John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge). (Mr. MINGE 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we keep the surplus intact to save Social Security, and we do not have $11 billion in user fees, as the Kasich resolution does. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SPRATT. We say it has a $50 black hole, and it is getting bigger by the minute. Mr. Chairman, less than a year ago the House approved the balanced budget agreement of 1997. It was a good agreement, a bipartisan agreement. It built on the Clinton budget of 1993, which wiped out the deficit, and paved the road for surpluses as far as the eye can see. Our resolution, the Spratt resolution, the Democratic resolution, sticks by that agreement. The spending totals, the revenue totals, all of our numbers are in sync with the balanced budget agreement. We save the surpluses because we want to save Social Security. We spare Medicare from further cuts. In fact, we broaden its coverage, because we believe in Medicare. We protect Medicaid because we believe in Medicaid, and particularly the children's health insurance program, because we are proud of that achievement in the balanced budget agreement last year. We think it would be unconscionable to tell children and their parents that they have coverage at last, only to jerk it away from them the next year. We fund key initiatives in education, in child care, and call for $30 billion in tax relief, tilted towards working families. There is one thing of particular fiscal importance in this bill, in this resolution. On September 30, when we close the books on fiscal 1998, the Federal Government will show a surplus for the first time in 30 years, a surplus of $40 to $60 billion. That surplus was hard- earned, and we think we should husband it. Sure, we proposed some initiatives in education and child care because these are the things we believe in, but we offer offsets to pay for these initiatives. We do not take a single dollar out of the surplus. We say, instead, that the surplus should be saved, held in a reserve fund, as it were, to save Social Security for the long run. Over the last several years this government has enjoyed a surge of revenues, but until we know that surge is permanent and recurring, until we have taken the next step, the giant steps necessary to ensure the solvency of Medicare and Social Security for the long run, we are wary of cutting back revenues deeply and drawing down this surplus. In the balanced budget agreement, we have provided for tax relief. We think there is room for more. We think the tax code is full of deductions, credits, exemptions, and preferences that could stand a scrub. We recommend that the Committee on Ways and Means search the code for $30 billion in unwarranted tax benefits, call them what we will, and redistribute the tax burden just a bit more in favor of working families. Surely we can do this much to help hard-working families. Surely we can do this much to help hard-working families afford the cost of child care and to mitigate the so-called marital tax penalty. We ourselves have scrubbed spending to come up with $10 billion in cuts over the next 5 years. This is a small sum, but we think the money can do more good if it is used to help school districts, reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in grades 1 through 3, or if it is used to fund the early learning fund. Here are a few of the other things we propose: broadening the coverage of Medicare so those between 55 and 65 can buy into it. Here are a few of the things we propose in the context of a balanced budget: improving the child care tax credit so it applies to families with incomes up to $60,000, so that families of four with incomes of $35,000 or less will have no tax liability if they take full use of the credit, passing a patient's Bill of Rights. So our budget sounds some new themes, but they are all fully offset and paid for. At bottom, this is a balanced budget agreement which the House passed overwhelmingly last year. If Members ask me to tell them in a sentence what this substitute does, I will tell them. It restores the budget to reality. It restores funds that the Kasich resolution takes. If they ask me in a sentence to tell them what this budget does, I will tell them, it restores this budget to reality. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) presents this budget as a 1 percent cut in spending, but since the largest accounts in the budget, Social Security and defense and debt service, are not cut, they are increased, the accounts that are cut take heavy hits. The remaining cuts are far, far greater than 1 percent. By our calculation, the Kasich budget will cut domestic discretionary spending by at least 6 percent, on top of the 12 percent in cuts already dictated by the balanced budget agreement, and still being administered. Bob Reischauer, whom we respect on both sides of the aisle, has pointed out that really about half of discretionary spending is not subject to cuts. It is essential administrative functions of the government, the FBI. This means that to achieve the cuts the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is talking about, the cuts will have to go as deep as 36 percent. As one Member, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on the other side of the aisle, said, this will mean deep cuts in some programs and the extinction of others. Which programs are in the crosshairs? Law enforcement gets cut $8 billion, education nearly $5 billion, the environment $5 billion. It goes on and on and on. Our resolution is not a duplicate of the resolution that passed the other body, but we are close enough to bridge the differences in a concurrent resolution. We give Members a responsible choice. We stick close to the bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement and we cut the clearest path to a concurrent resolution. There are many reasons this resolution should be the budget resolution this House passes, but if Members voted for the Balanced Budget Agreement, if they want to see a budget resolution become a concurrent resolution, if they want to save the surplus for Social Security, if they want to protect Medicare and Medicaid, they should vote for this and reject the Kasich budget.

Mr. SPRATT. It does indeed, and I do not know where it will come, except for TANF. This is another example of the budget resolution saying it will, and then Members getting up here and saying it will not, and then voting for a document that says it will; such contradictory statements.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Right here a few minutes ago the gentleman saw them restore it. It validates what I have said. These cuts are not realistic. They will not happen. They undid them right here on the House floor.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity to read the Neumann substitute, but I have read the Kasich resolution, and I have read the report that accompanied that resolution, dated May 12, which amplified where the cuts he was proposing might come from. I would like to pose some questions to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), the sponsor of this substitute, which I will allow him to answer on his time because I do not have enough myself to grant him, but here are the questions: I am concerned, interested, curious to know if the gentleman's substitute corrects what I view as some serious faults, defects, shortcomings, inequities in the Kasich resolution. Does he correct these problems or in his zeal for a bigger tax cut does he actually make them worse? First issue raised on the floor last night: The Kasich resolution delivers America's veterans a double whammy. They have already suffered a $10 to $17 billion extinguishment of their disability rights when in the transportation bill we wiped out their rights to smoking-related disability benefits. And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield at the end, and I will give the gentleman from Wisconsin a list of these things so he can respond to it because it is a rather lengthy list. The Kasich resolution, despite the fact that the transportation bill has already extinguished those benefits, the Kasich resolution has reconciliation directions in it to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs which calls on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to cut veterans' benefits by another $10 billion. I would like to know if the gentleman's resolution does the same thing or does he correct this gross inequity? Another point: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) in a last-minute move shifted $10 billion in cuts from Medicare over to the account known as income security, and we all know where that cut is coming out of. It is coming out of the welfare block grant, the so-called TANF block grant. The gentleman's governor, Governor Tommy Thompson, wrote a stinging letter yesterday with nine other governors calling that deduction, $10 billion out of the TANF block grant, a breach of the agreement that the Governors made with the Federal Government when they signed off on welfare reform. He and Governor Tom Ridge and Governor Tom Carper and Governor John Engler, 10 governors altogether, have written opposition to that in a stinging letter. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin correct this problem? Now just a minute ago, another point, the House voted overwhelmingly to denounce the President of the United States for including user fees of various kinds in his budget. As a matter of fact, if my colleagues read the Kasich budget closely, they will find that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has seven new user fees in his budget. These user fees altogether cost $11 billion. Here is a list of them. I will let my colleague look at them, $11 billion in user fees. In light of the resolution we just adopted, in light of the motion to recommit, the resolution that we just defeated, does the gentleman include these fees in his budget also, or does he plan to exclude those fees since the House has overwhelmingly said it disapproves of them? Another point: The Kasich budget cuts energy. It is hard to tell where those cuts are coming from. He wants to abolish the Energy Department. But one of the things he wants to do, according to the May 12 report, is sell at least three power marketing administrations: Southwest and Southeast. And these power marketing administrations have a one-time return to the government of about $3 billion. Since the gentleman is seeking an additional $50 billion in cuts, does he want to sell not just three power marketing administrations but five or six or all of them? Does he want to sell Bonneville? TVA? The Kasich resolution also cuts law enforcement, incredibly cuts law enforcement. Here we are seeing a reduction in violent crime persistently over the last 3 to 4 years, and the Kasich budget would cut law enforcement by $8 billion. This would whack the FBI; it would whack the Drug Enforcement Administration. It would mean the end of community policing, a very popular program that has put 80,000 police on the streets of America. Crimes rates are coming down. Does my colleague want to pull a bunch on crime? Is he going to take $8 billion out of the crime program? Medicaid. Last year one of the greatest things we did in the balanced budget agreement was balance the budget but show that we could still promote a few priorities, and one of those priorities was children's health care. We created the children's health insurance plan at a cost of about $16 billion. But the Kasich budget comes along and whacks Medicaid by $12 billion, whacks the health account by that amount. Does that mean we are not going to have a children's health insurance plan? Does the gentleman correct that? Does he provide for children's health insurance? Does the gentleman also want the acute care under Medicaid to be block granted, as Mr. Kasich would, or has he corrected that in his resolution? There is a gaping hole, in addition, in the Kasich resolution, a black hole, because he does not specify where the increases in the highway spending bill which this House and the Senate have already enacted $48.8 billion in budget authority, $23.3 billion in outlays over the next 5 years. We do not know how that is going to be accommodated. What gets bumped? Displaced? Does the gentleman's resolution clarify this black hole or does he only deepen it? In his zest to go for a $50 billion tax cut, do we now have a $75 billion black hole instead of a $25 billion black hole? And what about cuts in the environment? That was a protected priority. We listed the amount of money we were spending on environment each year in the balanced budget agreement. Mr. Kasich cuts the environment and natural resources by $4.6 billion. Does the gentleman restore that, or do we also take that out? And what about education? That was a protected priority. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would cut education and training, would cut education by $5 billion. One of the truly cockamamie ideas, if my colleagues will, in this May 12 document was the notion of taking title I, one of the most successful programs we have got, a program which takes 95 percent of its money and puts it in the classroom, a program that helps individual kids keep pace with other kids in their peer group, would take that program and convert it from a school grant to a student grant, voucherize the title I program. Would the gentleman do that, or does he correct that particular deficiency? And basically what I would like to know, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would in effect add about 6 percent of additional cuts to discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary spending, meaning that overall it would be cut by about 18 percent by the year 2003. Since the gentleman is going for an additional $50 billion in tax cuts, will that be a 30 percent cut in discretionary spending? A 35 percent cut in discretionary spending? Or has the gentleman somehow figured out a way to mitigate cuts that I do not believe will ever be made? So the bottom line in my request to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is does his resolution improve or correct these problems, these discrepancies, in the Kasich resolution, or does he worsen them?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 1054.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind him that the President's budget, which he misconstrued, is not on the floor. Our resolution is. It does not increase spending. It is in complete sync with the balanced budget agreement and it calls for $30 billion in tax relief paid for within the Tax Code itself. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond. Mr. Chairman, first let me respond with respect to the tax cuts. We see a code replete with deductions and credits and exemptions and preferences and concessions, and most of them work to the advantage of well-heeled taxpayers. We are saying in this resolution to the Committee on Ways and Means, can you not give the code a scrub and see if you cannot tilt the code a little bit more in favor of working families so we can increase the child tax credit, and, yes, mitigate the marital penalty? Can we not do that within the code? Let me say something about the growth of government. I am reading from a CBO report, the Economic and Budget Outlook of the Government. Discretionary spending once again. When President Clinton came to office in 1993 it was $540 billion. Last year it was $548 billion, 1997. In 4 years it grew by $8 billion. Let me remind my colleagues again, the middle of the Reagan years, 1986, the government was taking 23 cents out of every dollar made in this economy. Today it is down, under the Clinton administration, to 19.9 cents, down three full percentage points. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.