[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1351-H1357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   HOUSE TO DEBATE BUDGET RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. In the 2000 Presidential 
election, President Bush declared that he was against nation building. 
Who knew it was America he was talking about? President Kennedy used to 
say, to govern is to choose, and how we make our choices in this budget 
is a reflection of our values and the choices we want to make for the 
American people. It is not just a set of numbers; it is a set of 
priorities, a set of values, a set of principles.
  I put together an analysis of what the President has done here in 
America with his budget and what he is doing in Iraq with the American 
taxpayers' money. Take job training, for instance. In the United 
States, although we have cut $316 million in vocational education, in 
Iraq, $60 million for demobilizing and job training for 130,000 enemy 
combatants. Funding is $353 million for American enterprise fund and 
job training. $151 million has been cut in adult training here in the 
United States. Those are values; those are priorities.
  Take the area of college education. Here in the United States we have 
cut $101 million in the President's budget for Perkins loans; $327 
million has been cut in Pell grants for college education. In Iraq, $20 
million for higher education and development projects creating U.S.-
Iraqi university partnerships.
  Expanding literacy, we have cut reading programs here in the United 
States; $40 million for building 275 schools and training 10,000 
teachers in Iraq. That is just one example of the set of priorities and 
values that the President's budget reflects here at home.
  My view is, I am for investing in Iraq's future, giving the children 
of Iraq a future, but not one that is less promising and less strong 
and less valuable than the one we have here for the people in the 
United States. We should not invest in Iraq for things we are not 
willing to invest for here in the United States.
  Take the issue of health care. Americans are facing a huge health 
care crisis. Costs are growing by 20 percent a year for the last 3 
years and are expected to grow like that going forward. What have we 
done since the President got elected? We used to have 38 million 
uninsured in America, today we have 43 million uninsured, and not a 
single proposal to deal with it.
  In the President's budget, we cut $278 million for health 
professional training. In Iraq, we fund free training for 2,200 health 
professionals and 8,000 volunteers.
  There has been a $94 million cut to community access programs to 
coordinate health care services to underinsured. In Iraq, $793 million 
has been spent for health care construction and medical equipment. $78 
million in the United States is cut for health activities to provide 
health care for rural America; $28 million is provided for operation 
and staffing of 150 health clinics for 3 million Iraqis.
  Down here, funding has been cut for all child care programs here in 
the United States; $44 million is provided for community development 
projects in Iraq for child care facilities. Those are our values; those 
are our priorities. Why is Congress willing to fund Iraq's health care 
professionals, why are we investing American money for 2,200 new health 
care professionals, yet here in the President's budget we cut health 
professional training not just by $78 million. That is a 64 percent cut 
in that budget.
  What is it about the Iraqi health care system that we can see an 
investment that will reap the benefits of a stronger, healthier Iraqi 
population; but here at home, we say to rural America and community 
health care, we say to control cost, we are going to cut and slash. 
Those are our values; those are our priorities. These budgets are not 
numbers. They reflect what we care about and what we envision. We 
cannot have a vision for Iraq that is stronger and better than the one 
that we envision for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, that is just in the area of health care. In the Corps of 
Engineers, in Iraq we have opened up a new port for commerce. In the 
United States, the Corps of Engineers, we have a 10 percent cut in 
their budget, in the President's budget. We are investing $4 billion to 
open up a new port in Iraq, and we are cutting the Corps of Engineers 
here in the United States that helps economic growth and the movement 
of goods and services.
  That budget for Iraq reflects our values, and that budget for America 
reflects our values. These are not our values at work. We can have 
differences among our parties; but ultimately the budget has to reflect 
what we think and how we see America growing, how we see our children 
getting educated, how we see our workers getting trained, and how we 
see the health care for our communities.

  We cannot invest in Iraq in a way that envisions they have a brighter 
future than the one we are envisioning for our own families. As we hear 
from my colleagues this evening about the budget choices we make, there 
are other areas we are going to be talking about on education, job 
training, health care, commerce, the environment.
  We have a policy for the marshes to be restored in Iraq, yet we are 
cutting the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. We 
have a $4 billion water program going on in Iraq, yet for our drinking 
water facility we have cut $300 million here at home. Those are not our 
values; those are not our priorities.
  So when the President declared in 2000 when he was running for the 
Presidency that he was against nation building, he was right; but who 
knew it was the United States he was talking about. But think of the 
upside: in 2004 when President Bush seeks reelection, he can at least 
say he kept his commitment, that he was against nation building because 
the end result of his economic policies, the end result of his budgets, 
9 million uninsured Americas, 2.7 million Americans who had jobs since 
he became President lost their jobs, 43 million Americans have no 
health care, 33 million Americans work full time without health care, 2 
million additional children who used to be part of the middle class are 
now in poverty, and a trillion dollars' worth of corporate assets have 
been foreclosed on.
  As Ronald Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn thing. Those are the 
facts, and those are the results of the President's economic 
priorities. This is his fourth budget since being President. He has 
made an investment in Iraq that he has not measured up and made here in 
the United States. We must have the priorities that we hold for Iraq to 
be true for the United States. That is what this debate and this 
discussion about the budget is.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) for allowing me this opportunity to lay out some of the choices 
that I went through on the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel) for his contribution.
  The gentleman was talking about the budget. The reason the budget is 
topical is tomorrow the House takes up what we call the budget 
resolution. It is a tough task that lies before us tomorrow. The budget 
resolution is just an outline. This is it right here. I have the 
Democratic substitute to it. It is about 67 pages double-spaced. So why 
is it so tough? It is tough because the deficit this year is $521 
billion. This year, 1 year, the deficit is $521 billion.

                              {time}  2015

  The budget is in deficit over the next 10 years by at least two to 
three times that amount, by at least $4 trillion on top of that amount. 
That is one reason the task is tough.
  It is also tough because we did not have to be here. We did not have 
to be in this situation. Three years ago when President Bush took 
office, he gained a benefit that no President in recent history has 
enjoyed. He gained a budget which he inherited in surplus, big-time 
surplus, by more than $100 billion. The previous year, the year 2000, 
the surplus was $236 billion. We actually paid off debt of the United 
States in 1999, 2000 and 2001. That was the context in which Mr. Bush 
came to office.

[[Page H1352]]

  His economists at his budget shop, the Office of Management and 
Budget, looked out over the next 10 years and told the President they 
foresaw surpluses, cumulative surpluses, of $5.6 trillion. Today, just 
3 years later, those surpluses have disappeared. Vanished. They are 
gone. They are no more. In their place we have a deficit, a cumulative 
deficit, of $2 to $3 trillion over the next 10 years, depending on 
assumptions you make about tax and spending policy.
  What happened to that surplus of $5.6 trillion? As it turned out, we 
warned the President. We had seen surpluses like this projected before. 
The projection is really an economist's construct of the future, and 
they missed it. They misestimated the size of the surplus by at least 
50 percent. And when you diminish the surplus expected of $5.6 trillion 
by 50 to 55 percent, it becomes $2.6 to $2.8 trillion. All of that 
remaining surplus has now been wiped out by tax cuts and then some, and 
by spending increases, largely for defense.
  The President says we have to rein in spending, but for the most 
part, spending has gone to defense, homeland security, the New York 
bailout, the airline bailout, the consequences of 9/11, categories that 
could hardly have been controlled. Domestic discretionary spending on 
education and health care and the environment has been growing at 2 to 
3 percent a year. He says we have to rein it in, but he ignores the 
spending category that is the big spike in the budget.
  In any event, the surplus has disappeared. The surplus of $5.6 
trillion is no more. It has been replaced by a deficit. So you would 
expect the President in that light to send us a budget this year that 
would begin to move us into balance, take us back to the path we were 
on when he came to office, when he saw nothing but surpluses for the 
next 10 years.
  The President does indeed present us a budget which claims to cut the 
deficit in half by 2009, within 5 years. But he omits from that 
calculation anything for waging war of low intensity against the 
insurgencies and so forth in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing for the 
deployments we have there. Even though his Office of Management and 
Budget says that there will probably be at least $500 billion more 
needed sometime later this year or early next year, you will not find 
that calculated anywhere in the President's budget.
  When he says we are going to cut the deficit in half, not a nickel 
after 2004 is included for the cost of our deployments in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, even though the cost is substantial and they are not coming 
to an end, unfortunately, anytime soon.
  And so the President does not bring the budget to balance. Indeed, he 
does not run his budget out 10 years as was customary just a few years 
ago.
  When he came to office, so that he could say that there is plenty of 
support for the type of tax cut I am proposing, $1.7 trillion in tax 
reduction over 10 years, he extended his projection of the budget out 
over 10 years to get the cumulative total of $5.6 trillion. Those who 
looked closely noticed that two-thirds to three-fourths of all that 
surplus occurred in the second half of that 10-year period of time. 
Now, the surplus has disappeared, the basis for those tax cuts has been 
removed, so what does the President recommend for next year? Another 
$1.3 trillion in tax reduction. He recommends making permanent all of 
the tax cuts made in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
  We are not here tonight to advocate higher taxes or more taxes or 
more revenues. We are here to advocate rebalancing the budget as a 
critical domestic priority, particularly given the fact that in just a 
few years we are going to see a demographic phenomenon the likes of 
which this country has not seen before, the retirement of the baby 
boomers. Within 20 years, the number of people on Social Security will 
nearly double. The number of beneficiaries on Medicare will nearly 
double. We should be preparing now by saving, and we are not.
  We are dissaving. We are spending more than we take in. As a 
consequence, our children are going to have to bear the cost of 
Medicare and Social Security for our retirement, for the baby boomers' 
retirement. And in addition to that, they are going to have to bear the 
consequences of the debt that we are now stacking up, which could 
easily be $7, $8, $9 trillion by the time the baby boomers begin to 
retire and start drawing their benefits. That is why this is a serious 
period that requires serious fiscal policy.
  So what does the President recommend? He recommends another $1.3 
trillion in tax cuts, and the budget resolution that our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, will bring up tomorrow 
will embrace essentially the same tax agenda, which can only mean, 
given the fact that we have no surplus anymore, that every dollar of 
those tax cuts, if they are enacted and implemented, every dollar of 
revenue lost due to those tax cuts will go straight to the bottom line, 
will enlarge the deficit and will make it bigger and not smaller.
  That is the situation we find ourselves in tonight and tomorrow as we 
take up the budget resolution, with a tough problem and difficult to 
handle.
  Before going further, let me recognize the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
his hard work on the budget. It is a lot of hard work and a lot of 
dedication. He articulates what the problem is.
  I like to use charts when I discuss the budget because sometimes 
people lose perspective of exactly what the problem is when you talk 
about the budget and the mess that we are in.
  This is a chart showing the deficit from the Johnson administration, 
Nixon, Ford, Carter. The red here is the Reagan and Bush deficits; the 
green is the Clinton administration digging us out of the mess; and the 
red is the present Bush administration budget.
  The difference between the $100 billion surplus that we expected and 
the over-$650 billion deficit we see now, this is on-budget, this is 
after you have spent the $150 billion Medicare and Social Security 
surplus, that is a $750 billion swing. That is a big number.
  I like to put it in perspective. If you look on the Federal budget, 
on the line item Revenue Individual Income Tax, that is all the 
individual income tax that we take in, we take in less than $800 
billion in individual income tax. Here in 3 years, the budget 
deterioration, the deficit situation has deteriorated $750 billion, 
almost the entire value of the entire individual income tax that we 
take in.
  As the gentleman from South Carolina indicated, we had a surplus. 
When this administration came in, the budget discussion, the questions 
that were asked of Chairman Greenspan, questions like, if we paid off 
the entire national debt, what would happen to the interest rates? What 
would happen to the bond market? Should we retire all of the debt or 
just the long-term debt or maybe just the short-term debt? That was the 
discussion, how to pay off the national debt.
  Since the first budget of this administration was enacted, we have 
not heard anything about paying off the national debt.
  Some of the Republicans want to take credit for some of the hard work 
and tough decisions made during the Clinton administration. I would 
remind them that when the Clinton administration came in and passed the 
first budget, it was passed by the narrowest of margins and not a 
single Republican in the House or in the Senate voted to start this 
green line going up.
  In 1995, when the Republicans used those votes, demagogued those 
votes, took over the House and the Senate and offered their first 
budget, it included massive tax cuts. President Clinton vetoed those 
tax cuts. They threatened to close down the government if he did not 
sign the tax cuts. He vetoed them anyway. They shut down the government 
and he vetoed them again. He would not sign a budget that would wreck 
the progress that we had already made. As a result of the presidential 
vetoes, not the congressional action, the presidential vetoes, we 
maintained a straight line all the way up to a surplus of $100 billion.
  When President Bush came in, the Congress passed those tax cuts 
again, and we see what happened as a result.
  The administration promises to cut the deficit in half within 5 
years. First of all, as the gentleman from South Carolina indicated, 
the President is not going to be able to achieve that goal. But the 
goal itself is insulting. We started this administration with a surplus 
expected to be $100 billion and now

[[Page H1353]]

we have gotten into the mess and the President only promises to clean 
up half of the mess. What we ought to be talking about is, when do we 
get back to a major surplus and when do we pay off this additional debt 
that we actually have?
  We got into that mess with massive tax cuts. The administration and 
some Republicans like to say, who got the tax cuts? This chart by 20th 
percentiles shows the lowest 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, third 
20 percent, fourth 20 percent, the highest 20 percent, highest upper-
income brackets. Who got the tax cuts?
  You can call it what you want. This is the chart. There is a line 
here at about the 50 percent mark. Half of the value of the tax cuts 
went to the upper 1 percent of the population. So whatever they say, 
this is the chart.
  When you run up that kind of debt, you have to pay it back off, but 
in the meanwhile, you have to pay interest on the national debt. This 
chart shows the interest that we will be paying on the national debt.
  This line is the interest we expected to pay as we were paying off 
the entire national debt; that is this dark line here. The red line is 
the interest on the national debt that we are going to have to pay 
because we have messed up the budget.
  These lines show the difference in interest on the national debt. It 
is going to be $341 billion more in interest on the national debt every 
year and growing. By 2010, about $1.2 trillion in additional interest 
on the national debt.
  $341 billion additional interest on the national debt; like I said, 
we are bringing in less than $800 billion in individual income tax, but 
$341 billion at $34,000 apiece, that is enough to hire 10 million 
Americans, give 10 million American jobs at $34,000 apiece.
  There are only 9 million listed as unemployed. Ten million could have 
been hired with just the difference in interest on the national debt. 
Ten million. We are struggling to hire 100,000 police officers and 
cannot do it. We would like to hire 100,000 additional teachers, maybe 
even 1 million teachers. Ten million additional people at $34,000 
apiece just in the lost interest on the debt.
  We were told we got into that mess to create jobs. You need a chart 
to show the jobs. This is one chart. There are other charts that show 
the same picture, the number of jobs from everybody's administration 
back to Harry Truman.
  Harry Truman created about 4 million jobs in his second 
administration. Eisenhower, about 1.9 million jobs the first term, lost 
about 200,000 in the next term, but it is a net plus, 1.7 million. 
Kennedy-Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Ford. Everyone creating jobs. Clinton, 
over 10 million jobs the first term, another 10 million jobs the second 
term; until you get to this administration, lost almost 3 million jobs 
already.

                              {time}  2030

  When we look at this chart, we wonder what happened. This 
administration will point to 9-11 as the cause for the loss in jobs. In 
my view, because we had so much additional spending right after 9-11, 
about $40 billion, properly done, we should have been gaining jobs 
after 9-11. But whatever the situation with 9-11, just remember that 
this chart includes the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the hostages in 
Iran, Grenada, Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo. Everyone has had 
military involvement including the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and 
everyone creates jobs during those crises except this administration. 
We have lost jobs.
  Now, we need to look at the chart because some in this administration 
will say that the tax cuts are working. Look at the chart. The economy 
is doing well. We look at the chart. This is the worst since Harry 
Truman. Actually, the worst since the Great Depression, but this chart 
just goes back 50 years. This is not a good result. The tax cuts did 
not work. Millions of Americans lost their jobs.
  The final chart shows the real crisis that we have, and that is 
maintaining Social Security. Chairman Greenspan said if we make the tax 
cuts permanent, we have to, I think he said, adjust Social Security. He 
did not say cut, but the people will get less than they anticipated. 
Most people would call that a cut. Increase the age of retirement, 
reduce the cost-of-living increases, most people would consider those 
as cuts; but we will use ``adjust.'' If we make the tax cuts permanent, 
we must adjust Social Security. This chart shows that we are bringing 
in more Social Security than we are paying out now, and in 2017 we are 
going to start paying out more than we are bringing in.
  This chart shows that in just a few years we will be paying out $300 
billion more in Social Security than we are bringing in. If we add the 
Social Security deficit with the additional interest on the national 
debt, the GAO just recently produced a chart that showed that the 
projected Federal revenues in just a couple of decades will be 
insufficient to pay the Social Security deficit and interest on the 
national debt. It will be insufficient to pay that. Before we get to 
Medicaid and Medicare and before we get to all other government 
spending, just the deficit and Social Security and interest on the 
national debt will absorb all Federal revenues.
  There is one thing about this chart that is interesting, and that is 
as challenging as this chart is, if the President, instead of giving a 
tax cut to that upper 1 percent, had allocated what he has got in store 
for the upper 1 percent into the Social Security trust fund, we would 
have been able to pay Social Security without reducing benefits or 
adjusting benefits for 75 years. Or we can look out for the upper 1 
percent and give them the tax cuts that the President has proposed. We 
had a choice. We had a choice in education, tax cuts for the 
millionaires or Pell grants and fully fund No Child Left Behind.
  We have talked about veterans benefits. We do not pay enough in the 
budget proposed by the Republican majority, not enough to maintain 
present services for veterans health care. Homeland Security, 
underfunded. The troops are not properly equipped. And this 
administration has shown no indication that they care about the budget. 
I mean, just the way that the war has been fought, we appropriated $87 
billion a couple of months ago. We had already spent $79 billion. That 
is $166 billion on the war with more coming. The meter is still 
ticking. $166 billion is more than we spent in a year in the Department 
of Homeland Security plus the Department of Education plus the 
Department of Transportation plus the Department of Labor plus the 
Department of State, combined, not up to $166 billion. What has this 
administration talked about as to how to pay for it? Tax cuts and no 
cuts in spending? It all goes to the bottom line.
  Now, $166 billion compared to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago, how 
much did we spend on the Persian Gulf War? How much did the Persian 
Gulf War cost the United States of America? $7.4 billion, 7.4. We have 
spent 166 billion already and counting. It cost 7.4 billion because we 
had allies. It was not ``my way or the highway.'' We had allies, and 
they paid most of the expenses. This time it is all on our dime. We are 
spending $166 billion and more. It goes right to the bottom line on the 
deficit chart.
  So I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina, we can do better 
than this. We do not create a chart like this by accident. We do not 
create this green shaded area by accident. Tough choices were involved. 
And we can make those tough choices. We can fund our priorities, the 
ones that the gentleman from Illinois talked about: the health care, 
the transportation, the housing, all of those needs. We can address 
those. But we have to do it in a fiscally responsible way.
  During this period of time when we were exercising fiscal 
responsibility, making the tough choices, we were creating millions of 
jobs. When we resorted to fiscal irresponsibility, none of the tough 
choices, we noticed that not only have we wrecked the budget, but we 
have also lost jobs in the process. So these are the kinds of things 
that are going on.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of 
the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?

[[Page H1354]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman 
from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up where the 
gentleman left off with more explanatory charts. We have said that the 
projected surplus in the year 2001 when the President came to office 
was an unprecedented $5.6 trillion. There it is on this simple table. 
Under the President's fiscal policies and under the situation of the 
times, not all of his making, that surplus declined from $5.6 trillion 
to a deficit today in accordance with his 2005 budget, which will equal 
over this same period of time 2002, 2011, a cumulative $2.928 trillion 
deficit. From $5.6 trillion in surplus to $2.9 trillion in deficit. The 
arithmetic is simple. That is a reversal of $8.5 trillion over a 3-year 
period of time. We have never seen fiscal discipline come so unraveled, 
all of the effort in the 1990s to put the budget in balance for the 
first time in 30 years, to put it in surplus, to bequeath that surplus 
to President Bush only to have it absolutely wiped out over the next 3 
years.
  Here is a very simple graph that shows the path the deficit has taken 
since 1989 when the first President Bush was the President. As we can 
see, under the administration of the first President Bush, the deficit 
declined and grew worse, from $153 billion to $221 billion to the point 
where in the last year the first President Bush held office, we had a 
deficit of $290 billion. In 1991, 1992, a deficit of $290 billion. That 
was the situation that President Clinton found when he came to office 
in January of 1993.
  If we look at the curve rising up, it shows us that every year of the 
Clinton administration, the bottom line of the budget got better and 
better and better. Every year the deficit was lower until 1998 when we 
had a surplus for the first time in 30 years and in the year 2000 we 
had a surplus, a phenomenal surplus, of $236 billion. The next year 
President Bush came to office. Three solid years preceded him in 
surplus. His own economists told him to expect a surplus of $5.6 
trillion. They blew it. They overestimated it. We warned him to be 
wary, but nevertheless that was the situation in which he came to 
office. Here is what has happened since. The $521 billion here at the 
bottom of this chart is the projected deficit for this year from the 
administration. That is not our estimate. We are not trying to put some 
sort of spin on it. The facts are bad enough and speak for themselves. 
The Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Bush's shop, said the deficit 
this year will be $521 billion.
  As we see the next chart, we pick up that $521 billion over here on 
the vertical axis, right there, $521 billion, the deficit in 2004; and 
then we make some politically realistic, and we think budgetarily 
realistic, adjustments to the path that CBO, our Congressional Budget 
Office, has plotted for the President's budget because they make 
certain assumptions that are, frankly, not realistic. For example, they 
require by law to assume that when a tax cut expires, it dies, it 
sunsets, it does not come back. We know from practical experience that 
popular tax cuts are almost always renewed, and therefore they do not 
give a plus-up to the budget. If we make assumptions like that, 
politically realistic assumptions, then the President's budget will go 
from $521 billion to 389 next year. It gets a bit of a bounce from this 
economy. It is helping. The economy is helping diminish the budget 
deficit, but it bottoms out at about that level and stays around 300 to 
$400 billion for the next 10 years to the point where in 2014, the 
deficit is still over $500 billion: 521 in 2004; 502 in 2014. That is 
our best estimate of where we are going under the President's budget 
per his projections adjusted for what we consider political reality.
  By the way, the blue line up there, which the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) was just rising to call my attention to remind the Members, 
that is the plot we were on, the path we were taking when President 
Bush came to office, and that is how far we have descended into debt. 
From all the way up here, $250 billion in surplus down to deficits of 
$521 billion.
  It is obvious to anyone, everyone, that a budget deficit of this 
magnitude requires bold measures. Simple half measures simply will not 
cut it. We learned that in the 1980s and the 1990s. We need a long-term 
plan for deficit reduction. We need enforcement to back up our 
intentions, and we need to look at every segment of the budget, 
spending and revenues both.
  If we look at this simple pie chart here, we will see that this 
wedge, domestic nonhomeland security, discretionary spending, that is, 
education, the FBI, the Justice Department, the National Parks Service, 
the government as we know it falls in this wedge right here. The 
entitlement programs take up two thirds of the budget. This other 
wedge, the red wedge, is for defense and international support, 
international aid, foreign aid, discretionary spending; and then this 
sliver down here is homeland defense. A small sliver today, but growing 
every year, $46 billion this year, an account that did not even exist 
in the budget 3 years ago.

                              {time}  2045

  Well, what does the President propose? Essentially what he proposes 
is to rein in spending, his words, but he goes only to this segment of 
the budget, 15 percent of the budget, domestic, nonhomeland security, 
domestic discretionary spending. He goes to it and begins to clamp down 
on it and take one-half to one percentage points out of it, cuts that 
do not seem that draconian in truth.
  But, in effect, the President takes about $10 billion to $15 billion 
below constant dollar levels out of the domestic discretionary 
accounts, and by the fifth year of his budget forecast, that is all 
that is left. That is all that is left. The cut amounts to $40 billion 
to $50 billion. It begins to become serious, particularly in accounts 
like education and health care.
  Now, we have taken seriously this budget forecast because it is, I 
think, a call to arms. If you add up all of the deficits shown on this 
politically realistic line, they come to about $3.5 trillion over the 
next 10 years. If we are realistic, honest, frank, and face the facts, 
that is the future we are looking at. I do not think that is a 
sustainable course. I do not think that is a future we want to have or 
a situation we want to bequeath to our children.
  So we have come up with a budget that will be offered tomorrow as a 
substitute to the budget offered by our Republican colleagues. Their 
budget never gets in deficit, partly because they only run the budget 
out 5 years, not 10 years as was customary in the recent past. They do 
not go the extra 5 years, because that would require them to confront 
an uncomfortable decision.
  Their tax cuts will expire within that second 5 years. They intend to 
renew those tax cuts. But if they renew those tax cuts that were passed 
in 2002, 2003 and 2001, if they renew those tax cuts, the budget will 
never balance, at least not on any chart we have got or any forecast 
that is likely to be made. It will be in deficit for as far out as the 
eye can see.
  We, however, have taken our budget and run it out 10 years, and we 
have made certain assumptions about tax cuts. We protect middle-income 
tax cuts. We call for the extension of the marriage penalty provisions. 
We call for extension of the child tax credit at $1,000. We call for 
extension of the 10 percent bracket. So we protect middle-class tax 
cuts.
  In addition, we protect the estate tax. We protect the reforms in the 
estate tax and call for a reduction in the estate tax by substantial 
increases in the unified estate and gift tax credits.
  What do we do? This is most important. After doing these things, 
spending $10 billion over 5 years, more than they commit to education, 
$4 billion more to the environment, all down the line with critical 
priorities, veterans health care, $2.5 billion more than the President 
provides for veterans health care because veterans deserve it, we 
promised it, and they are stacked up trying to get appointments at 
veterans hospitals today. We have taken care of critical priorities 
with a really discriminating eye as to what really matters.
  In the process, we have also provided for a fiscal framework that 
will balance the budget within 8 years, by 2012, will accumulate less 
debt each year, less deficit each year, than the Republican bill that 
is the main bill on the floor tomorrow. Our substitute will accumulate 
less debt, smaller deficits, and will balance by the year 2012.

[[Page H1355]]

  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I notice some of the gentleman's numbers are 
slightly different than the numbers I was using. I think we need to 
explain that these numbers are with the unified budget. The ones I was 
using were what are called on-budget, which means that you save the 
$150 billion in Social Security and Medicare surpluses. That $521 
billion assumes that you have spent through that already, before you 
start counting the deficit.
  Mr. SPRATT. The gentleman makes an excellent point. If the $521 
billion were not reduced or diminished by the offset of the Social 
Security surplus, which is about $160 billion, it would instead be $681 
billion, instead of $521 billion. In truth, he was here when we voted 
to do it. We have taken Social Security off budget. We acknowledge that 
the moneys in that trust fund are being accumulated today to be spent 
in the very near future, and they should not be consolidated with and 
diminish other accounts. You should look at the budget bottom line 
without offsetting the Social Security surplus gains.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would also ask the gentleman, who was here 
leading the charge during the time when we eliminated the deficit and 
went to surplus, if he could explain what PAYGO means.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, the word 
``PAYGO'' will be used frequently in this debate. In 1990, as we were 
trying to get our hands around the deficit, we came up with some budget 
process changes that had enormous significance. They were scoffed at at 
the time, but they have worked remarkably well.
  One was the pay-as-you-go rule, or PAYGO rule. What it provided was 
if anyone wants to cut taxes, he must either cut taxes in one place in 
the code and raise them elsewhere, or find an entitlement benefit and 
cut it by an amount commensurate with the tax cut so that it is deficit 
neutral, it does not enlarge the deficit.
  By the same token, if one wants to enhance, enlarge, liberalize an 
entitlement, benefit, it either has to be paid for with a new revenue 
stream or you have to cut another entitlement somewhere in order to 
offset it and make it deficit neutral.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Is that the one behind you? The red, green and 
yellow on the floor.
  Mr. SPRATT. I will put your favorite chart up.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When we had PAYGO with the fiscal discipline, 
wherein if you increased the spending, you had to pay for it, or if you 
cut a tax, you had to pay for that, what color is that on the chart?
  Mr. SPRATT. The green is surplus. It is deficit diminution. The red 
is a growing deficit.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Then what happened to PAYGO in recent years?
  Mr. SPRATT. The PAYGO rule was adopted for 5 years, renewed again for 
5 years in 1997, and expired in 2002, and has not been renewed. But for 
the PAYGO rule, the tax cuts that were passed in the early 2000 period 
by the Bush administration could not have come to the House floor.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Unless they were paid for.
  Mr. SPRATT. Offset, fully offset.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for his leadership in this extraordinary quest to balance the budget 
and provide the surpluses that this Nation so sorely needs. I would 
like to thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak tonight on an 
issue that I care greatly about.
  I voted for the first Bush tax cuts, and I voted consistently to cut 
estate taxes and to eliminate the marriage penalty tax, so I do not 
think anybody could accuse me of being a wild-eyed tax and spend 
liberal, but I do understand fiscal responsibility and I understand 
what is important to the people I represent.
  Our President speaks of his commitment to education and his 
dedication to our seniors and veterans and his support for improving 
health care, but when it comes to providing the funding needed to match 
this rhetoric, I am afraid this President refuses to put his money 
where his mouth is. In fact, our President cuts nearly all domestic 
programs after the year 2005. He cuts education and training programs, 
health care and environmental protection programs, and veterans 
programs as well, all of which are vitally important to the millions of 
Americans all across our vast country.
  One item in this year's budget that escaped without any cuts is the 
Yucca Mountain project. Despite hundreds of unanswered scientific 
questions, multiple lawsuits now pending in Federal court and troubling 
homeland security issues, the President has budgeted nearly $900 
million for this white elephant, an increase of more than 50 percent.
  Since September 11, we are living in a far more dangerous world, yet 
the administration refuses to acknowledge the very real terrorist 
threat that will be unleashed if thousands of shipments of nuclear 
waste are allowed to cross the Nation on their way to the State of 
Nevada. One terrorist attack on a shipment of high level nuclear waste 
could unleash the most deadly substance known to man, threatening lives 
and causing billions of dollars in environmental damage. The funding 
that is now being wasted on this giant hole in the middle of the Nevada 
desert should be used in ways that benefit America's families, not in 
the profits of the nuclear energy industry.
  Why not pour these hundreds of millions of dollars into providing 
educational programs for our students, greater access to health care, 
benefits for our veterans and into efforts to make our Nation energy 
independent? Or to restore the $850 million in funding for homeland 
security activities that has been left out of the Republican budget?
  In times of war, America has made promises to our veterans that we 
failed to fulfill in times of peace. As our troops fight in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and in countries across the globe, President Bush is 
refusing to ensure quality health care and pensions and benefits for 
our veterans. The Republicans provided $1.3 billion less in funding 
than recommended by our VA Secretary for Health Care Programs, 
including cuts to long-term care that will affect over 8,000 former 
service members.
  In Las Vegas, aging veterans need more care than their families can 
possibly provide, and they turn to the VA long-term care facilities to 
provide the necessary health care services. These brave men and women, 
who fought for and protected our Nation, must know that they can count 
on the VA to assist them with the care they have earned through their 
military service.

  Our veterans deserve better than having to worry that the budget cuts 
at the VA will deny them the high-quality health care they were 
promised when they left military duty. We must send them a message that 
we are indebted to their sacrifices and that we remain committed to our 
promises and to increasing these levels of funding to keep pace with 
the demand in Las Vegas and nationwide.
  Another area, Madam Speaker, of the budget that is of vital 
importance to my district is funding for dropout prevention programs. 
Nevada has one of the highest dropout rates in this Nation. School 
officials in Nevada are working diligently to develop and implement 
programs to keep our kids in school, but they lack the funding and the 
resources at the local level.
  I do not have to tell the gentleman that students that do not earn a 
diploma, that do not graduate from high school, will make far less in 
the workplace than their counterparts, and they are at a high risk of 
incarceration, far higher than those who do graduate high school. 
Sadly, the President's budget for fiscal year 2005 completely 
eliminates all Federal funding for dropout prevention efforts in Nevada 
and nationwide.
  Like many other States, Nevada is facing a health care crisis. The 
exploding growth of Nevada has put a strain on our health care system. 
Working families in my State are struggling to make ends meet, and many 
are scared to death of the financial burden they face as a result of 
having no health insurance should they require medical treatment.
  The Bush budget does nothing, nothing, to help these families access 
health care or obtain insurance coverage. Instead, it hands almost $46 
million over to the HMOs, cuts training

[[Page H1356]]

for nurses by 60 percent and slashes Medicaid.
  Not only does the Bush budget ignore the realities of the uninsured, 
the President has also proposed shifting the cost of Medicaid onto the 
States. Most of our States are already facing a fiscal crisis. In the 
State of Nevada, we raised taxes to an unprecedented level. In Nevada, 
this shift that the President is suggesting will result in those most 
in need of assistance, children, the disabled and working families 
being cut from the rolls or having their benefits slashed unmercifully.
  The President's budget represents far more than just numbers on a 
page. It is a commitment to meeting the needs of our Nation, our 
communities and those that we elected to serve in this United States 
Congress. The Bush budget fails to meet the needs of our veterans, our 
students, our teachers and our seniors.
  Rather than invest in dropout prevention, long-term care for our 
veterans or protecting the Medicare system, this budget increases 
funding for Yucca Mountain at the expense of those who will suffer as a 
result of these misplaced priorities.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Democratic 
alternative. It makes sense, it is balanced, it is smart and it puts 
our Nation's citizens at the forefront when it comes to priorities.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me share the problems that the 
people in my community are experiencing and that will only be 
exacerbated by the President's budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution.
  Madam Speaker, going back to this chart, I think it should be obvious 
to almost any citizen, every fair-minded person, that a budget 
accumulating a deficit of $3 trillion to $4 trillion over the next 10 
years, and possibly more, plotted by this line right here, is a budget 
that is not sustainable and should not be passed.

                              {time}  2100

  The Republicans have brought to the floor and will bring up tomorrow 
a budget resolution that, in effect, hides the outyear consequences 
because they simply quit in 2009. They do not go further. They do not 
extrapolate what will happen when the tax cuts, passed in 2001, 2002 
and 2003, are made permanent. But what will happen is shown on this 
chart: the deficit will never get better. We have decided that this 
kind of problem requires bold decisions, and this budget resolution 
brought to the floor tomorrow by the majority party does not make them.
  We are offering instead an alternative. It could be bolder, but it is 
definitely a step forward and a step in the right direction. Our budget 
fiscally will sustain smaller deficits each year and every year from 
2005 through 2014 because we do not fear the extension of our budget 
into the outyears, because we propose a path through those years that 
will eventually bring us to balance. Indeed, our budget will balance in 
8 years, by the year 2012, using realistic and reasonable assumptions. 
We will accumulate less debt, we will have smaller deficits, and we 
will put the budget back in balance.
  Madam Speaker, let me emphasize too that in doing so, we will provide 
the same basic level for national defense as our Republican colleagues, 
and we will up them one. We will provide $5 billion more than they 
provide for homeland defense. We will protect the middle-income tax 
cuts, as I said earlier, the marriage penalty, the 10 percent bracket, 
the child tax credit. We will even provide that the estate tax should 
be substantially reformed by significantly increasing the estate and 
gift tax credits.
  Within that same context, we will provide $10 billion more than our 
Republican colleagues do over 5 years, $10 billion more for education. 
We will provide $2.2 billion more for the environment. We will provide 
$5 billion, as I said, more for homeland security. And over 10 years, 
we will provide $6.6 billion more for veterans health care.
  We have been discriminating and careful about the increases we have 
made. We have picked our priorities with care. But we protected those 
things that are essentially important, the safety net and important 
programs like veterans health care, as they should be protected; but we 
have still protected our children and our future by bringing the budget 
to balance within 8 years.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation 
and will be back to the floor tomorrow to pick up where we leave off 
tonight.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today being very 
disturbed with the direction that the Republican Party and this 
administration is taking our great Nation. The prime reason for my 
concern is the national budget which will come before this body 
tomorrow. The Nussle budget clearly does not improve upon the severely 
flawed Bush Administration budget. The needs of average Americans are 
still ignored. The interests of a wealthy few outweigh the needs of an 
entire Nation in this budget. I say this not out of partisanship, but 
from a statement of the facts. I want to highlight a few areas in this 
budget that are particularly egregious.


                               Education

  This President and the majority party in this body have spent so much 
time talking about their record on education, and as hard as I try I 
cannot see what they have to be proud of. It is one thing to address 
areas of critical need with rhetoric, but to advocate a policy and then 
not fund it sufficiently is plain irresponsible. At the top of the list 
of my concerns is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the fact that 
it has become an unfunded mandate. The House Republican resolution 
provides at least $8.8 billion less than the $34.3 billion authorized 
for education programs under the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act for 2005. 
This low funding leaves millions of elementary and secondary school 
students without the services Congress and the President promised just 
two years ago. For example, the Republican budget denies Title I 
services to 2.4 million students who qualify under the Act.
  But the irresponsibility does not end with No Child Left Behind. For 
the third straight year the Republican Party has frozen the funding 
level for Pell Grants. Both the Republicans and the President freeze 
the maximum Pell Grant award at the 2003 level of $4,050, with an 
average grant of $2,399. Such small Pell Grants make 
college unaffordable for millions of students: the College Board 
reports that tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges today average 
$4,694. In any market this gap would be hard to swallow, but with the 
current state of joblessness that the Republican Party's agenda has 
created it is near impossible for so many American families to send 
their children to college. I fear that this agenda, if allowed to 
continue, will cause a perpetual state where our American families 
aren't able to succeed.


                                veterans

  Our brave American veterans are another group who were outraged by 
the President's budget and will unfortunately be disappointed with the 
Republican House Budget. I hear so much in this body from the majority 
party about the greatness of our Armed Forces, and they're right, but 
again it's just empty rhetoric on their part. Those brave men and women 
fighting on the front lines in our War Against Terror will come back 
and find that the Republican Party looks at them differently once they 
become veterans. Almost all veterans need some form of health care, 
some will need drastic care for the rest of their lives because of the 
sacrifice they made in war, but the Republican Party continues to turn 
a blind eye to their needs. On a bipartisan basis, the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs recommended that $2.5 billion more than the 
President's budget was needed to maintain vital health care programs 
for veterans. Nevertheless, the House Republican budget provides $1.3 
billion less than what the Committee recommended for 2005.
  The entire Department of Veterans Affairs is going to suffer because 
of the Republican agenda. Over the next five years the money allocated 
to the Department of Veterans Affairs will not even be able to maintain 
these programs at their current levels. In 2007, the budget is $227 
million less than what the Department of Veterans Affairs needs to keep 
pace with inflation. Over five years, the Republican budget cuts $1.6 
billion from the total needed to maintain services at the 2004 level. 
I've heard from veterans groups throughout my district in Houston, and 
I'm sure each Member of this body has heard from groups in their own 
district, because veterans are one group that comes from all parts of 
this Nation. These brave veterans have told me their stories of how 
they are suffering now with the current state of Veterans Affairs. I am 
going to have trouble telling them that not only will things continue 
to stay bad, but if this budget passes this body things will only 
continue to get worse. That is not what our returning soldiers from 
Iraq and Afghanistan should have to look forward to--a future where 
their needs are not only not provided for, but are in fact ignored.


                   Irresponsible Republican Policies

  Education and Veterans Affairs make up only two areas where the 
Republican budget fails Americans. The truth is there are many other 
programs and services vital to our Nation that are at risk because of 
the Republican

[[Page H1357]]

agenda. At this point, an average American may be asking why the 
Republican Party finds it necessary to cut so many fundamental 
programs. The answer is simple, yet disturbing: The majority party is 
cutting important programs in order to finance all their irresponsible 
tax cuts. They will continue to make the argument that tax cuts provide 
stimulus for our economy, but millions of unemployed Americans will 
tell you otherwise. In fact the Congressional Budget Office itself said 
``tax legislation will probably have a net negative effect on saving, 
investment, and capital accumulation over the next 10 years.''
  While the Republican Party continues its offensive for irresponsible 
tax policies, they allow our national deficit to grow increasingly 
larger. The deficits are so large and their policies are so 
irresponsible that they won't even make deficit projections past 2009. 
It's clear that the Republican Party is hiding from the American 
people. This President and this majority in Congress have yet to 
advocate a fiscal policy that helps average Americans. Special 
interests have become king in this budget at the price of sound fiscal 
policies.


                 Democratic and CBC Alternative Budget

  The truth about the budget is that a sound fiscal policy that funds 
needed programs is possible. The Democratic Alternative Budget and the 
CBC Alternative Budget are both examples of how we can get out of the 
quagmire that the Republican agenda has put this Nation in.
  The Democratic budget achieves balance within eight years through 
realistic policy choices that protect funding for key services. The 
Democratic budget also has a better bottom line than the Republican 
budget every year, meaning a smaller national debt and fewer resources 
wasted paying interest on the national debt. Chronic deficits crowd out 
private borrowing, run up interest rates, and slow down economic 
growth. In addition, the Democratic budget provides $1.3 billion more 
than the Republican budget for veterans programs for 2005 and $6.6 
billion more over five years. The Democratic budget provides $2.1 
billion more for appropriated education and training programs than the 
Republican budget for 2005 and $9.8 billion more over the next five 
years. The Democratic budget also provides $3.7 billion in mandatory 
funding to make up the current shortfall in funding for Pell grants and 
additional funding to make college loans cheaper for students. These 
programs are all funded while maintaining a sound fiscal policy. The 
Democratic budget achieves balance within eight years through realistic 
policy choices that protect funding for key services. The Democratic 
budget also has a better bottom line than the Republican budget every 
year, meaning a smaller national debt and fewer resources wasted paying 
interest on the national debt. Republicans will surely try to counter 
this by touting the benefits of tax cuts. However, most Americans are 
waking up to the fact that mass tax cuts targeted toward the wealthiest 
Americans will only bog down our national economy. The Democratic 
budget accommodates the extension of marriage-penalty relief, the child 
tax credit, and the ten percent individual income tax bracket. These 
tax cuts provide relief to middle-class families whose incomes have 
stagnated under the current administration's economic policies. This is 
what a sound fiscal policy really stands for.

  This body was made to stand for the will of all Americans; if we 
allow this budget proposal to take effect we will have failed our 
mandate. I for one will not stand by silently; I have a duty to my 
constituents and indeed to all Americans to work for their well being 
and I will continue to honor that duty.

                          ____________________