John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 15 years, in the 15 years I have served in this House, we are within reach of a balanced budget. Last September 30, 1996, when we closed the books on fiscal 1996, the deficit stood at $107.8 billion. And now that we have gotten the revenues on April 15 from this year's tax payments, CBO and OMB both believe that the deficit this year will drop to $70 billion or below-- $70 billion or less. We can finish the job. We can balance the budget. But only if we have a plan, for without one the deficit will start drifting back upward again. We have before us today a hard wrought compromise of a plan. When I say hard wrought, I mean it. It was produced through nearly 4 months of negotiations. Hard fought negotiations. But throughout they were civil and cordial, and I commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. John Kasich] who worked with us in complete cooperation and good faith throughout the negotiations to bring it to this end, which is a genuine compromise. Before turning to that plan, I would like to just pause a minute and talk about what brings us to this point. I want to go back to a particular date, January 13, 1993, 1 week before George Bush left office. He sent us that day his economic report of the President, and in it Michael Boskin, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, predicted that the deficit for that year, fiscal 1993, would be $332 billion. This was the deficit that President Clinton found on the doorstep awaiting him when we arrived at the White House 1 week later. On February 17, the President laid on the doorstep of the Congress a plan for cutting that deficit roughly by half over the next 5 years. It was not a popular plan. It was certainly not a painless plan. It cost my party dearly for supporting it. It passed the Congress only by the skin of its teeth. The critics claimed this budget would cut off the economy at its knees. But the financial markets were impressed, so much so that long bond rates came down by 100 to 120 basis points. And when the books were closed on fiscal 1993, that first fiscal year, the deficit was not $332 billion as Boskin predicted, it was $255 billion. A year later, the first full year under that budget plan, the deficit was $203 billion. At year end 1995, it was down again to $164 billion. And as I said, last September it was $107.8 billion. The deficit has been cut now for 5 years in a row. That is not smoke and mirrors, that is not sleight of hand, that is a matter of record. As Yogi Berra liked to say, ``You can look it up.'' The deficit has been cut by 65 percent. And at 1.4 percent of our GDP, it is at its lowest level since the early 1970's. That is progress by anybody's yardstick. That is why we are within reach, credibly, of a balanced budget. That is why we are here today, to finish a job, because it would be a shame not to try. And that is why it is important that we do it right and not blow this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, if it were left to me alone, I would do a budget along the lines my good friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the Blue Dogs laid out last year, for which I voted, which had no net tax cuts at all, none at least until we had our goal firmly in grasp. That would not mean no tax cuts, just no net tax cuts. But this is a divided government, and to do a deal, none of us gets to do it alone. We have a choice between gridlock and compromise. And what we have before us is just that, it is a compromise. It is not a perfect solution. It is the art of the possible. But if we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we will not get anything good done on the deficit this year. This compromise differs from most compromises by design, by conscious design, because what we sought in negotiating it was to let each party claim some clear victory. Rather than come out with just gray results, compromise to the point that they lost their identity and pleased nobody, this package allows the Republicans a clear victory. It allows them the chance to do significant tax cuts. It allows Democrats, my party, the chance to do initiatives in children's health care, the chance to do initiatives in education that we could not do if we tried to do it alone. That is why I say this budget is balanced in two senses. If the economy stays stable, this budget should take us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. But in the meantime, this resolution is not so fixated on the deficit that it forgets this country has other problems too that need to be addressed. Hard-working families are worried about how they are going to pay for the cost of their children's education. Tuition is soaring. This resolution promises more help than anything that has been passed in this Congress in the past 25 years. There are 10 million children, mostly in working families, who have no health insurance. This resolution sets aside $16 billion to come up with ways to cover at least half of those children within the next 5 years. To those in my party, my fellow Democrats, who are still summing up the pluses and the minuses in this budget resolution, I urge them to keep initiatives like these in mind and ask themselves if we could have achieved this, if we could have done this if we went it alone as a minority, by ourselves. I ask them to look at NDD, nondefense discretionary spending. It goes from $548 to $562 billion. We should ask ourselves, measured against last year's budget resolution, if we could have done this well if we did it alone. Look at what we have done with Medicare and preventive care, with Medicaid and moderating the reductions. Throughout this budget the Democratic stamp is firmly and clearly in place. I do not think we could have done this well by going it alone, and that is why I say we should support it. That is why this resolution is a good deal for us but, more importantly, it is a good deal for this country. It is a balanced plan to balance the budget. I say let us finish what we started in 1993. Let us adopt this House Concurrent Resolution 84. Let us balance the budget by the year 2002, and let us take the credit we deserve as Democrats for this accomplishment.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, out of the time allocated to me, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] be yielded 25 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee be yielded 10 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] be yielded 20 minutes and that he be allowed to control that time; that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] be yielded 30 minutes and that she be allowed to control that time; and finally, that I would reserve the remaining 35 minutes to myself.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Davis].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Sherman].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes my case. All of that is the handiwork of the Budget Committee. We have done it in years past. All this resolution calls for is that we do it again this year, all of that effort there.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take the allotted time of 5 minutes to explain this motion because it does not need much explanation. What we are calling for is purely and simply regular order. What we are asking for in this motion to recommit is to follow the procedures that this House, this Congress has laid down for our own internal processes that have been observed ever since the Budget Act of 1974 was first adopted, for more than 20 years. This resolution, House Resolution 89, does not advance the budget process. It does not move us one single inch. In fact, it retards the process. It slows us down. It does not focus the House on the hard decisions that have to be made, on what needs to be done here in the House itself, in the Committee on the Budget, and on the floor, in the well of this House. What we need to be about is the formulation of a budget, making the hard choices that will go into our budget resolution and bringing them to debate here on the House floor before April 15, well before April 15. Instead, what we do with this resolution is shift attention from the work at hand by trying to shift the blame, by pointing the finger at the President and saying to him that he should come, present another budget even though he has complied, literally complied with the Budget Act by sending his budget up within the time that is required under the law. This is no way to advance the budget process. This is no way to move us toward a balanced budget in 5 years, pointing fingers, wasting a whole legislative day on a fruitless resolution. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] says the President needs to send us a plan to save Medicare. He sent a plan up to save Medicare. Part A would be rendered solvent for years to come. They do not agree with the manner in which the President does it. They do not want to see part of the cost of home health care shifted out of part A into part B. Fine. Put up your substitute. Put up your alternative. Put up your plan to save Medicare. The same with Medicaid. The President has taken a bold step there, bold enough that almost all the Governors in this Nation have opposed him. He says we are saving substantial sums because the cost of Medicaid has come down 4 percent in 1995, 3.3 percent in 1996. We need to hold those cost savings in place, and if we can, we can realize as much savings in Medicaid or more than we were attempting in the last session of Congress. He has proposed per capita caps. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget does not support per capita caps. Fine. That is what this process is all about. Put up your alternative. That is the point which we are now on. What we need to do is frame this debate. The other part of the frame that is missing and required at this point in time is a budget resolution adopted by the House which we can put on the table, and at that point we can then sit down and talk about everything, including CPI adjustments as part of the whole mix. We need to be about regular order, we need to be focused on the procedure that is time-tested and been shown to work. We need to be about our own business. We need to bring a budget resolution to this floor so that we can have a concurrent resolution by April 15. That is exactly what this motion to recommit calls for, regular order towards a successful outcome. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this motion to recommit so we can get on with the business at hand.

Mr. SPRATT. I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPRATT. I am, Mr. Speaker.