security and Medicare, there is no question that they have primacy, they should come first, they should come before tax reduction. That is the gist of this motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. SPRATT. I am trying to say a lot more than that, Mr. Speaker, but to stay within the scope of what is permissible, I have to say do not do it except as the last act. But I am saying to the gentleman the responsible thing, the responsible thing is not to drain the budget dry so that the resources there are not there to deal with Social Security and Medicare. The responsible thing is to deal with Social Security, deal with Medicare, and then address tax reduction.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I did not interrupt the gentleman except for the single purpose of pointing out what he was about to point out himself. The gentleman very correctly recognized John Lewis as a great American hero. However, the gentleman from California was humble in not pointing out the fact, explicitly I think, that he himself was pretty heroic, a Freedom Rider, 3 months, 6 months in prison in Mississippi. For those of us who grew up in the South, that is a stirring testimonial. We are proud and I could see when we were down there that he was, I hope, pleased to see that some of the things that he fought for have come to fruition. A long way to go still, but the world is a much greater place because of the sacrifices that he and John Lewis made.

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

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself. Mr. Chairman, we keep having a red herring dragged across the path of this debate. The principal budgeting contention on the floor, the alternative to their budget is our budget and it commits 100 percent to Social Security, is backed up by a statute which requires the treasurer to take a certain percentage of payroll taxes to buy down public debt. The general public probably does not understand, but points of order are honored in the breach on the House floor. We have a Committee on Rules upstairs which specializes in overriding points of order. It is a joke to say that a point of order provides any protection whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will need to take the 5 minutes allotted me. Before Members make the decision to vote for this resolution and put the country potentially on this fiscal path for a number of years to come, I want to suggest that Members think twice. I want to point out the consequences of it. I am not opposed to tax cuts. Members will find in our budget resolution $62 billion in the first 5 years, $164 billion in the second 5 years. As I said in the debate, when we find whether or not these surpluses are for real, whether these billions of dollars are actually going to materialize out in time, then we can revisit tax reduction and do it on a sensible basis and not bet on the come, bet as if everything projected on paper is going to take place, and we can do a $779 billion tax cut with no consequences to the budget. These are the tax cuts that we plotted here: $143 billion in the first 5 years, $436 billion in the next 5 years. Then, if we extrapolate those tax cuts at the rate of growth of the economy, in the third 5-year period, between 2009 and 2014, they will grow, by our calculation, to a loss of revenues of $1.11 trillion. What does that mean? It means, first of all, that in the years we are talking about, 2009 to 2014, when the Social Security program may need assistance because the administrator of the Social Security Administration will be taking in less in payroll taxes than he is paying out in benefits, my colleagues' tax cut will take maximum toll on the Treasury. Indeed, if these surpluses do not materialize, my colleagues may indeed be cutting into the Social Security surpluses to bite their protestations that they will not touch them. This tax cut may lead inevitably to that. That is somewhat speculative, but I think it is a real risk. This is not a risk. The reciprocal of these tax cuts is a matching decline in discretionary spending. So while my colleagues have talked about doing more for education, if they look at their budget, when they get to the out years, starting in 2005, they do $50 billion less than we provided. If my colleagues go through the budget, there are all kinds of anomalies in the budget. These are the reasons for it. When my colleagues get to NIH, both in the Senate and in the House, the Republicans touted the National Institutes of Health, said we were going to do more. We looked to see how they did it, only to find that the health function was shrinking. NIH is 52 percent of the health function in this budget. How in the world are my colleagues going to enlarge NIH while they shrinking the function is a mystery to me. It certainly comes out of the hide of other important public health programs. Look at veterans programs. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, wrote the committee, the Committee on Budget, after a vote taken by his Committee on Veterans' Affairs and said, I need a minimum of $1.9 billion to keep the promises we have made to our veterans every year. What my colleagues did in their budget was give him $900 million, not $1.9 billion, but $900 million. Then, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, it disappeared. It did not recur. As a consequence, over that 5-year period of time, instead of giving veterans more to meet the benefits of the World War II population, which is getting older and older, they gave them less, $500 million less than a 1999 freeze. Why did my colleagues do it? They are trying to accommodate this tax cut. This budget is fixated on a tax cut. There is nothing wrong with going with tax reduction, particularly when we see these surpluses, but that is all they have got in this budget. Let me take the case of agriculture. My colleagues' committee put $6 billion in the budget for the creation of a crop insurance program. That is a centerpiece of what agriculture wants this year. Six billion dollars over a 5-year period of time. We matched it. But guess what happens in 2005, about the time my colleagues are getting this crop insurance program up and running and well established? The funding disappears. My colleagues tell the Committee on Agriculture, go find mandatory sources to offset the cost, which will be $9.1 billion. We were able to squeeze it in our budget. My colleagues were not because of their fixation on doing the biggest tax cut since Kemp-Roth. Throughout the budget, that holds true. Let me tell my colleagues where it really holds true: national defense. My colleagues went to the trouble of putting $29.6 billion in this budget for national defense. They did not fund the out years. They are lower than the President. They have got a flat budget. In the near term, the $30 billion that they put up is not matched by outlays. All of it because this is an unbalanced budget. It is not a balanced budget is not a balance. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for his compliment.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Minority Leader summed it up very nicely. Every time that the majority has wanted a budget to target, to tackle, today, they have pulled out the President's budget and dragged it like a red herring across the path of this debate. Well, this is not the President's budget. It is like it in some respects, but different in other respects. This is a different piece of work. But there is a key aspect to it, the crowning aspect to it, that is like the President's budget. We Democrats created Social Security, and for the last 65 years we have been its guardians, and now that it faces the strain and stress it will face the next 25 years, we are not going to fail it. So, if our colleagues look at our budget, by golly, we extend the life of Social Security until the year 2050, and we have a letter from a chief actuary of the Social Security Administration to prove it. Secondly, next in pride and importance to us is one of our creations, Medicare. In 1968 we created it, and we have sustained it and protected it. The actuaries at the Health Care Finance Administration tell us it will run dry in the year 2008. The Republican budget leaves it in the lurch. Notwithstanding this warning from the actuaries, they do not put one thin dime. Out of all the billions that we see on the rise in the way of surpluses, not a nickel for Medicare. We, on the other hand, put several billions of dollars into this trust fund to sustain and extend its life until the year 2020. That is what we do first. We do not rush into tax cuts until we have first protected Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues something else we do. Now that we are in the position to do it, we treat the trust funds generated, the surpluses generated by Social Security with sanctity. We do not touch them, we do not use any of the money, and we provide in our resolution reconciliation instructions that call for a real lockbox; no, a strong box; not something that rests on a thin reed of a point of order, the kind that gets overridden around here every week, they are honored in the breach. No, we have got statutory instruction to the Treasury that will ensure that this money is used only for the security and benefit of the Social Security Administration. The proof of all of this is on the bottom line. There is the bottom line. If Members vote for the Republican resolution, the Social Security trust fund will have a balance of $1.8 trillion 10 years from now. Now, that is not chump change. Look what happens if Members vote for the Democratic resolution. Ten years from now, the trust fund will have a balance of $3.4 trillion and it will keep growing through the year 2014. What about Medicare? Vote for the Republican resolution and in 10 years it will be scraping bottom, $14 billion, barely enough to operate on in the trust fund. We will have a $400 billion balance still left to ensure its solvency into the year 2020. Those are the differences between our budget and their budget. These are significant differences. We have got a letter from the Health Care Financing Administration also certifying we extend the life of this program until the year 2020. Furthermore, we spent some money doing this, but we pay down the debt more than my Republican colleagues do. Over 10 years, we pay down the debt $146 billion more; over 15 years, by our calculation, $474 billion more. What does that mean? That these two programs which will depend upon a treasury not burdened with debt, not overwhelmed with debt service, will be in better condition than ever. Even though we save more, we also spend more. We understand what my colleagues on the Republican side are saying about tax cuts. We do some in our own budget and, in time, if these surpluses materialize, I think we will come back and do more tax reduction. In this particular budget, we say we believe in people to the extent of wanting to invest in people because we think the investment in human resources and education and housing, in the environment and health is absolutely critical. If we are going to save Social Security and Medicare, when we have 2.13 people working for every person retired, then they have got to be productive citizens, and we invest in the productive citizenry. What do my friends on the other side do? At every turn, they opt for a tax cut. Now, there is nothing wrong with tax cuts but this budget is fixated on them, and a lot of the problems that we have been able to poke holes in today arise from the fact that my Republican colleagues are so totally committed to that and nothing else. In the area of health care, they brag about plussing up NIH but in truth they diminish the function for health. In the case of the veterans, their own chairman said they needed $1.9 billion. The committee spurned him, gave him $900 million one year and nothing, $500 million less than the freeze for the next 5 years. In the case of agriculture, they set up a crop insurance program. So do we. $6 billion a year. In the year 2004, they quit funding it. About the time it gets established they pull the pumps out. We put $9 billion more in. Why do my Republican colleagues do that? Why do the cuts get so big in the outyears? Because they have to make room for this enormous tax cut that keeps growing and growing and growing. Let me say what the consequences are. This tax cut is $779 billion over 5 years. By our extrapolation, if we extend it forward at the rate of growth in the economy, it will be $1.11 trillion in the period 2009 to 2014. Now, why is that period significant? That is the very time when the Social Security trust fund will start taking in less payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits, and at that point in time the budget of my Republican colleagues, their tax cut, takes its heaviest toll on the treasury, placing the treasury in jeopardy of securing these two programs. No, my friends on the other side do not cut them. They do not cut Medicare and they do not cut Social Security but they cut taxes in a way that could very well jeopardize their future because of that huge, mounting, swelling tax cut in those outyears when the money is needed most. Are there differences between these two budgets? We better believe there are differences. This is a better budget. We save more. We spend more. We spend it more responsibly, and we can go down our checklist to see. We would like to put more teachers in the classrooms in the elementary years. Talking about investing in people, that is when it really pays off. I believe in that. We provide for it. We would like to build better schools, better structures, and we want to help those districts that are poor districts and cannot do it. So we put in the Tax Code some tax credits to help them float school bonds. We think working mothers deserve better child care credit. We expand them. On down the list, this is a better budget. It is better for Democrats, better for Republicans, better for the country. I suggest everybody vote for it.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Minority Leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). He and I came here together in 1983. We have been great friends since then, and that friendship is carried over to the work on the committee together. We disagree strongly, but we do it in an agreeable way continually, and it is because he is a gentleman, he is affable, he is wonderful to work with. And I say the same for his staff, particularly Wayne Struble. I would like to say something for our staff on the minority side, because we in the minority have a small staff and we have to really put out to put a product together. But they have done a gargantuan job over the last several weeks, and I want to mention them individually. Susan Warner, Medicare. Richard Kogan; I do not know anybody in town who knows the budget better than Richard, number cruncher super. Pepper Santalucia, she just joined us. Sheila McDowell. Linda Bywaters. Hugh Brady on defense and discretionary spending. Lisa Irving. Sara Abernathy. Dale Coldwell. Jim Klumpner, who just joined us, our chief economist. Andrea Weathers. Marian Worthington. Craig Bomberger. Sandy Clark, who is on maternity leave, about to have twins, but nevertheless is connected with us by modem. And, above all, my friend, my colleague, and my tireless worker, our chief of staff on the minority side, Tom Kahn. They have put in a Herculean job over the last several weeks. We did not win but we came to the floor in fine fashion because of the work they did.