John Spratt: “I guess the puzzling, perplexing aspect of this bill is why we are reaching for a new solution when we have got other…”

“I guess the puzzling, perplexing aspect of this bill is why we are reaching for a new solution when we have got other solutions ready at hand. For example, as the gentleman from Iowa knows, we are way over the discretionary spending caps. There is no chance that we will adhere to the caps that we set in 1997. We could reset the discretionary spending caps, reinstate the process we call sequestration, so that if we exceed those caps, there is an automatically across-the-board series of cuts that reins in spending to the level we have set. We also have something around here we call the pay-go rule. It applies to tax cuts and entitlement increases. It says, basically, if we want to have either, we have to pay for it. We have to offset it. There must be an offsetting tax increase to diminish the revenue loss or there must be a decrease in an entitlement in order to pay for an increase in entitlement. Those rules are there. Why not simply put them back into working order? Furthermore, if we are really in earnest, the surplus projected for next year, 2001, is $102 billion, per CBO's most recent report. $102 billion is the on-budget surplus without including Social Security. Why go for $25 if the on-budget surplus is $102? Why not raise our sights, lift the bar a bit, and go $50, half of the on-budget surplus?”