Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2145-H2166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent
resolution, H. Con. Res. 95.

{time} 1340

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 and
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and
2005 through 2013, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is
considered as having been read the first time.
General debate shall not exceed 3 hours, with 2 hours confined to the
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on the
subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 1 hour of debate on the
congressional budget.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to begin by thanking our staff from the Committee on the
Budget. They have worked enormously hard to bring us to this point in
time where we are able to come to the floor to talk about the budget.
Usually we reserve this to the end of the debate, but I just want to
thank them because we are at a very unique time in our history. It
requires some difficult choices. It requires us to analyze the
situation very carefully. We have good people that work for us in both
the majority and minority. I want to thank them for the work that they
do. They have been asked to do a job, they do it, they do it well, and
we find ourselves on the floor ready to debate the bill on time and
ready to debate the budget within the procedure that we laid out at the
beginning of the year.
Similarly, we ask young men and women overseas to do a job today.
They are doing it in fine fashion. They represent us well. They
represent our hopes and our dreams. They represent our freedom. They
represent America. We are proud of our troops. We are proud of the job
that they do, and we are proud that they do the job without blinking an
eye, without any hesitation.
I believe they would ask the same of us here today, that while there
are certainly trials and tribulations that confound us around the world
today, that we do our work, that we are not distracted by a tyrant in
Baghdad, and we are not distracted by terrorism around the world. It
would be very easy to be distracted by that. It would be very easy to
suggest, let's maybe wait for another day. But I think what America
demands is that we continue the work of freedom, we continue the work
of democracy. That is what they are fighting for, and that is what we
need to do as well.
Mr. Chairman, we are at war. I did not have to practice that part of
the speech because we were at war even before last night. We are at war
against

[[Page H2146]]

international terrorism. The President determined that soon after
September 11, 2001. That war continues. The fact that we opened up
another front last night and that we will continue to pursue that front
should not deter us, and we need to plan for it within our budgets. We
need to take that into consideration as we debate this budget here
today. So we are debating a wartime budget at a time during very
difficult economic challenges and at a time when we face deficits for
this foreseeable future.

{time} 1345

None of us, at least most of us, do not want deficits. In fact, I
said in my very first opening statement at the committee this year that
I do not like deficits, I do not want deficits, and I will not pretend
to this body, to my colleagues, to the President, to the Senate, or to
my constituents at home that deficits do not matter. However, we are
faced with that; and all of the yelling and screaming and all of the
finger-pointing in the world and all of the things that might go on
here today will not change that fact, and in fact no one today is
bringing forth a budget that balances today or even this year or even
next year.
In fact, none of the budgets before us balance, and there is a
reason. Because this did not just happen overnight. While there are
some who will come here today and blame and finger-point and suggest
that the surpluses disappeared because of tax cuts, I would suggest
that there are many reasons, many reasons why we face deficits here
today.
It is true that just 2 years ago we faced surpluses and we decided to
do something about that. We made a very deliberate decision that when
Washington has more resources than it needs to meet those challenges in
peace time at that time, that it is appropriate to say let us get the
economy going again. Remember where we were, the economy was sluggish.
President Bush came into office facing a recession. So we decided we
were going to reduce taxes and certainly the tax reduction did reduce
the surplus. That is represented by this blue amount.
But spending and the economy took most of the surplus and spending on
what? An emergency. September 11, 2001, the emergency facing New York,
the emergency facing the Pentagon, the emergency facing the airlines,
the emergency facing homeland security. In an appropriate bipartisan
response, every one of us came to the floor and said it is time to
increase spending for those very appropriate purposes. And in addition
to that in a bipartisan way, we came to the floor and said we need to
cut taxes even further in order to stimulate the economy because the
preattack recession got worse. So cheerfully, as a body, we decided it
was time to spend a little bit more, stimulate the economy; and as a
result, the tax cut took part of it, the spending took part of it, but
the economic changes, the economy, the gut punch that each one of us
faced whether it was home savings, whether it was increased prices
around the kitchen table we had to deal with, whether it was just
balancing our own budget around our kitchen table with our family, each
one of us was affected by what happened in September of 2001, and
certainly it affected our budget.
So we can finger-point, and we can talk about the past, and we can
talk about Reagan and Clinton and Bush and, I do not know, maybe
somebody even mentioned Roosevelt here today. The fact of the matter is
that we are in deficit and we have to do something about it. But we do
not start behind the eight ball. We build upon some huge amounts of
spending.
Let me show what we have been doing the last 10 years around here.
Cheerfully, and again oftentimes in a bipartisan way, look at the
spending, each year increasing. In 1993 when President Clinton took
office, we had a $1.4 trillion budget. What are we proposing today?
$2.1 trillion, a 50 percent increase just since 1993, 4.5 percent each
year. So when people go home and they start talking about how kids are
going to be thrown out in the street and education is going to be cut
and health care is going to be ruined, please remember that before we
even talk about this year's budget, we have been increasing spending
steadily during that period of time, and I will tell my colleagues when
it really took off. When it really took off was when we got to balance
in 1998.
Let me show what I mean by that. If we take the spending that we
control every year, called discretionary spending or the spending from
the appropriation bills, discretionary spending was holding its own,
holding its own as we tried to get to balance since we became the
majority, and then at 1998 all of a sudden look at it take off. In 1998
we had about $511 billion spent on discretionary spending, and just
this last year in the bill that we just finished a month ago, we were
at $768 billion, or an average of 7.7 percent each year since we
reached balance. So when people talk about how, oh, boy, this cut is
going to be tough or there might be ways that this could hurt folks or,
boy, there is not a lot of waste, fraud abuse or excess, please
remember that we build upon a huge base of spending in discretionary.
Let us look at some of the individual programs. I have heard a lot of
talk lately about how Medicare is being devastated by this budget,
budgets that were proposed, budgets that we will vote on here today,
and budgets that we will consider. Since 1995 when the Republicans took
the majority of Congress, we have increased spending for Medicare 56
percent. Was that appropriate? Yes. No one is suggesting it was not,
but when people talk about how Medicare is being devastated, it is not
because of the spending that Medicare is in trouble. It is because the
way the program operates. I can tell you in Iowa people are very happy
with Medicare; so to suggest that all we need to do is add more money
into Medicare and everything will be fine does not recognize that Iowa
does not get a fair shake from Medicare. Many other States, Wisconsin
and others, do not get a fair shake from Medicare. So to suggest that
all we need to do is pile more money on to Medicare, do not touch the
program, just add more benefits and everything will be fine is sticking
our heads in the sand. It will not work. But again we build upon some
huge increases.

I have heard Governors suggest that Medicaid is in trouble and how
the Federal Government has not done its fair share with regard to
Medicaid. Look at the Medicaid budget since we became the majority in
1995. It was $89 billion of our budget. Today it has increased 77
percent since we became the majority. We have supported the health care
for the poor and the disabled in this country to the point now where
again we will continue in this budget to increase Medicaid.
Let us look at education because oftentimes education is used in a
partisan way to suggest we do not care about children. Education
spending under the Republican majority has doubled. It has doubled.
Special education has tripled as a result of the Republican majority
again as we move into this budget. This is what we build upon. There
are accomplishments that we should be proud of. But when people whine
and complain and suggest we are not spending enough, can we ask the
question, what did we get for this? Which is why last year we said we
need some accountability within our system and not just pour more money
into it.
I have a number of very important constituents in my district who are
veterans who before last night did their part to defend America and
give us the ability to stand here today in peace and freedom in this
country and debate issues of importance. And what have we done for
them? Again, we build upon some important accomplishments. Spending has
grown 40 percent since we reached balanced budget, an average of 6.9
percent each year. This budget will continue that trend with a 7
percent increase for veterans healthcare spending.
So let us look at what the budget is going to do. First of all, I
want to put it into context. There is no question that we have three
important issues as we come to the table today to discuss the budget,
and some of these are even bipartisan, believe it or not. Number one is
protecting America. There is not a person who is going to come to the
floor today who does not feel that that is the most important thing
that we do, and I compliment all of the budgets with regard to that
issue. When it comes to homeland security, when it comes to national
defense, certainly there will always be those who say we

[[Page H2147]]

can do more. In fact, there has even been a few who have suggested that
there is a lot of waste within the Pentagon, and I would concur with
that. But at this time in our history where our men and women are in
the battlefields of Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we need to make
sure that we support them; and each one of the budgets that comes here
today does just that. It also supports homeland security.
The second most important issue that we have is making sure the
economy gets growing again, making sure folks have a job. Because while
we are going to talk a lot today about the Federal budget, we all know
that the most important budget to each and every one of us is the one
that I debate with my wife around my kitchen table and that my
colleagues may debate with their families around their kitchen table
and our constituents debate with their families around their kitchen
table when they are trying to figure out how to pay the phone bill and
the light bill and the college tuition and buy the clothes for their
kids and the washer that breaks down or whatever it might be. That is
the budget that matters; and if one does not have a job and if the
economy is not growing in their household, it does not matter what we
are debating.
Get a fancy chart. It does not matter what the fancy chart says if
one's checkbook does not balance. So unless our budget puts as a top
priority getting the economy to grow and create jobs, we have failed,
in my estimation, and that is why the most important second issue that
we put forth today is getting the economy to grow. It used to be a
slogan. I remember hearing it a few years back: ``It's the economy,
stupid.'' Maybe that was not an appropriate way to say it, but the
point of the matter was important. Make sure the economy is taken care
of.
The third issue, and it is an important one as we look forward into
the future because again I think there is bipartisan support for this
as well, and that is fiscal responsibility. We have all given
spellbinding speeches about how the government cannot spend more
than it takes in. But do my colleagues know what? There are some times
when that has to happen, and by and large we agree when those times
are. When there is a war, I do not think anybody begrudges anybody to
borrow some money to do that. We have got to take care of business, and
we will spend anything it takes to make sure we win and our folks have
the right equipment and the right training. The second time we do it is
when our country is under attack. Homeland security, again, each and
every one of us came down here and cast a vote in support of homeland
security spending even though it caused deficits. And there is another
time we would do it, and that is when we have a recession or an
economic downturn, and both parties during their histories have had to
make that challenge. So while we are faced with those challenges, we
still want to keep our eye on that fiscal responsibility.

So how do we do it in this budget? We ask a simple thing. We say out
of the billions of dollars that we spend around here, do the Members
think we could find a penny on the dollar? Most people back home in
Iowa tell me I bet we could find a nickel on the dollar. In fact, we
have heard amazing stories of people who are deceased getting checks
from the Veterans Administration. We have even heard of Social Security
recipients who are overseas that we send a check to. We have heard
about food stamps that have been stolen. We have heard about all sorts
of crazy things involving credit cards at the Pentagon where people
have been using it for their own personal expenses.
Tell me there is not a penny on the dollar. Tell me that the earned
income tax credit has not been abused. Tell me that Medicare, according
to the General Accounting Office, has not had overpayments and
erroneous payments. Tell me that at the end of the year bureaucrats do
not run in to their boss and say, You know what? We have got extra
money in our budget. We had better use it or we are going to lose it.
And what we do in this budget is we say each and every committee can
find that, and is it not now the time to find it when every State and
every family and every business is doing the exact same thing? The
Federal Government cannot do that too?
So fiscal responsibility is an important part of it. But we are still
going to hear people come to the floor today and talk about deep and
devastating, ``excruciating'' was a word I have heard recently, deep
and excruciating cuts. Let me show the Members what our budget does.
First of all, total budget, here is our budget. This is where we
actually are, and look what happens under the budget. It goes up every
single year in total spending. So the total budget is not cut.
Let us look at another area. Let us look at non-Social Security
mandatory spending. What is that? That is Medicare and all the other,
what we call, entitlements or automatic spending. Does that get cut?
Every year it has been going up. Every year under the budget it
continues to go up.

{time} 1400

All right. Well that is not cut.
Let us look at Medicare maybe, see if Medicare is cut. Under our
budget, every year it goes up. In our budget it continues. In fact, we
say let us modernize it and put in, for the fourth year in a row, a
Republican version of a prescription drug package. We are the only body
that has passed one, and we will do it again this year, to make sure we
modernize the program and make sure that reimbursements and other
modernizations for the Medicare program help ensure its seriousness as
a health care delivery program for years into the future. So Medicare
is not cut.
Well, all right, let us look at total discretionary spending, which
includes defense and homeland security. No, that is not cut. Every year
it has gone up. In fact, look what happens here. Huge increases. It
looks like it slows down here.
Why does it slow down? Because this is where the budget asks for some
relief. It says this first year, outside of defense and homeland
security and veterans, we just want to look for a little bit of waste,
just a little bit of waste.
If there is a Member of Congress that goes home to tell their
constituents that there is not any waste in Washington, I want you to
ask them if they have read the volumes of General Accounting Office
reports that indicate billions of dollars of waste, or the inspector
generals that work for the departments that have identified billions of
dollars of waste, or if they have talked to the Congressional Budget
Office or held hearings on this in committees, because until they do
that, do not tell people that there is not wasteful Washington
spending. We know there is. For the first time in quite a while, we go
after it.
Are we looking to cut some spending there? Yes. But do not believe
that we are going to throw people out on the street. You do not have to
do that in order to find the waste within the program. Everybody has
heard about the $500 hammers and the toilet seats in the Pentagon and
all those kinds of crazy programs that we hear about all the time. That
is what we are asking people to go find, a penny on the dollar. That is
not that much to ask, when we are at the same time running the kinds of
deficits we find ourselves in.
So protecting America, that is first; getting the economy to grow,
that is an important second thing to do; third, let us do it in a
fiscally responsible way. I believe if we build on those three
functions, without raising taxes, without huge spending increases, I
think we can get this under control, support our troops in the Gulf
right now and around the world defending our freedom, and do so in a
way that is fiscally responsible, and gets us back to balance in a very
reasonable time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague calls this a wartime budget, but everyone
should understand there is nothing in this budget to pay for the war in
Iraq that is now underway. There is not even anything in this budget to
pay for the war against global terrorism which is being waged in places
like Afghanistan.
The administration deliberately omitted any provision for those costs
in this budget for various reasons. They claim that they could not
estimate accurately what those costs are likely to be, but we all know
that there will be what we call in this House a supplemental
appropriation coming,

[[Page H2148]]

and it will run into billions of dollars, maybe 50- to $100 billion for
the war in Iraq itself, and after that the postwar occupation will
cost, the CBO says, between $1.8 billion a month and $3.8 billion a
month.
We have a huge, huge cost item that is not included here. I say that
because everyone should understand that there is no surplus left in
this budget. My friends, proposing a tax cut now that is as large as
the last tax cut we undertook in 2001 will only drive the bottom line
of the budget deeper and deeper by the proposals they have made here.
Two years ago, we had the happy circumstance of a budget that was
$5.6 trillion in surplus, or so we were told by our forecasters at the
Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration. Two years
later, we open this budget season on a somber note, not just being at
war, that is a grave situation, but that $5.6 trillion surplus,
according to the Office of Management and Budget, is gone.
First of all, they said we overstated the surplus by at least $3.2
billion. The real surplus was not $5.6. We are now told it is about
$2.4 trillion over the time period 2002 through 2011. Of that $2.4
trillion, OMB tells us $2.5 trillion has already been committed, mostly
to tax cuts undertaken in 2001, and, to some extent, to defense
spending increases and other spending increases. But, in any event, the
surplus is gone.
We are actually in deficit as we stand here, and everybody is on
notice that every dollar of additional tax reduction that you decree in
this budget resolution will go straight to the bottom line. It will go
straight into the deficit and add to the deficit, dollar for dollar.
Knowing this, there is no way around it. What our Republican colleagues
propose is they propose another $1.35 trillion in tax reductions, tax
cuts, which will go straight to the bottom line and add to the deficit.
Here is the situation: This is the first table in CBO's analysis of a
couple of weeks ago of the President's budget, which was sent to us
about a month ago. Strikingly, if you add from 2002, the first fiscal
year that the Bush administration was in office, through 2013, which is
the last year in our 10-year budget time frame, the total amount of
deficits that the Bush administration's fiscal policies will yield is
$5.158 trillion. That is what they propose to add to this national debt
under the Bush administration.
Now, my Republican colleagues, and I will give them part credit, saw
this number, and I think they could not stomach it themselves, $5.158
billion under the Bush administration's fiscal policies. They undertook
to provide some offsets. They did not give up the tax cut. No, they
went with the full tax cut, or slightly less, but they undertook to
come up with some offsets.
The first thing they proposed to do was to tell the Committee on Ways
and Means, which has jurisdiction over Medicare, and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, cut $372
billion out of those two programs.
They have now relented and backed off their own proposal. They
reduced the instruction to the Committee on Ways and Means from $262
billion to about $62 billion, and they have reduced the instruction to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce from $110 billion to $107 billion.
But both of those cuts could come out of the two health care
entitlements that we have in this country that so many people, maybe
from 50- to 60 million to 80- to 90 million people, are dependent on.
That is what they propose to do.
This budget says a lot about priorities. What happens with the rest
of the budget in order to make room for this tax cut?
In saying it is a wartime budget, they attempt to make room in the
rest of the budget, at least partially, to offset this enormous tax cut
of $1.350 trillion. What does that mean? That means they cut with
abandon, left and right. They cut our young, our children, in terms of
education; they cut our seniors in terms of Medicare and Medicaid; and
they cut some of the most worthy citizens in our society, the sick and
disabled veterans. They put an instruction in this budget, which I
cannot believe, and neither can any veterans' organization in America,
to cut $15 billion out of veterans' disability compensation and some
$12 billion to $13 billion out of veterans' health care facilities.
They cut education by $40 billion below what is necessary just to keep
it level with inflation. They cut Medicaid, as I said.
All of this is necessary to accommodate their tax cut. It is not
necessary because of the budget circumstances we find ourselves in.
This is self-inflicted pain. Yes, it will be painful if these cults are
made, you had better believe it, but they are not necessary. You do not
have to make them.
To prove it we have come up with a budget resolution about a better
bottom line. We get to a surplus in the year 2010. It takes them until
2012 to get to a surplus. In the process of getting there, we have a
lower deficit every year than they do, we accumulate $851 billion over
10 years less in national debt than they do, and we adequately provide
for education. We do not eviscerate Medicare, we do not cut Medicaid,
because it is already strained as it is, and we certainly do not cut
our veterans in a time of war, or any time, for that matter, by $30
billion in just mindless cuts.
So there is an alternate way. There is a better budget. It is a
fiscally more responsible budget, and it meets the obligations we have.
Members of this House today have a stark choice, a clear choice, in
terms of values, in terms of fiscal responsibility. The right vote is
our budget resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The
Federal budget reflects our priorities. It demonstrates our values, our
commitments to those less fortunate in our society, and our ideas for
building a better America for our children and our grandchildren.
The Republican budget resolution before us today makes a mockery of
these ideals. It would not spur economic growth, it would underfund the
country's critical challenges, and it would lead to chronic deficits
for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it incredulous that this resolution
is before us today. Just last night hostilities began against Iraq. We
are asking our men and women in uniform to make incredible sacrifices,
including leaving their families behind, to serve their country. Sadly,
we worry that some may make the ultimate sacrifice. But where is the
sacrifice from those who benefit from these tax cuts? Many of them are
the wealthiest in our society. This is shameful.
The Republican resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible
tax cut package that will not encourage economic growth, and this
country simply cannot afford it. These provisions are ill-considered
and so unfair to the vast majority of working American families. They
should be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I say this as one who has often voted for tax cuts,
including the last tax bill. I believed then and I believe now there
were many excellent provisions in that measure, but we were also in a
very different time.
The huge surpluses have morphed into huge deficits, and we are now in
a war on terrorism and in Iraq, both of which will have huge mounting
costs. The cost of the war in Iraq is not even mentioned in this
budget. And our domestic challenges, prescription drugs, education,
veterans' health care, are still unmet.
We should not proceed with more tax cuts while we face chronic
deficits and critical unmet domestic and international challenges.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to my moderate Republican
friends. Many of you have spoken convincingly on this floor about the
dangers of unchecked deficit spending and the irresponsibility of
passing these costs on to our children. We have worked together on
countless issues, like funding for schools, protecting our environment
and addressing rural health care issues. I know you are all deeply
committed to meeting the needs of this country, and doing so in a
fiscally responsible manner.
I do not see how you can support this budget. The tax cuts called for
in this

[[Page H2149]]

budget will bring endless deficits, robbing us of our ability to meet
our country's needs now and for the foreseeable future.
We can do better. We need to reject this Republican budget today.
I believe that the Spratt substitute meets the priorities that our
country values. The tax cuts are targeted to those which will jump-
start our economy. Programs are funded, education and veterans' health
care and the environment, that the people of this country need and
demand, and this is done in a fiscally responsible manner.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to reject the Republican
budget and to vote for and support the Spratt substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, now that the military campaign to disarm
Saddam Hussein has begun, our thoughts and prayers go out to the young
men and women in uniform as well as to their families. May they
complete their mission quickly and decisively so they can return home
soon and safe.
Yet here we are today in this Chamber to consider a fantasy budget.
It is ludicrous for the House leadership to move forward with this
budget debate by ignoring the issue of the day, Iraq, and the cost of
that campaign, merely to lock in huge tax cuts and offer unrealistic
spending cuts to health care, education and veterans' services.

{time} 1415

We know the proposed Draconian cuts will not happen, but we also know
that the President will send an emergency supplemental spending request
for Iraq shortly to us and demand that a check be sent back
immediately, and it will be, because we all do support our troops
during this time.
But this is the classic recipe for exploding budget deficits as far
as the eye can see; it's the height of fiscal irresponsibility
occurring at exactly the wrong moment during our Nation's history when
80 million of our Americans, the so-called baby boomers, are rapidly
approaching retirement age, a demographic time bomb ready to explode.
That is why the Republican budget proposal, in effect, constitutes
taxation without representation, because it will be our children and
our grandchildren who will be asked to pay for this fiscal mess. I
couldn't think of doing anything more unfair to them.
As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to
leave a legacy of debt for them or future generations to climb out of.
Our Democratic alternative, however, anticipates this demographic time
bomb by achieving balance by 2010, while offering an economic stimulus
plan now, which is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our
troops, but it also supports our Nation's veterans, our seniors, and
our children's education programs.
So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute. I would
call on the leadership in the House to pull their budget resolution so
that we can have an honest debate with honest figures, factoring in the
cost of the Iraq operation. I encourage my colleagues to support the
substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is a failed
economic plan.
Fourteen months ago, this body passed a tax cut worth $1 trillion, a
little over $1 trillion; and the net result has been 2.5 million
Americans without work, 4 million Americans without health insurance,
nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on,
and 2 million more Americans have left the middle class for poverty.
That is the net economic result and the economic effect felt by
America's families.
In this budget resolution, Members of this body will be asked to vote
for only 5,000 new units for affordable housing here in America. Yet, 3
weeks from now, 4 weeks from now in the reconstruction budget for Iraq,
we will provide 20,000 units in Iraq. This budget calls for no new
spending for health care for the uninsured who work full-time in
America, yet the Iraqi reconstruction will call for $13 million, half
the population of Iraq, to have basic health care, 100 percent
maternity coverage; yet we cut Medicare and Medicaid in this budget
resolution. In the area of education, the Iraqi reconstruction calls
for 25,000 new schools to be rebuilt, yet we zero out 40 programs here
in America.
I will support and work towards the reconstruction and funding for
the reconstruction of Iraq because it is the right thing to do after
this war when it is over, and we will win it successfully. But I want
that same commitment, that same emphasis for here at home. Iraq
matters; Illinois matters and the people there.
We need an economic plan that invests in America, our education, our
health care, and puts our fiscal house back in order. That is what the
proposal from my good colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), has, is an economic plan that is balanced. It seizes the
future by investing in the right areas of health care, education, and
the environment, puts our fiscal house back in order so we can meet the
needs of our retirement and our plans for the future.
What we are about to do today is the wrong choice for America's
future. We will be asked in the next 3 weeks to do right by what we
need to do in Iraq. Let us be balanced in our approach.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I would like to thank the gentleman for all of
his hard work and his leadership during these very trying times.
Mr. Chairman, when we as a House pass a budget, we are outlining our
priorities as a House and a Nation. Sadly, this irresponsible budget
fails to accurately reflect the priorities of my constituents or of
this Nation.
This is an irresponsible budget that passes on our problems and our
deficits to our children and our grandchildren while, at the same time,
failing to invest in our children and grandchildren by underfunding
education.
Last Congress we were all speaking about the importance of children
and education. We said, we do not want to leave a child behind, and yet
that is exactly what this budget does. We cannot shortchange this
priority; we must invest in our children.
This budget also shortchanges our veterans. Our veterans have made
great personal sacrifices, and we have a responsibility to serve our
retired military personnel, just as they served our country. At a time
when we have sent our men and women into harm's way, what better way to
honor their service and to show them how valued they are than by
treating their predecessors with respect and dignity. Not one soldier
who puts his or her life on the line should have to worry about whether
he or she will get health care when he or she returns from battle.
Finally, this is a budget that fails to adequately protect our
homeland security. Our first responders, our police, our fire, our
emergency personnel should be our priority; but they are not a priority
in this budget.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
stand up for our children, to stand up for our veterans, and to stand
up for the safety of our communities. Show us what your priorities are.
Support the Spratt amendment and oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, today we have before us one of the most
irresponsible budgets I have seen. Republicans have made their
priorities crystal clear. Their number one priority in this budget is
making room for a $1.35 trillion tax cut that will benefit the very
wealthiest of Americans. They are doing this at the expense of programs
that constitute the very safety net of this country and on the backs of
hard-working Americans.
This careless Republican budget will have dire ramifications for
many. Republicans cut most education programs by 8.3 percent. They
reduced the maximum Pell grant award. They do not provide enough money
for a meaningful prescription drug benefit. They cut funding for the
National Institutes of Health by over $3 billion, and would reduce
Medicaid spending by $163 billion. This is irresponsible.
To make matters worse, at this very moment, this country is at war.
We

[[Page H2150]]

have nearly a quarter million servicemembers deployed near Iraq.
Despite this, Republicans have proposed $14.6 billion in cuts to
veterans programs. We must stop neglecting the health care needs of our
veterans. We promised to eliminate the VA case backlog that is
currently at a point near crisis. We must deliver the quality health
care that was promised to those who have served to protect American
lives and interests around the world.
For far too long, the Federal Government has turned its back on our
Nation's veterans and the promises made to them. The cuts proposed in
the Republican budget for essential veterans programs are
unconscionable. The Democratic alternative addresses the rising demand
for veterans health care by providing more funding than the President's
budget and the House Republican budget in each of the next 10 years, a
total of $4.3 billion above the President's budget and $16.2 billion
more than the House Republican budget.
It is clear that the Republican budget in no way honors our
commitment to the health of our veterans. Today's men and women in the
service, today's men and women in uniform, today's men and women in
Iraq are tomorrow's veterans. Will the promises we made today be empty
tomorrow?
When the government makes promises to ensure the health of our
veterans, it ought to keep them. For that reason, we should vote ``no''
for this Republican budget resolution and ``yes'' for the Democratic
alternative.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget
resolution, the most irresponsible budget in our Nation's history.
The budget is antijobs, antigrowth, antifamilies. It adds almost $3
trillion to the public debt. It undermines our Nation's savings,
investment, growth, jobs, and retirement security, and will do serious
long-term damage to our economy, compromising our ability to address
the most serious challenges that face us.
And it does this all in the name of $1.4 trillion in tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans and corporations, two-thirds of which would flow
to people who have an income above $350,000. These tax cuts are paid
for on the backs of disabled veterans, nutrition programs, children
participating in the school lunch program, college loan assistance,
$670 billion in cuts vital to services that people in this country are
interested in.
This administration also seriously endangers the public health by
starving agencies that are responsible for protecting our environment,
funding that is needed in order to enforce our environmental laws. It
cuts Superfund cleanup, water quality, clean air, water funding, cuts
of $3.1 billion in all.
This administration continues to undermine the credibility of our
environmental statutes by failing to enforce vital environmental
requirements. Penalties for violations of environmental laws have
decreased precipitously since the Bush administration took office, with
the amount of the average penalty dropping by more than half.
Mr. Chairman, asthma is currently the most common chronic disease in
children. The EPA conservatively estimates that 15,000 premature deaths
occur each year due to the exposure to air pollution. The National
Resources Defense Council puts the number at 60,000. That tells us that
environmental protection matters, that this budget and these cuts have
real consequences for every American family and child. By putting a
$1.4 trillion tax cut ahead of the public health, this budget will have
catastrophic effects on pollution enforcement efforts. It does not
reflect our values as a Nation and our priorities as a people. I urge
my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, as I said, we built our budget upon three
principles, the first of which is protecting America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry) to discuss that issue.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and commend him
for the amazing job he is doing in a difficult situation.
Mr. Chairman, today, of course, our thoughts and our prayers and our
admiration are with those young men and women who are in the Middle
East, risking their lives to help make us and the rest of the world
more secure. We have absolutely the finest military in the world, and I
have no doubt that they will make the most of the tools that we help
provide them to do their job.
Part of our job today is to begin to work to support them for the
fiscal year 2004. Now, that is not an easy thing to do, because
obviously, there is a lot going on in the world. We continue to fight
the war on terrorism on several different fronts; and of course, we
have the military activity in Iraq today.
So for us to predict ahead exactly what the military situation is
going to be or what the homeland security situation is going to be in
2004 is not an easy thing to do. But what this budget does is to fully
support, completely support the request of the President for defense
and homeland security.
Now, it may be that extra funding is required for homeland security
or defense when we get there. We have heard folks on the other side
talk a lot about supplementals for 2003, but what we are focused on now
is what is the appropriate amount in this budget to help keep America
secure for 2004, given what we know now.

{time} 1430

This budget supports the President. It is important to say that no
amount of money can guarantee absolute safety. I am afraid, Mr.
Chairman, that there is sometimes a tendency for us in Congress to
spread money around liberally.
However, part of our responsibility, particularly with homeland
security, is to make sure that money can be used well and effectively
and really makes us safer; not just replacing one dollar with another
dollar, but really makes us safer. So that is what this budget tries to
do. It tries to advance three important goals with national security:
to win the war on terrorism, to protect America's homeland, and to help
prepare for future challenges.
First, of course, the war on terrorism is on the forefront of our
minds with the operations in Iraq and the continuing efforts to deal
with terrorists all around the world. This budget makes a clear
commitment supporting the President to make sure that we provide our
Nation with the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective military
force anywhere in the world.
It allocates $380 billion for the Department of Defense. That is an
increase of $15 billion over this year. It includes a substantial pay
raise for our military. It includes substantial increases for operation
and maintenance. It includes substantial increases for the weapons
systems we buy. As a matter of fact, it is the highest procurement
budget ever in the history of the country. It includes nearly $10
billion to help us develop and deploy defenses against ballistic
missiles.
We have already seen in the Iraq conflict missiles of various ranges,
and the threat that that can pose. Of course, there are other places in
the world where that is important.
As pointed out, this budget does not include the direct operational
costs of military engagement in Iraq because this is the 2004 budget.
We will probably have a supplemental to deal with the 2003 costs here,
but this is giving us the baseline for 2004.
A second goal is to help protect America's homeland. There is more
than $40 billion here to help do that. It includes things like programs
to buy vaccines for smallpox and anthrax and other sorts of biological
warfare.
It includes $1.7 billion to help improve our border safety, which is
absolutely critical to homeland security. It continues to put money
into the Transportation Security Administration for air travel and
other things, to make sure that our air travel and other transportation
systems are safe.
It includes $3.5 billion in first responder training and equipment.
There are other programs not included in the $3.5 billion, for example,
in the Department of Justice, in the Centers for Disease Control, that
also help local folks be ready to make our country safer. Again, this
budget supports the President's request to try to use money smartly to
make sure that we are really safer.
Thirdly, it helps to prepare for future challenges. With all that is
going on in

[[Page H2151]]

the world, we have to remember that there are other challenges ahead.
We cannot see them clearly, but we know we have to do the research and
development and training and testing and joint exercises for the
military that help us prepare for that future day. So there is $61.8
billion for military research and development.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, for today and tomorrow, this budget helps make
America safer.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we, too, fully fund homeland security. By the best of
our reckoning, we are providing at least $24 billion over and above the
increase that the President is providing. It is allocated among lots of
different functions: community and regional development, the Justice
Department. We have identified and also specified in a sense of the
Congress that we have $24 billion there.
In addition, we have put into our budget resolution the stimulus
proposal that we made on January 6 of this year. If it were adopted,
there would be $10 billion for the States to undertake homeland
security projects in places like seaports, which were woefully
underprovided for.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to everyone that in
doing our budget, we have left a contingency reserve of $54 billion. It
could be used for lots of things; but it could be used, among other
things, for homeland defense and for national defense generally, if and
when a supplemental comes.
I want to make it clear there is very, very little difference between
us when it comes to national security, not at a time like this. We are
fully providing for homeland security, and then some, in particular.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South
Carolina for yielding time to me.
I am acutely aware, Mr. Chairman, that we are debating a budget at a
time when the attention of this country is diverted thousands of miles
abroad. It is a reality that much of what we say here today will be
drowned out by the drumbeat of attention around the war.
However, it is my opinion that what we do and say today will not
permanently go unnoticed. There will be a time when the attention of
our constituents comes back home to the shores of the United States of
America. When that time comes, I would submit to my friends on the
other side of the aisle, they will not understand what it is that this
budget seeks to do.
They will not understand that this budget asks us to cut a quarter
billion dollars from Medicare at a time when the health of our seniors
requires that Medicare be strengthened and not weakened. They will not
understand cutting $100 billion from Medicaid at a time when our States
are crying out for relief. They will not understand a budget that
breaks a promissory note to our children by cutting funding for No
Child Left Behind. They will not understand a budget that breaks faith
with our veterans in a time of war by cutting $15 billion for veterans
programs. They will not understand a budget that cuts the thread of the
safety net at a time when millions of Americans are struggling through
economic anxiety.
In short, Mr. Chairman, in a climate when so many of our people would
have us do more to relieve their struggle, this budget would have us do
less. There are undoubtedly some who think a wartime budget is
incapable of being generous to the American people, but I would say in
response that the forcefulness of our international will must be
matched by the force of our commitment to the needs of our own people.
Our constituents will not reward this body if the reconstruction of
another country is allowed to crowd out the pressing need to
reconstruct this country and to make it whole.
There are reasoned arguments, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all the
Democratic alternatives today, but I would submit in conclusion that
there is no argument that reflects this country's values that can fully
be made on behalf of the Republican majority budget today. It is wrong,
stunningly wrong, in its lack of ambition for the American people. It
is wrong in its lack of compassion for those who are struggling in our
society. It is wrong at wartime, just as it is in peacetime.
This budget leaves far too many Americans behind. It leaves far too
many Americans, it leaves far too many States, who are struggling to
fend for themselves. I would say this, Mr. Chairman: no country can be
truly strong when too many of its people are weak. That is the
obligation of this Congress today.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, in Washington sometimes people define cuts not as less
money than the year before, but as decreases in anticipated increases.
The gentleman who just spoke has issued yet a new one, that is, if we
used to have a draft of a budget that possibly found some savings, now
we can come and claim that as a cut. We are not cutting Medicare; we
are increasing it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Ryun) to continue the discussion on national defense.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his hard
work on this budget.
I rise in support of the Republican budget passed by the Committee on
the Budget because this budget has the right priorities. Every dollar
spent by the Federal Government during these challenging economic times
should be very carefully evaluated. When times are tight, we must
prioritize, rooting out waste and abuse of government spending.
This budget holds the total spending increase to 3.1 percent. This is
a modest increase that leads back to balance in 9 years. While I
believe we could root out even more waste in Federal spending to
maintain greater fiscal discipline, this budget takes a responsible
step to keep us from passing even more debt to our children and to our
grandchildren.
Especially at this time in our Nation's history, we are all too aware
that a strong defense is necessary for the survival of our freedom. Key
to our defense are the brave men and women who serve in our Armed
Forces. We must retain our most experienced personnel and compensate
them accordingly. This budget provides $98.6 billion for pay and
benefits. It will allow for pay raises ranging from 2 percent to 6.5
percent, targeted by rank and years of experience.
As we are becoming aware of new threats to the safety here at home,
we must ensure that new defenses are developed. This budget meets the
President's request for $9.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency to
begin the development of defenses against long-range ballistic missile
threats. This would provide a near-term defense against North Korean
missiles.
Why is this critical? North Korea has already threatened our
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and resumed
missile testing. The CIA has reported that the Koreans are working on a
missile that could hit the west coast of the United States, and they
are widely suspected of beginning the process of taking the spent fuel
rods from the reactor to extract plutonium.
It is clear that the need for missile defense is no longer in the
realm of hypothetical. Developments like these missiles make a missile
defense system critical to ensuring and securing our future. The
Republican budget puts us on path to develop a missile defense system
for next year.
I urge my colleagues to support this fiscally sound policy and
support this particular bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
his hard work on this budget this year. I know it was a difficult time
to have to face the budget restraints at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget on veterans
affairs for fiscal year 2004. As a member of both the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to lend
my support to a budget resolution that fulfills America's promise to
her veterans. There are currently 26 million veterans living in this
country. This budget clearly reflects our solid commitment to them.

[[Page H2152]]

This resolution on the budget accepts the President's increase in
funding providing an increase of $1.6 billion or 6.1 percent over last
year. This represents the largest annual increase ever proposed by a
President.
The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest direct health
care delivery system in the country. Managing the large increase in the
demands for veterans' health care services has consistently been the
Department of Veterans Affairs greatest challenge. This budget meets
the challenge as it accepts the President's request of $25.2 billion,
an increase of $1.3 billion, or an increase of 5.6 percent in funding
for veterans health care benefits.
Mr. Chairman, we should not let the other side of the aisle lead us
to believe that we are leaving our veterans out. The number one
commitment for my service in Congress is to look after the veterans and
their families.
To achieve primary care access standards that compliment the quality
standards of veterans health care, this budget allows for a sharper
focus in the veterans health care system. Waiting times for an
appointment at a VA medical clinic are as long as 1 year in some areas.
Secretary Principi has pledged that this backlog for medical care will
be eliminated by 2004.
Mr. Chairman, let us give the Secretary an opportunity to bring
accountability to this organization.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Brown), that this resolution on the floor calls for $15
billion in cost reduction of the veterans health care system. It also
calls for a $15 billion decrease in mandatory programs, which means
veterans' disability compensation.
We can argue over what is an increase or decrease, but every veterans
organization in this town thinks that they are being hit and hit hard
by this budget resolution. There is no doubt about it; it is still
about a $28 billion or $29 billion hit after the minor modification the
gentleman made to make this resolution presentable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished
ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget for his tireless work
in putting together a responsible budget.
We did not have a lot to work with, Mr. Chairman, because the other
side has already taken nearly $2 trillion off the table in the tax cuts
they have already enacted. That is why we could not come up with a
budget that was responsible last year. We have come up with a budget
this year that is the best that America can do under the circumstances.
Let me compare the two budgets. In the first place, in our budget,
the Democrats achieve a balanced budget by 2010, 2 years earlier than
the Republican budget. More importantly, Republicans incur $821 billion
more of public debt than the Democratic budget. Which is the party of
fiscal responsibility?
The Democratic budget has a fair, a fast-acting, and a fiscally
responsible stimulus. None of these criteria is true for the Republican
so-called economic growth package. In fact, less than 5 percent of the
Republican economic growth package even occurs this year, when we are
in a recession, when we need the stimulus. It does not happen. Yet our
budget costs one-sixth as much as the Republican so-called economic
growth package. We have $136 billion going straight into the economy
this year, as opposed to only $42 billion from the Republican budget.

{time} 1445

This is what people want to know. What is the budget going to do for
me and my family? How is it going to help me get a job and be able to
contribute back to this economy?
The Bipartisan Joint Economic Committee says that, in fact, the
Democratic economic stimulus package, at one-sixth the cost, would
generate 1,122,000 more jobs; the Republican budget half as much. For
one-sixth the cost we generate twice as many jobs.
Many people have talked about the Medicare prescription drug issue. I
think as people look at the Republican plan, they are going to see this
is not an acceptable plan. We have a plan that, in fact, will provide
prescription drug benefits to people who truly need them at a cost they
can afford.
The last major area where we have a vastly different budget policy is
in what we call nondefense domestic discretionary spending. That is the
American people would take the big hit under the Republican budget. The
President's budget already cut over $100 billion from the current
services level over the next decade. This budget comes in and doubles
that, $265 billion coming from the current services level right now.
What does that mean? Let us go beyond the numbers. Let us look at the
faces, the faces of the people that deserve and need help, veterans,
poor mothers and kids on Medicaid, students' loans, retirees' pension
cuts. This is what we are going to hear about in the debate. This is
what is important. Pass the Democrat's budget proposal.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the committee.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
budget. The Committee on the Budget has passed a resolution that
strikes the balance between the needs and the desires of this House and
of the people of this country to provide for a better quality of life
for all of us.
Since September 11, we have realized the threat of terrorism, a
threat that is so great and so different than any before us. It knows
no boundaries with regard to where it will strike and what time, and it
certainly places no value on human life, and today, for that reason, we
must step forward and address that threat.
After the vicious attack of September 11, we realized that we had to
take immediate action to close the gaps in our homeland defense. We had
to unify our efforts from the national to the State, county and local
efforts, and this budget resolution takes a long step in getting that
job done.
What this resolution does do is fully funds the President's request
to defend our Nation against further terrorist attack. What this
resolution does do is provide $41 billion in total homeland security
funding.
As part of that effort, what the resolution does is provide in the
budget $3.5 billion in funding. That is a $3 billion increase to ensure
that every first responder is trained and has the equipment necessary
to get the job done. More specifically, in the resolution it provides
$500 million in grants to first responders so that they will have the
equipment necessary should they have to respond to a terroristic
threat, and the bill would also provide $500 million for State and
local law enforcement with regard to terrorism prevention initiatives
as well.
Moving closer to home, in New Jersey, we have just 10 miles from
Bergen County a nuclear power plant. This resolution provides us with
$619 million in an effort to protect our nuclear power plants across
the Nation because we know there are nuclear power plants, if they were
ever struck, would have a devastating impact on all citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I would just in closing say that we must move ahead on
this resolution. Support this resolution. Protect the quality of life
and homeland security for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the House budget resolution for
fiscal year 2004. Last week, in the early morning hours, I along with
my fellow colleagues on the House Budget Committee passed a resolution
that strikes a balance among America's competing demands, weigh desires
against needs and sets a plan to fund programs that improve the quality
of life for all Americans.
Since September 11, our country has realized the threat of a new wave
of terrorism. A threat so great that it knows no boundary to whom or
where it strikes and places no value on human life. And today, we are
still at risk to this new and changing threat. This is a war, the likes
of which no nation has ever faced before.
To protect our communities and neighborhoods, we must continue to
take the necessary steps to develop a national, State, and local
strategy for homeland security. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2004
budget that is before us is committed to making our homeland safe.
Homeland security is an important priority and our budget fully funds
President Bush's request to defend our Nation against further terrorist
attacks. By providing $41 billion in

[[Page H2153]]

total homeland security spending, this budget provides the newly
created Department of Homeland Security and related agencies with all
the resources necessary to protect our homeland from terrorist attacks.
As part of our continued commitment to America's First Responders,
our budget proposes $3.5 billion--a $3 billion increase over fiscal
year 2003, to ensure every first responder is properly trained and
equipped. Mr. Chairman, this budget provides a significant increase for
the nearly 3 million State and local First Responders who regularly put
their lives on the line day after day to protect the lives of others
and make our country safer.
More specifically, we have provided $500 million in grants to
firefighters for health and safety equipment and vehicles as they
prepare to respond to possible future terrorist incidents. And we have
also included an additional $500 million for State and local law
enforcement terrorism prevention initiatives. Finally, there is $181
million for the Citizen Corps initiative to engage individuals in
helping communities prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters of
all kinds, including terrorist attacks.
Our nuclear power plants if struck would also prove devastating to
all citizens. This budget provides $619 million in an effort to protect
our nuclear power plants across the country, including Indian Point
Nuclear Plant less than 10 miles from Bergen County, NJ.

Mr. Chairman, our budget also provides the Coast Guard with $5.7
billion--an increase of $503 million to ensure that they have the
adequate resources necessary to better protect our ports, cargo, and
coastal areas. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to securing our homeland,
the Coast Guard serves a vital and significant mission. In this post-
September 11 world, where only 2 percent of the cargo that enters our
ports is actually screened, we have created a budget that fully
supports our Coast Guard as a component of the National Strategy for
Homeland Security.
Specifically, this budget provides $65 million to deploy six new
Maritime Safety and Security Teams to respond to terrorist threats or
incidents in domestic ports and waterways and $20 million to hire
additional personnel for search and rescue and shore based command
centers.
Mr. Chairman, for all of the cargo that enters the Ports of Newark
and Elizabeth, in New Jersey, the third largest in the United States
and the premier port on the eastern seaboard, I strongly urge my fellow
colleagues in the House to support this budget.
As we continue to be engaged in the newest and most difficult war of
the 21st century, it has become a day to day responsibility that we are
ready on a permanent basis to protect our country. And we owe it to
every national, State, and local homeland security employee, as well as
ourselves and our families that we give them the support they need to
protect America.
After the vicious attacks of September 11, 2001, we realize we had to
take immediate action to close the gaps in our defenses on land, sea
and in the air. We had to unify our homeland security efforts under one
roof and under one chain of command. To meet the ever changing threat,
we had to be able to immediately deploy the men and women of the
homeland security department wherever and whenever they were needed.
Mr. Chairman, this budget does just that. There is no doubt in my
mind that by working together, demonstrating courage and a strong moral
character we will prevail in this war against terror.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson), and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to yield blocks of time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
for the time, and for his good work on this budget. It is a matter of
economic security.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the easiest way that we can ensure
economic security to this Nation is to pass a budget that actually
balances. The other side will argue that theirs does, but we know that
it does not, not unless we use the Social Security Trust Fund to pay
down the debt, and that is not really balancing. It is breaking a
promise to the American people and raiding a priority to pay for a
select tax expenditure.
In this time of sacrifice, we are debating the passage of a budget
that increases the debt and takes money away from programs that help
our most deserving, our seniors and our veterans.
This budget cuts almost $107 billion from the Medicaid program and
$62 billion from the Medicare program, and in this time of war, this
budget cuts our veterans programs by $30 billion.
I received a letter today from one of my constituents, Florence
Newton from Humboldt County, California, a retired marine, who sent me
an article that talks about the 7-month wait for veterans to get an
appointment with the VA, and she asks is there not something we can do
about this? She describes the situation with one word, unconscionable,
and she is right. It is unconscionable that we are slashing these
critical programs, and it is even more unconscionable that we are doing
so to finance a $1.6 trillion tax expenditure.
Today, the Blue Dogs will introduce an alternative that does balance
the budget and does so without raiding Social Security. It adopts the
spending level in the President's budget proposal, reserves money for
the Medicare prescription drug program, provides immediate and targeted
tax relief to all taxpayers, particularly those middle-class families,
and it has $1.35 trillion less debt than the Republican budget,
reducing the amount of money we spend on paying interest on the debt,
which currently costs us $1 billion a day, reducing it by $250 billion.
It acknowledges the fact that we are a Nation at war. It pays for the
war, and it provides funding, $24 billion for our veterans programs.
This means funding for discretionary veterans programs like the VA
Health Care Program, the service-connected disabilities and burial
benefits, all of which are cut drastically by the Republican proposal
that is on the floor today.
The Blue Dog budget responds to the concerns of constituents like
Florence Newton, who are finding our financial affairs and the
resulting shortage in services to be unconscionable. I am proud to
stand behind the Blue Dog alternative which provides this Nation with
the economic certainty it needs in these uncertain times and into the
future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott), a distinguished new Member of the House that spent 20 years on
the appropriations committee in Georgia balancing their budget.
(Mr. SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate those kind
words that the gentleman had to say.
It is very important for us to understand exactly where we are right
now, and let me start by setting the stage of my remarks by sharing
with my colleagues the words of William Shakespeare, who said in Julius
Caesar, when Julius Caeser was being stabbed, he said, ``O, Brutus,
yours is the meanest cut of all.'' That is what these veterans are
saying today.
To my friends from the Republican Party and their alternative in
their budget, it is the meanest cut of all, to cut our veterans at this
time, at this day, at this hour when we are watching television and we
see over in the Middle East where our men and women in uniform are
putting their lives on the line, and what are we doing here? What is
the Republican answer to that, to our military veterans? To cut them by
$15 billion. Indeed, the meanest cut of all.
My colleagues talk about conservative compassionism. I am here to
tell my colleagues, this is not conservative compassionism. This is
downright conservative meanness. It is mean to cut our military and our
veterans, by any amount. They need help.
Fifteen billion dollars is going to eliminate 200,000 of our veterans
off the rolls. It is going to fold and close up 400,000 hospital beds.
That is meanness. We need to turn it around and follow our Blue Dog
coalition budget, which is very responsible. We are not cutting the
budget for Veterans Affairs by $15 billion. No. We are adding to that
by $24 billion. That is what the American people want, and at no time
is it better to send the right message.
I conclude my remarks by simply saying, what better time is there to
stand and give our veterans respect than at this important moment in
our history?
Mr. Chairman, the Nussle budget focuses on fiscally irresponsible tax
cuts, while failing to address priorities and commitments to

[[Page H2154]]

working families, the elderly, and veteran. What concerns me is that
future generations will pay for the deficits created by this budget,
while our veteran's will pay now.
On Monday the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the
Disabled American Veterans called on Congress to scrap proposed budget
cuts in disability compensation, pensions, and healthcare to offset the
costs of tax breaks and huge spending increases on defense and homeland
security.
The Nussle budget cuts approximately $15.1 billion from veterans
programs, of which $844 is cut from veterans health care programs. This
could eliminate enrollment for 168,000 veterans, necessitate 400,000
fewer hospital bed days of care, or reduce the number of nurses by
8,700.
Further, according to the VA's own national data, over 200,000
veterans are waiting 6 months or more just to get in the VA Medical
System and it can take over 18 for certain types of specialty
treatments.
Our Nation cannot commit men and women to fight overseas while
reducing the health care and benefits that our veterans have earned
risking their lives serving their country.
It is unbelievable that the Nussle budget cuts funding for veterans'
programs to offset the costs of tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Blue Dog budget, which I support, contains $24 billion more
funding for veterans programs than the Nussle budget. It contains $9
billion more for discretionary veterans programs such as VA health
care, and does not require the Veterans Affairs Committee to reduce
spending on veterans benefits and other mandatory veterans programs by
$15 billion as the Nussle budget would do.
I support the President and his efforts to oust Saddam Hussein from
power. I want to give him as much support as possible to help pay for
this conflict. This budget resolution contains no funding for a
military conflict with Iraq or the post-conflict occupation and
reconstruction costs that will follow.
The costs of the war with Iraq will largely be borne by the United
States taxpayer and prudent fiscal policy requires that these costs
must be included within the budget resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a member of the committee.
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) for the magnificent job he has done in putting this budget
resolution together.
Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget recognizes that the single
most important defense investment we can make is in our military
personnel, the men and women of our Armed Forces. That is why our
budget includes initiatives to allow the Department of Defense to
continue to recruit, train and retain the highest-quality personnel in
the world.
Our budget assumes $98.6 billion for paying benefits. The increase
funds a range of military pay increases from 2 percent to 6.5 percent
targeted by rank and years of service. This initiative is intended to
retain DOD's most experienced personnel. For our Green Berets and other
elite units who play a critical role in the war against terrorism, our
budget provides $4.5 billion, which is a 47 percent increase.
Our budget also provides for full funding of health care benefits for
Active Duty members, retirees and their dependents.
Our budget provides for an array of quality-of-life initiatives for
our military personnel, including improving military housing. For many
years military housing has been one of the trouble spots in the defense
budget with inadequate housing and substantial out-of-pocket costs to
our service personnel, but our budget continues the efforts that the
administration has made over the past 2 years to improve conditions by
providing for $1.2 billion to build and renovate 44 barracks with
13,000 living spaces.
There is $167 million to construct and modernize seven medical
treatment centers and $87 million for two new elementary schools for
dependents, as well as for school renovations.
Our budget also reduces out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 percent
to 3.5 percent for personnel living in private housing, and last, these
costs are scheduled to drop to zero in fiscal year 2005.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), an esteemed Blue Dog colleague and
former first lieutenant with the 101st Airborne in Vietnam.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague from
California for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget
and in support of the Blue Dog alternative. I would like to discuss
three major problems with the Republican budget that we have before us.
First of all, I want to talk about Medicaid. I think most of my
colleagues have seen this chart. These are reconciliation instructions
included in the Republican budget which would require the Committee on
Energy and Commerce to cut $107 billion, $107 billion over the next
decade out of Medicaid.
I have talked to some of my hospital folks and began to ask questions
about where these cuts may come from, and they believe that the major
portion of those cuts will have to come out of an account we call the
disproportionate share for hospitals, that is, DSH payments, which are
payments made to our hospitals who are providing the major portion of
indigent care.
There are 86 hospitals in Florida which receive DSH payments for a
total of $221 million. Many of those are rural hospitals, 27 of them.
All 27 of those rural hospitals in Florida, for the most part, are in
financial trouble, and I believe and the hospitals believe that that
account will have to be cut by some 80 percent to meet these
reconciliation instructions.
If that is not bad enough, let us look at the farm bill that this
Congress just enacted last year. We are telling farmers now and
consumers, forget what we did last year, let the farm bill debate begin
again. This budget requires the House Committee on Agriculture to cut
about $18.6 billion out of programs that were enacted last year in the
farm bill. What will be cut? Nutrition programs that provide food for
those less fortunate, or will we cut it out of the record low margins
that the farmers are getting in the marketplace now?

{time} 1500

Mr. Chairman, we are trying hard in this country to keep a viable
agricultural industry so we can produce our own food and fiber and not
put ourselves in the situation that we are in with oil. That is what
will happen if we abandon this farm bill.
Third, what we are doing to veterans is not acceptable. Many of my
Republican colleagues have said we are just slowing down the growth.
That is malarkey. That would be true if the number of people being
treated in the veterans hospitals was not going to explode in the next
decade, but we know it is. Today, within 24 hours of the time our
troops have invaded Iraq, we are standing on the floor with a budget
that cuts billions of dollars out of current veterans programs. It is
unconscionable. I ask Members to reject the Republican budget and
support the Blue Dog budget, which is responsible on the spending side
and gets us into balance by 2009.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I have to scratch my head and wonder out loud how, when
we increase the veterans budget in our budget 6.1 percent, the other
side of the aisle can call that a cut, yet that is what Member after
Member comes to the floor and says.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to discuss the
second important plank of our budget, and that is economic growth and
job creation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry)
and I have spoken about the fact that this budget protects our country,
our national defense, and our homeland security. And nothing is more
important this afternoon, as this is a very critical time in the
Persian Gulf. Our troops are committed, and we are committed to them.
However, this budget meets another challenge, and that is the
challenge of strengthening the American economy and creating new jobs.
Promoting growth in this economy and getting people back to work is a
top priority of ours, and it is reflected in this budget. That is why
it provides for policies that create an economic environment for
boosting both long-term and short-term growth. In particular, the
budget leaves room for President Bush's jobs and economic growth plan
to strengthen the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to help
struggling

[[Page H2155]]

American workers and by laying the groundwork to promote long-term,
sustainable growth in our Nation's economy.
A Member on the other side of the aisle called this growth package
irresponsible. We do not think it is irresponsible to bolster household
finances or encourage consumer spending. We do not think it is
irresponsible to promote investment because it leads to job creation,
and we do not think it is irresponsible to help the unemployed get back
to work. That is what this budget does.
Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago we passed tax relief that not only put
money back in people's pockets, but it slowed an advancing recession
that President Bush inherited. The 2001 tax relief plan made that
recession the mildest in history, and it created 1.5 million new jobs.
Without the leadership this Congress showed on a bipartisan basis and
this President showed, the recession and the job loss would have been
far worse when America came under attack on September 11, 2001.
Now in this budget we provide for the President's economic growth
package which will create new jobs and sustain growth. The plan
accelerates the reductions in personal income tax rates, the marriage
penalty relief in the 2001 tax cuts. It accelerates the child tax
credits from 2001. It increases small business expensing, and it
eliminates the unfair double taxation of dividend income.
Experts generally agree that this proposal will boost stock prices
dramatically. Some say 7 percent, some say 20 percent. The fact is, we
are going to add significantly to the value of our stock market, which
helps all of us as Americans, including half of all American families
now invested in the market. It helps the economy in general.
Economists also say it is going to lower unemployment rates for the
next several years. In fact, the average of private forecasters'
estimates show the President's plan will result in more than 1 million
new jobs by the end of next year. It goes without saying that America
is still dealing with the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist
attacks and with the continued uncertainty on the international front,
including in Iraq today. Our economy is not performing as it should,
and too many Americans are out of work.
This budget resolution is responsive because it helps get the economy
going again; and when that happens, revenues grow. It happened in the
1960s under the leadership of President John Kennedy, and it happened
in the 1980s with President Reagan's tax relief plan because it was
pro-growth.
Here is a chart which indicates the Reagan-era revenues. Look at
this, from 1982 until 1989, the dramatic increase in revenues. Again
1960s, 1980s. That is what we are trying to replicate now.
Mr. Chairman, with the growth package, we are also going to be able
to be sure we can afford these tax cuts. I have heard Members say we
cannot afford them; it is good to have growth tax packages, but we
cannot afford it. This is an interesting chart. This is a static
analysis, meaning it shows absolutely no impact of the tax relief,
which has countered everything we have seen in history.
When we provide that incentive for job creation, it increases
revenue. It helps the budget, but this assumes none of that happens.
Just to have the tax relief in place, this is the difference. The red
on the chart shows what the budget would be like with the tax relief
taken out altogether. No tax relief at all. The green shows the impact
of all this pro-growth tax policy, again on a static analysis. As
Members can see, it is a very small difference. The tax relief is not
crowding out additional spending, it is growing the economy so we can
get people back to work and grow our revenues.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage Members on the other side of
the aisle to listen to one of their former colleagues, currently a
Governor in the State of New Mexico. Bill Richardson, who was also a
member of the Clinton cabinet, has a plan for his State that restrains
spending; and, yes, it reduces tax. Why? Because he knows it is going
to help his State's economy and in the end help in terms of revenues.
He has said and he offers this as free advice to his fellow Democrats.
He said, ``We Democrats need to stop talking about class warfare and
distribution of wealth. We need to start talking about economic growth,
and reducing taxes puts us on the road to economic growth.'' I think he
is right. I always liked Bill Richardson, and now I know why. Well put.
Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible budget because it protects our
country and because it grows the economy, gets the economy back on
track and creates jobs.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The national chairman of the Disabled American Veterans wrote the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and he said, ``Has Congress no
shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government
that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and
rob our programs, health care and disability compensation, to pay for
tax cuts for the wealthy?''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop), who represents a number of veterans at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Blue Dog budget, a fair and balanced alternative to the harsh and
misguided priorities of the Republican budget. The Blue Dog budget is
fiscally responsible, combining spending restraint and budget
enforcement to balance the budget and set us on a path to growth. The
Blue Dog budget is balanced, protects Social Security, contains less
debt than the Republican budget, and includes a reserve fund for the
war in Iraq.
Make no mistake about it, the Blue Dog budget gives Americans more
than the Republican budget, and it does so responsibly. It gives $10.4
billion more for discretionary programs in fiscal year 2004; $130
billion more for non-Medicare health care programs, primarily Medicaid;
$30 billion more for education and training programs; more agriculture
spending for commodity programs, conservation, crop insurance and
nutrition programs; and $24 billion more for veterans programs than the
Republican budget. All this with reasonable and fair tax cuts that cost
only half as much as the Republican budget. For example, it speeds up
the child tax credit, eliminates the marriage penalty, exempts $6
million per couple from the death tax, delays cuts for the two highest
tax brackets.
The Blue Dog budget helps Americans with substantially less debt than
the Republican budget without the deep cuts in important programs that
help Americans and strengthen our position in these uncertain economic
times. I urge Members to support the Blue Dog budget. It is a better
budget. Reject the Republican budget. It is not good for America, and
it is especially not good for America today in these uncertain economic
times.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the points on the veterans' issues.
First of all, we increase discretionary spending 6.1 percent on
veterans, we increase the mandatory spending 7 percent, and they call
that a cut. They ask us to honor veterans. In fact, in this country we
honor veterans so much that we paid 5,500 of them benefits after they
were dead. That is how much we honor veterans. That is why we need to
look at every program for waste and abuse.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as part of this budget,
the President's job and economic growth plan is designed to strengthen
the economy and allow Americans to keep more of their own money to
spend, save, and invest. And I know my constituents in my district know
how to spend their money better than we do in Washington.
The President's plan also calls for speeding up the tax relief passed
in 2001 so families get the benefits of those tax cuts today, ending
the unfair double taxation on dividends, giving small businesses
incentives to grow, and providing help for unemployed Americans.
Let me read some statistics on the President's growth plan that has
been dynamically scored. In this budget, the economy would enjoy an
annual average of 837,000 new jobs from 2004 to 2013, with 997,000 and
1.03 million jobs in 2004

[[Page H2156]]

and 2005 respectively; an annual average of $69 billion in additional
GDP from 2004 through 2013, with an increase of $84 billion in GDP in
2004 alone; an average of $120 billion in additional disposable income
from 2004 through 2013. And also in 2004 through 2013, if we talk about
the dividend plan alone, we are talking about 69 percent in job growth,
a 72 percent increase in GDP growth, $50 billion, and a 64 percent
increase in additional disposable income.
Mr. Chairman, this budget is the right budget for the country and
this stimulus package is the right package for growth and economic
prosperity.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Committee on Rules for
making in order the Blue Dog budget alternative, and I urge Members on
the other side of the aisle to take this opportunity to support a
responsible budget. By allowing the Blue Dogs to offer our budget
substitute, the Republican leadership has finally acknowledged that the
House needs to have an honest debate on a sensible alternative to the
majority's unrealistic and irresponsible budget resolution.
The Republican budget operates under the fiction that our country can
afford a tax cut of $1.35 trillion as the United States embarks upon a
necessary mission to liberate Iraq. The attempt to proceed with new tax
cuts during a time of war is without precedent in American history, and
for good reason.
The Republican budget resolution does not take into account our
country's current economic and military situation. It is stubbornly
stuck in the past. In their delusional attempt to provide new tax cuts
while fighting a war and simultaneously attempting to balance the
budget, the majority will succeed only in a failed attempt to balance
the budget on the backs of our Nation's senior citizens, our veterans,
our students, our farmers, our economically disadvantaged. How in the
world the majority can propose spending cuts in veterans health care
during a time of war is beyond me, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and
the Paralyzed Veterans of America share my amazement.

{time} 1515

Our good friend indicated that they were doing everything for
veterans. It is very funny that the veterans organizations do not agree
with it and do not adopt that posture. The Blue Dog substitute will
balance the Federal budget in 10 years without relying on the Social
Security surplus and without sacrificing our Nation's veterans and our
seniors. At the same time, the Blue Dogs provide both immediate and
long-term tax relief to American taxpayers. This relief consists
largely of an acceleration of cuts already scheduled. Further, the Blue
Dogs are committed to sticking with the President's overall funding
levels for defense and nondefense discretionary spending.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join the Blue
Dogs in our effort to support the President and support his total
funding levels. I urge every Member of the House to support the
reasonable, responsible Blue Dog budget alternative.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a member of the committee.
(Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget
resolution. Let me commend the gentleman from Iowa for his hard work in
developing this budget. The product of his effort is bold and
innovative, and it deserves our support. Economic growth is the
cornerstone of our Republican budget. Too many Americans, too many of
my constituents in south Alabama, are struggling to make ends meet.
This budget works to grow our economy and to get unemployed Americans
back to work.
We assume the President's jobs and economic growth package because it
provides an immediate boost to our struggling American workers, and it
lays the groundwork for the long-term, sustainable growth of our
Nation's economy.
The President's tax cuts were always intended to promote long-term,
sustainable growth. Our budget calls for accelerating these tax cuts,
because taxpayers and the economy deserve this extra support now. These
tax cuts would allow workers to keep more of their hard-earned money to
spend as they see fit. With more disposable income, it will be these
workers who will propel our economy back to a state of sustained health
and growth.
I am particularly glad to note that the 2001 tax cuts would be made
permanent, allowing us to avoid a de facto tax increase in the year
2010.
Mr. Chairman, there are plenty of reasons to support this budget. I
think one of the most compelling reasons, however, is that it provides
the right medicine at the right time to create jobs and get our economy
growing again.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I am guessing that most Americans are
watching events unfold in Iraq on their television sets. These are the
events they should be watching, not this debate on a budget that does
not even include expenses for the war and the reconstruction effort in
Iraq. If I had my way, we would be talking about that war all day
today, or if we were debating a budget, we would be debating a wartime
budget that called on us to make real sacrifices. That is not what we
are doing. We are debating a set of resolutions, the best of which by
far is the Blue Dog resolution, and I rise to support it.
I represent smart constituents. They know that money does not grow on
trees. They do not want a tax cut, and they are not asking for it. They
do not want trillion-dollar budget deficits, and they certainly are not
asking for them. Indeed, in contrast to the yawn of a response the
administration gave to projected deficits, my constituents understand
the serious fiscal consequences of hemorrhaging red ink.
Rather than punt this issue to future generations as the Committee on
the Budget proposes, families in my district, like families everywhere,
expect Democrats and Republicans to sit down together and make tough
choices on what our government can afford now and what we must defer.
That is where the Blue Dogs come in. Frankly, the Blue Dogs are one
of the few groups around this place that have the integrity and
expertise to present a credible budget alternative. The Blue Dog budget
makes reasonable and fiscally prudent assumptions about spending and
tax policy and achieves a budget surplus by 2009. It is fair and
fiscally responsible, and I am very proud to support it.
The Blue Dogs have long been leaders in the fight for a balanced and
fiscally responsible budget. They have made the hard decisions expected
of policymakers, and we have the welts to show for it. I urge my
colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget proposal which will be
offered later in this debate.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the committee.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, we cannot quantify the cost of our
freedom; however, in passing a budget we must calculate the cost of our
homeland security and our household security. To fulfil this duty, we
are best guided by the verities of our history. A war runs a deficit,
and, with determination, we retain our freedom and inevitably regain
our prosperity. Truly our Nation's homeland security and household
security are best served by budgetary balance born out of fiscal
discipline. But sadly there come moments when time connives and fate
conspires to preclude us from budgetary balance, and we must sacrifice
in the present to strengthen our future.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation has been at war since September 11, a war on
terror of which Operation Iraqi Freedom is the most recent theater. It
has been, is and will continue to be a struggle of momentous sacrifice,
yet we will prevail, and we will prosper.
This budget, which restores us to balance in 9 years, will speed our
path to

[[Page H2157]]

peace and prosperity. For after each year of this budget, our deficit
diminishes, our homeland security increases, and our household security
increases. Yes, this is a difficult budget for these difficult times
because it is a war budget in a time of war. Mr. Chairman, to preserve
and promote our Nation's security, opportunity and prosperity, I urge
its passage.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I just want to reiterate my support for the Blue Dog budget, a budget
that is balanced, it reduces the debt, and provides a reasonable level
of services to our veterans and our seniors. Unlike the majority
budget, it does it without robbing from Social Security, Medicare and
the veterans programs. I urge everybody on both sides of the aisle to
vote for the Blue Dog budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, today in Northampton, Massachusetts, they are having
problems funding a homeless shelter for veterans. As we watched the
morning headline and the evening newscast, we are struck by the brave
commitment of our men and women on the borders of Iraq and perhaps, as
I speak, within the borders of Iraq as they prepare for an all-out
invasion of Iraq. At a moment like this when we are watching this
commitment, it is important to think of the significant and personal
sacrifices these brave men and women are making. But at the same time
that we are creating hundreds of thousands of new veterans through
their distinguished service, the Congress today debates a Republican
budget that mandates cuts in veterans programs.
I talk to these folks at the Northampton VA, I meet with them
regularly, and they point out there simply is less money every year in
the VA for honoring the commitment we made to our soldiers.
I know that the Republicans today through another manager's
amendment, only because when they went back to their membership, the
membership said to them, ``what are you thinking of,'' that they have
added in this amendment a few more dollars in an attempt to ameliorate
some of their cuts. But the compelling truth is that this nominal
increase will quickly be overcome by more than 2 percent in annual cuts
in the years following. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
their spending on veterans' health care and benefits is not enough to
maintain purchasing power, which simply means real cuts in veterans
programs.
As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans said of
this budget being proposed by the majority Republican Party in this
Congress, ``This budget dishonors the service of millions of service-
connected disabled veterans, including combat-disabled veterans, and
seriously erodes the Nation's commitment to care for its defenders.''
Stand strong today for the Democratic proposal. Honor the commitment
we made to our veterans and vote down this Republican budget proposal.
House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, March 20, 2003.

American Legion Declares Spratt Budget ``Better Approach''

Dear Colleague: The Republican budget that will be
considered on the floor today cuts discretionary funding for
veterans health care below the level needed to maintain
purchasing power at the 2003 level by a total of $14.2
billion over ten years. Their budget also directs the
Veterans' Affairs Committee to cut $14.6 billion from
mandatory benefit payments to veterans, including
compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial
benefits, and veterans education benefits.
Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic alternative
rejects any cuts to veterans' benefits over the next ten
years. And it addresses the rising demand for veterans health
care by funding veterans' health programs, including medical
research and construction, at $2 billion above the level
needed to maintain purchasing power at the 2003 level over
the next ten years. For 2004, the Democratic budget provides
$633 million more for veterans programs than the Republican
plan, and it provides $30.3 billion more for veterans than
the House Republican budget over ten years. The American
Legion calls the Democratic alternative ``a much better
approach toward reaching a balanced budget''.
The four groups--Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars--that assess the needs of veterans and the funding they
believe is required to meet those needs, known as The
Independent Budget, have reviewed the Republican plan and the
Democratic alternative and have concluded that the Democratic
alternative ``represents a solid step forward in meeting the
very real needs of veterans''.
I have attached these letters and ask that you give them
your attention before you vote on the Budget Resolution
today.
Sincerely,
John M. Spratt, Jr.
Ranking Member.
____

March 19, 2003.

The Independent Budget

A Budget for Veterans by Veterans

Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Spratt: On behalf of the co-authors of
the Independent Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, we are writing to offer our appreciation for
introducing the Democratic Alternative to the Budget
Committee's Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 95. Although this
Alternative Budget Resolution does not provide all the
resources for veterans' health care that we feel are
necessary, it does recommend $1.1 billion in additional
discretionary spending in FY 2004, and $17 billion more over
the course of 10 years. In addition, and perhaps most
importantly, the Alternative Budget Resolution does not
include the draconian cuts to Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) mandatory programs that are contained in H. Con. Res.
95.
To require deep cuts in VA mandatory programs, $463 million
in FY 2004 and $15 billion over ten years, that are called
for in H. Con. Res. 95 is unconscionable. We do not consider
payments to wartime-disabled veterans, pensions to the
poorest disabled veterans, burial benefits and G.I. Bill
benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan to be
``fraud, waste and abuse.'' These would be the very programs
directly affected by the Budget Resolution approved by the
Committee. In addition, we note that H. Con. Res. 95 provides
fewer discretionary dollars in FY 2004 than was recommended
by the Administration. We are all on record as recommending
close to $2 billion in additional funding, above the $1.3
billion recommended by the Administration, for VA health
care, and we find it difficult to see how H. Con. Res. 95 can
even match the President's inadequate request.
Again, we applaud your efforts to negate the cuts in VA
mandatory programs and provide $1.1 billion in discretionary
spending above H. Con. Res. 95 in FY 2004, and $17 billion
more over the course of 10 years. Although not meeting The
Independent Budget recommendation for VA health care, the
Democratic Alternative Budget Resolution represents a solid
step forward in meeting the very real needs of veterans, and
those who will soon be veterans.
Sincerely,
Rick Jones,
National Legislative Director, AMVETS.
Joseph A. Violante,
National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.
Richard B. Fuller,
National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of
America.
Dennis Cullinan,
National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States.
____

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
Hon. James A. Nussle,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Legion is deeply troubled
by the impact H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on
the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, would have on veterans,
especially severely service-connected disabled veterans, and
their families. Forced budgetary reductions in mandatory and
discretionary funding is not in the best interest of disabled
veterans, recently separated veterans, and active-duty
service members entitled to certain VA benefits that are
funded by mandatory appropriations. Therefore, The American
Legion must oppose H. Con. Res. 95 passed by the Committee.
Representative Spratt, the Committee's Ranking Democratic
Member, shared with The American Legion and other veterans'
service organization the Democratic Alternative. After
careful review, The American Legion agrees the alternative is
a much better approach toward reaching a balanced budget.
The American Legion is also aware that the Blue Dog
Coalition and the Congressional Black Caucus may also offer
alternatives as well. Although The American Legion has not
seen these proposals, it is clear there is much work to be
done before final passage of the Budget Resolution for FY
2004,

[[Page H2158]]

especially one that treats earned benefits of American
veterans fairly.
Veterans did not cause the budgetary shortfalls and should
not be financially penalized in the name of fiscal
responsibility. Much has been said that all Americans must be
willing to make sacrifices to eliminate the budget deficit--
severely service-connected disabled veterans have already
made significant, personal sacrifices for their earned
entitlements.
Sincerely,

Steve Robertson,

Director,
National Legislative Commission.
____

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 20, 2003]

Changes at VA Vex Advocates for Homeless

(By Edward Walsh)

John F. Downing doesn't understand why he was turned down
for federal funds.
Eighteen months ago, he took over a successful program that
every night provides shelter and counseling to as many as 120
homeless veterans in western Massachusetts. When United
Veterans of America, where he is the executive director,
applied last year for renewal of a federal grant that
subsidizes the cost of half of the 120 beds at the facility,
he thought it would sail through. It didn't, leaving Downing
angry and perplexed.
``The whole thing is preposterous to us,'' he said.
Peter H. Dougherty understands why Downing is miffed. As
director of homeless programs at the Department of Veterans
Affairs, Dougherty is positioned at the other end of the
bureaucratic process that decides such matters. But while
Dougherty has sympathy for the complaints from Massachusetts,
from where he sits in Washington, the VA's program for
homeless veterans is doing just fine.
``I don't blame them, but in the meantime thousands more
homeless vets are getting service,'' Dougherty said. Recent
research suggests that veterans account for about 23 percent,
or 460,000 of the 2 million adults who experience
homelessness over the course of a year.
These competing perspectives--one from the nation's
capital, the other from Northampton, Mass.--are the result of
policy decisions that had nothing to do with the 60 beds that
Downing is fighting to preserve. The private facility on the
grounds of a VA medical center in Northampton was not so much
rejected for renewed federal funding as it fell victim to
vastly increased competition for a limited amount of money
that the VA made available for the homeless veterans program.
The key step that threatens the federal subsidy to half of
the beds at the facility was the VA's decision to merge two
programs for homeless veterans into one. Two years ago, the
VA received 67 requests for the operating subsidies, known as
the ``per diem only program,'' and approved 53 of the
applications. The grants provided $19 per bed per night to
help run homeless shelters.
But in the most recent round of awards of operating
subsidies, announced in December, 252 private agencies,
including United Veterans of America, sought help from the
VA, but again only 53 were approved. More than one third of
the applicants had previously operated with help from the
other VA homeless program that was merged with the per diem
only program. There was also a sharp increase in interest in
the program, with 125 new agencies for the first time seeking
a VA operating subsidy.
More than half of the homeless shelters that applied for
renewal of existing VA subsidies were turned down in the
latest round. This has led to suspicions among some that the
administration gave preference to shelters run by ``faith-
based'' organizations, furthering President Bush's goal of
boosting the role of such organizations. The VA added to this
impression by boasting, in its announcement of the new
awards, that more than 40 percent of the recipients were
faith-based organizations.
But Dougherty and other VA officials deny that faith-based
organizations were given any advantage.
``What we're doing is what the administration asked for,
and that is to have a level playing field,'' Dougherty said.
When per diem only subsidies were awarded in 2000, faith-
based organizations accounted for 35 percent of the
recipients, he said.
But the ``level playing field'' meant that homeless
programs already operating with VA subsidies also did
not receive any special consideration, although Dougherty
said the panels of VA officials who made the selections
would be aware if an application was for a renewal and
would probably factor that into their decisions.
VA officials defend the decision to merge the two homeless
programs. Under the second program, known as Health Care for
Homeless Veterans, VA medical facilities contracted with
local residential facilities to take in homeless veterans.
But officials said that program was more expensive, costing
an average of $39 per day per veteran, than the per diem only
subsidies and essentially served the same population.
``We looked to see if there were any distinctions between
veterans in both programs,'' said Gay Koerber, VA's associate
chief consultant for health care for homeless veterans.
``There was no difference in their health problems, substance
abuse problems; they were about the same age. Based on that,
it seemed much more cost-effective to shift resources into
the per diem program.''
Koerber and Dougherty also note that, under a variety of VA
programs, the number of beds available continues to grow and
that the operating subsidy is scheduled to increase from $19
to $26.95 a day. The other 60 beds at the Northampton
facility, for example, continue to be supported under a VA
program designed to enlarge the number of beds available
nationwide.
Downing and others have complained that not a single
application from Massachusetts was approved by the VA in the
latest round, but, according to Koerber, the agency is
helping to operate 247 beds for homeless veterans in the
state (not counting the 60 that will lose the subsidy at the
end of this month), the fourth-highest total among the 50
states.
All of this is scant comfort to Downing, who views the
program from Northampton, not Washington.
``I have a commitment to veterans and to this facility to
keep as many people safe and sober as we can,'' he said.
``Our issue has been we don't want to put anybody back on the
streets.''

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the committee.
(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to
commend the gentleman from Iowa on this great budget resolution that
adheres to the principles that this Chamber has been speaking about
forever, fiscal discipline, tax relief, and job creation. This budget
resolution includes President Bush's job growth plan, which provides
immediate help for Americans who are facing very difficult economic
times right now, and also lays the groundwork for strong and sustained
economic growth in the future. This plan will boost job growth by 2.1
million jobs over the next 3 years. In my home State alone, Florida, it
will create 54,000 jobs in 2004, and almost 250,000 jobs will be
created over the next 4 years. Small businesses, sometimes an entity
that is forgotten so much in these conversations, will receive tax cuts
averaging over $2,000 under this budget, this plan.
The long-term tax incentives will not only help job growth, but it
will also create, as I said before, long-term financial security for
all Americans in our wonderful country.
I keep hearing about this Blue Dog budget, but this Blue Dog
Democratic alternative increases taxes, increases taxes on Americans
that are struggling right now to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage,
to keep their jobs. It increases taxes to hire more bureaucrats. They
may call it a Blue Dog plan, but when you take off the dressing, it is
just a dog. Increasing taxes in America in this day and age will do
nothing to help the economy. It will slow down economic growth.
That is why this plan, the Republican plan, makes so much sense. It
is the right plan for the right time. It is one that will increase
jobs, not decrease; that will lower taxes on working Americans, lower
taxes on small businesses, not increase taxes to hire more bureaucrats
here in Washington.
It is time to bring common sense. This budget does so.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, we were asked to pass the budget, the
Republican budget. We passed it. This is the economic growth over the
last few years. We got the lowest economic growth that we have gotten
in 50 years. We also have a budget that creates new debt.
This is the surplus and deficit over the past few years. You will
notice it under Reagan and Bush; the Clinton budget, which was passed
without any Republican help; President Bush came in, and we are back
down into deficit.
This is called a wartime budget. Unfortunately, there is no wartime
money in the budget.
How bad do deficits have to get?
This is a chart that shows where the interest on the national debt
has gone. Interest on the national debt, if the Republicans had not
messed up the budget, would have gone to zero by the end of this budget
deficit. The red line is the interest on the national debt under the
Republican plan. To put it in perspective, the blue line is the entire
nondefense discretionary budget. Instead of going to zero, we are going
to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we are
spending on everything in government.

[[Page H2159]]

{time} 1530

Because of the deficits we are cutting education. The 12 percent
increase over the past few years, this budget is a cut in education. We
are talking about cuts not only in the veterans benefits that we had
but also cuts in education, cuts in safe and drug-free schools, after-
school programs, education for homeless children, vocational education,
28,000 Head Start students not being educated under the Head Start
program.
At a time when States are increasing their tuitions, we are cutting
Pell grants. We are cutting student loans and school lunches. We are
also not funding No Child Left Behind. The President went all over the
country talking about No Child Left Behind and the amount of money that
was authorized to be spent. Unfortunately, we are not even spending on
No Child Left Behind what we spent last year.
Look at the difference in what we are spending. In order to take pay
cuts for the wealthy, we have run up a huge debt, cut veterans
benefits, cut education. That is the wrong priority. We should fund
veterans and education first and then consider tax cuts second. We have
got the wrong priorities. Education is the right priority.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining
on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Iowa has
11\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, that sounds pretty close. It is about as
balanced as any of the budgets.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, today as we embark on a new chapter in the
war against terror, I want to return to a crucial theme for this
budget, which is homeland security. That goes to the heart of national
security, and it also goes to the heart of economic security since by
far the biggest setback we could have to our economy, for another
setback, which would be another major terrorist attack.
This budget includes a substantial increase for the protection of our
Nation's infrastructure, $829 million, for instance, a more than 300
percent increase for the Department of Homeland Security's Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection which will provide new
capabilities in the war against terror by mapping intelligence and
threat information about the Nation's potential vulnerabilities. That
includes $500 million to assess the Nation's critical infrastructure
and to ensure that our highest-priority vulnerabilities are properly
addressed. This is important everywhere, including my home State of
Louisiana. We have a vast amount of critical infrastructure there,
including some of the most active ports in the world and a large
portion of the strategic petroleum reserve, infrastructure that
transports a huge percentage of the Nation's oil and gas needs and so
much more. Terrorist attacks to any of these facilities would be
devastating to my State and, indeed, the entire Nation.
So in this time of war, in this time of threat, providing for our
military and protecting our homeland first and foremost are top
priorities. This budget does both of those. It protects our economy
also as a result, and I urge my fellow Members to support this strong
budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Unfortunately, this Republican budget is likely to force the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to slash the pensions of
34,000 Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their
dependents and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of
September 11.
Who in this House believes that we should cut the September 11
Victims' Compensation Fund to finance tax cuts for the rich? As a
Nation at war, who believes that the men and women of the Coast Guard
protecting our shores, ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in
the Persian Gulf should be worrying that Congress might cut their
retirement?
This budget shows a callous disregard for the families of the victims
of September 11, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad
retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country.
The budget resolution directs the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion for mandatory programs over the 10
years and to find savings from waste, fraud, and abuse and produce
greater efficiency. Those platitudes may make for good rhetoric, but
the policies will have devastating effect on the retirees and on the
families of the victims of September 11. The Congressional Budget
Office says 90 percent of the programs of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure's mandatory accounts include the
September 11 Victims' Compensation Fund, Coast Guard retirement pay,
railroad retirement pensions, and unemployment compensation for
railroad workers. Is that where we are supposed to find waste, fraud,
and abuse?
The Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the victims who were
injured and the families of those who were killed in the September 11
attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this Chamber can possibly ever forget
the tragedy of September 11, and I hope the families are beginning to
put their lives back together again. How in good conscience can we
retreat from the solemn commitment made on this floor to help them
rebuild their lives?
I commit to them that I will oppose this Republican budget plan that
will cut their funding. Similarly, the 36,000 Coast Guard officers and
their enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast Guard retirees, we pledge
to them on our side that we will oppose this budget resolution and its
cuts in Coast Guard retirement pay.
Coast Guard cutters, as we debate this budget resolution, are on
combat patrol with the U.S. Navy, securing the shipping lanes and the
safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.
At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and our ports.
Just this week the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated Operation
Liberty Shield, increased security at our ports, protect
infrastructure, key assets. The Coast Guard under Operation Liberty
Shield is increasing its patrols of waterways, escorts of ferries and
cruise ships, sea marshals on board vessels of high interest. We get
more out of our investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other
agency of the Federal Government. Why should we make them worry about
this Republican effort to cut retirement pay?
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 95, the
FY2004 Budget Resolution. Regrettably, this Republican Budget is likely
to force the Transportation Committee to slash the pensions of 34,000
Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their
dependents, and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of
September 11th. Who in this House believes that we should cut the
September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund to finance more tax cuts for
the rich? With the Nation now at war, who in this House believes that
the men and women of the Coast Guard, who are protecting our shores and
ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf,
should be worrying that this Congress may cut their retirement? This
Budget displays a callous disregard for the families of the victims of
September 11th, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad
retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country.
Section 201 of the Republican Budget Resolution directs the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion from its
mandatory programs over the next 10 years. We are told to find these
savings from ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' and to produce greater
efficiency in our programs. While these platitudes of ``waste, fraud,
and abuse'' make for good rhetoric, these policies will have a
devastating effect on these retirees and the families of the victims of
the September 11th attack.
The Congressional Budget Office says that 90 percent of the
Transportation Committee's funding of mandatory programs includes these
three:
The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund,
Coast Guard retirement pay; and
Railroad retirement pensions and unemployment compensation for
railroad workers.
And this is where we're expected to find ``waste, fraud, and abuse''?
The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the
victims who

[[Page H2160]]

were injured and the families of those who were killed in the September
11th terrorist attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this chamber will
forget the tragedy of September 11th. I can only hope that families of
the victims of September 11th have begun to put their lives back
together. How can we, in good conscience, retreat from our solemn
commitment to help them rebuild their lives? I commit to them now that
I will oppose this Republican plan that could cut funding from the
families of the victims of September 11th.
Similarly, I commit to the men and women of the Coast Guard, both the
36,000 Coast Guard officers and enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast
Guard retirees, that I will strongly oppose this Republican Budget
Resolution and its likely cuts in Coast Guard retired pay.
As we debate this Budget Resolution, Coast Guard cutters are on
combat patrol with the U.S. Navy to help secure shipping lands and the
safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.
At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and ports. On
Monday, March 17, the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated
Operation LIBERTY SHIELD to increase security at our Nation's borders
and protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. Under Operation
LIBERTY SHIELD, the Coast Guard is increasing patrols of major U.S.
ports and waterways, increasing its escorts of ferries and cruise
ships, providing armed Sea Marshals onboard every high interest vessel
arriving at or departing from U.S. ports, and enforcing security zones
in and around critical infrastructure sites in key ports and petroleum
facilities close to large coastal communities. In addition to its
military and homeland security missions, the Coast Guard continues its
search-and-rescue mission--responding to nearly 37,000 calls and saving
3,654 lives in 2002--and many other missions. The Coast Guard has long
been stretched thin, but has always been ready--``Semper Paratus''--to
answer the call. I have always maintained that the public gets more out
of its investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other
government service. The enlisted men and women and officers of the
Coast Guard should not have to worry about this Republican effort to
cut their retirement pay.
The Republican Budget Resolution also is likely to result in
significant cuts to railroad workers' retirement and unemployment
compensation programs. Railroad workers, unlike other workers, are not
covered by the Social Security system. They have their own retirement
program. Last Congress, the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation
Committee, with the strong support of rail unions, railroads, and rail
retirees and their dependents, introduced H.R. 1140, a bill to revise
the railroad retirement program to restore rail worker benefits and
decrease railroad payroll taxes. The House overwhelmingly passed this
legislation, by a vote of 383-33, and it became law. Today, the
Republican Budget Resolution forces the Transportation Committee to
consider changing this Act to cut railroad worker retirement benefits
and unemployment compensation. I commit to the 248,000 rail workers and
the 645,000 rail retirees and their dependents that I will fight any
attempt to roll back the benefits so recently restored to you.
Beyond these devastating cuts required by the reconciliation
instructions, this Budget Resolution does little to meet our
infrastructure investment needs. For the reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urged the Budget Committee
to provide $50 billion in budget authority for highway, highway safety,
and transit programs. In its letter to the Budget Committee, 74 of the
75 Members of the Transportation Committee stated that we must provide
this level of funding in FY2004 to maintain our surface transportation
systems and have any hope of improving the overall condition of the
Nation's highway and transit systems.
Regrettably, this Budget Resolution provides $39 billion for these
programs--little more than the status quo for TEA 21 reauthorization.
Through the vigorous efforts of the bipartisan leadership of this
Committee, the Resolution also provides a reserve fund that would allow
for additional allocations if this or other legislation includes
increases in Highway Trust Fund receipts. Although this does provide
the Transportation Committee with the opportunity to address this issue
at a later date, this Resolution does nothing to address our enormous
highway and transit infrastructure needs in the fiscal year ahead.
Moreover, the Republican Resolution cuts the amount of highway and
transit funding that actually may be obligated in FY2004 below the CBO
baseline. Specifically, the Republican Budget Resolution assumes a cut
in the transit program of $98 million in FY2004 and $2.5 billion over
the next six years. This cut is directly contrary to TEA 21's goal of
modal balance. Under TEA 21 we significantly increased transit funding
by guaranteeing $36 billion for transit. As a result of this increased
investment, transit ridership has added 1.6 billion riders--more than
900,000 new riders each day--over the last five years. This transit
renaissance could be threatened by these cuts in transit funding.
At a time when our Nation's infrastructure faces huge unmet safety
and security needs, congestion is crippling our cities, and our economy
has lost 2.5 million jobs in the past two years, the Republican Budget
Resolution cuts these vital programs that could address infrastructure
security needs and congestion problems and create family-wage jobs to
grow our economy. Instead, it provides more than $1 trillion of new tax
cuts.
This Budget Resolution reflects more than misplaced priorities. It is
an assault on working men and women from the Coast Guard to the
Maintenance of Way railroad employees.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Republican Budget Resolution and
urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this budget
resolution. With America at war and with families having to make tough
decisions around their kitchen tables, should we not in Congress at
least be expected to make smart decisions to promote economic growth
and to take a stand against waste and fraud?
Many across the aisle oppose this budget and attack the tax relief.
But, Mr. Chairman, less than 5 percent of this budget is about tax
relief; 95 percent of this budget is about spending, 3 percent more,
more, than last year. Unfortunately, much of it continues to be waste
and fraud. The Department of Housing and Urban Development made $2.6
billion in section 8 overpayments, 7 percent of their entire budget
just lost. That is enough money to pay the downpayment for 300,000
people to get into their first homes.
The Medicare program paid out $13.3 billion in 1 year to people who
did not even qualify. That is enough money this year to pay one third
of the cost of a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
The list goes on. Social Security pays benefits to dead people.
Twenty-three percent of the people having their student loans
discharged due to disability actually hold jobs. The National Park
Service spent $800,000 on an outhouse, and it does not even work. In
the real world when people lose this much money, they are fired or they
go to jail. In Washington it is just an excuse to ask for even more
money next year.
Mr. Chairman, there are a thousand ways we can save money in
Washington without cutting any needed services and without raising
taxes on our hard-working families and our men and women in uniform.
People should quit trying to fool the American people into thinking
otherwise. If we fail to endorse this budget and just promote even more
government spending without reform, we are simply sanctioning fraud.
What an insult to the American people.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition
to the Republican budget and in support of the alternative budget being
offered by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. Chairman, the 10-year $5.6 trillion unified budget surplus
projected less than 2 years ago is gone, completely gone, thanks in
large part to the Bush tax cuts mainly benefiting upper-bracket
taxpayers. Now the Republicans offer a budget with over a $2 trillion
deficit for the same 10-year period, $4.4 trillion if we exclude the
Social Security trust fund. That is a fiscal reversal of almost $8
trillion.
Unfortunately, in the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this
Nation's history, the Republicans' response is to propose more of the
same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their message seems
to be: just keep digging.
The Republicans' budget proposes $1.3 trillion in new tax cuts, every
penny of it funded by increased government debt. The result, Mr.
Chairman, is that the Republican budget would provide the worst of both
worlds. We

[[Page H2161]]

would go over the cliff fiscally, while at the same time radically
reducing money available for education, the environment,
transportation, healthcare, and law enforcement.
At a time when our veterans are waiting 6 months for an appointment
at VA hospitals, the Republican budget would cut compensation for
service-connected disabilities and education benefits by $15 billion
and veterans healthcare funding by another $14 billion over the next 10
years.
As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans said in a
letter to Speaker Hastert, ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor
left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to
dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs,
healthcare and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the
wealthy?''
The Republican budget not only fails to fund No Child Left Behind,
the bipartisan education program enacted a year ago; it actually would
require cuts in school lunch programs and in student loans. The
Republicans mandate billions in cuts from appropriated health programs,
but do not say where the ax would fall. From major disease research at
the National Institutes of Health? From community health centers. There
would be $2.5 billion in cuts required next year alone. From where?
The Republican budget does not even keep up with inflation in funding
for homeland security. And what new money is proposed is largely offset
by cuts in law enforcement programs on which our police and other first
responders have depended in years past. The Democratic alternative
provides $10 billion for the States immediately for homeland security,
as provided in our economic stimulus plan. The Republican budget does
not contain one dime of this funding.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget has its priorities straight. A
fast-acting and effective economic stimulus, a serious prescription
drug plan, protection of veterans benefits, prudent investments in
education and homeland security, and all of this with $821 billion less
in deficits and debt than the Republican proposal. The Democratic
alternative is realistic and responsible, fair and fiscally sound, and
I urge colleagues to support it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I have been looking through my budget, and I cannot find one of the
facts that the gentleman just stated. Not one of the cuts he just
stated is in my budget document. I have looked through there. I cannot
find them. I do not know where the gentleman is coming up with these
numbers.
I will say this, though: the person I would like to introduce next to
speak basically wrote title II, which is our reconciliation
construction regarding waste, fraud, and abuse, asking the committees
to go out and look for those instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, ways
that we can find deficiencies within this budget, and that is the very
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would
like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman, for
working so hard on this budget. I have had lengthy discussions with him
about my concerns for protecting Medicare and veterans. The spending
cuts that were in the original budget that we passed out of the
Committee on the Budget concerned me deeply. He listened and I am very
pleased with the results.
Most Americans agree that Medicare must be reformed. The 38-year-old
program benefit package is outdated and actually insufficient for most
seniors' needs. The current program lacks much-needed prescription drug
coverage, leaving many seniors to choose between food and drugs. I
know. I represent many of those seniors. The Republican budget begins
the process of reforming the outdated Medicare system. It includes a
historic proposal to provide $400 billion over 10 years to update the
Medicare benefits package and also provide a prescription drug benefit.
Additionally, I have worked with the committee and the Republican
leadership to ensure that Medicare is untouched by across-the-board
cuts. The constituents of the fifth congressional district have also
expressed a great concern that the veterans healthcare system is
broken.

{time} 1545

I have constituents in my district who are being forced to wait up to
16 months for an appointment to see a physician, and in some of the
counties it is up to 18 months. Last year, in fiscal year 2003, there
was a 12 percent increase in the VA medical care funding, yet the
waiting times have not substantially improved. The system must be
fixed.
Additionally, this budget provides for an increase in veterans'
discretionary spending of 6.1 percent over fiscal year 2003, as well as
a 7.5 percent increase in mandatory outlays. We are working to ensure
that these resources are adequately and geographically spread so that
we meet the needs of seniors.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of increasing the spending on
veterans' health care and protecting those who have always been willing
to protect us. The budget works for seniors, and I urge support.
Cutting 1 cent on the dollar for other agencies in fraud, waste and
abuse is very, very achievable. Let us not say that we cannot find the
savings. We deserve, for the sake of the taxpayers, to at least try.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, before yielding to
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), to respond to our
distinguished chairman, who wants to know where all these cuts we are
alleging come from.
They come from the budget documents. His budget calls on the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for example, to reduce spending by
$107,359,000,000. The only thing they can take that out of is the
Medicaid program.
He calls on the Committee on Government Reform, which has
jurisdiction over the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and the
Civil Service Retirement Plan, to effect cuts in those programs of
$38,319,000,000 to achieve savings.
They are there. If you look at function 550 in this budget, which is
the health function, if you look at the level of funding, it is $2.4
billion below what is necessary to maintain purchasing power. We say
``current services.'' That has got to come out of some of the
organizations like NIH who get their funding from this particular
function of the budget. It is there. No question about it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, out of respect to the chairman, I know he
wants 2 minutes to close, I will just take a minute. I will be very
brief.
Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I think that sometimes we find
ourselves as a body not taken as seriously as we would like to be taken
is because of exercises like this. We have heard over and over again
from colleagues on one side of the aisle and colleagues on this side.
The Nation is focused on the war we are faced with right now. There
is obviously going to be an enormous cost associated with that war.
Second, most people across the country are focused on local and State
government challenges. Many State governments are facing enormous
budget shortfalls, it has been estimated some $70 billion in current
year shortfalls across the country. That number has grown by 50
percent, Mr. Chairman, in just the last 3 months.
If we are serious about helping States and serious about helping
people get back up on their feet, serious about helping this economy
move in the right direction, let us be honest. We are not paying for
the war, and my friends on the other side of the aisle pretend that
they cannot even contemplate a model that can give us scenarios for how
much this war will cost. That is disingenuous, it is wrong, and it is
unfair to the American people.
Two, you do very little for your hospitals, your schools. People
mention Medicare and Medicaid. For those watching at home, that means
those hospitals in your States will not get the amounts of money that
they need to ensure that people are covered and that people are
treated.
For those teachers and those of you who have kids in public schools,
that

[[Page H2162]]

means that bill we bragged about, the No Child Left Behind Act, we will
not have the money to fund it. All of the promises about homeland
security, it takes money to pay for these things.
The difference between our budget and theirs is simple: We set a
different set of priorities than they have set.
I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle at the end of day
can at least be honest and say to those of us on this side and to the
American people that your priorities are vastly and radically different
than ours. We believe States should be helped, we believe that the war
should be paid for, and we believe we should balance the budget. Your
priorities are different, and you owe it to the American people to tell
them the truth.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let us just go to the bottom line and look at the
differences between the two proposals that will be the chief proposals
before the House when we vote tonight on the budget resolutions, the
Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal.
As anyone who can see this chart can easily see, under our budget in
every year from 2004, next year, through 2013, the Democratic budget
has a lower deficit than the Republican budget, and by a significant
margin.
What is more, every year our bottom line gets better and better and
better, until in the year 2010 we are in unified balance. All accounts
included, we have no more deficit by the year 2010. And we do not get
there with improbable, unlikely spending cuts of the kind you have
heard mentioned on the floor today. We get there with good, solid
economics and with complete fairness to things that are important to
us. It is a huge difference.
But this tells it all: Over that 10-year period of time, the
cumulative difference between us and them, between Republicans and
Democrats, between our resolution and their resolution, is $913 billion
less public debt. So as we move from a deficit to a surplus, we
accumulate $913 billion less debt than do the Republicans in their
resolution. That is an enormous difference, particularly for anybody
who says that deficits matter.
We insist that deficits do matter. This administration has taken a
different attitude. The Director of Management and Budget says we
should not start hyperventilating over all these deficits. We think
they matter. We think in the long run they affect the growth of our
economy, they affect jobs and things that matter to people, they affect
the interest we have to pay on our national debt.
This is the difference between us and them. By 2010, we are in
balance. It takes them until 2012 to get there. Along the way we
accumulate $913 billion less debt. But what is most important is ours
is feasible and credible and probable; theirs is infeasible, unlikely,
and, to my way of thinking, unbelievable.
The Republican budget presents us with two choices: We will either
have devastating cuts, in which event they may get to balance in 2012,
or those cuts will not be achieved, in which event the deficit itself
will have done devastating damage.
That is the choice before us, and that is why the Democratic balanced
budget resolution is far and away the better choice for everybody in
this House.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the very
distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to close
the debate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from
Connecticut is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I think if we were honest with each other, we would say
we do not like any of our budgets, because we would like them to be
balanced today, but that, regretfully, is not possible. But in
comparing the budgets, I prefer the budget that we are presenting.
I prefer it because in our budget we are protecting America, we are
increasing our defense budget, we are increasing our homeland security
budget. In our budget, most importantly, and you do not see it to the
extent you need to in our colleagues' budgets, we are strengthening the
economy and creating new jobs. In our budget, we are providing fiscal
responsibility.
One of the things I found most curious in the debate in the committee
last week was that when we added up all the dollars that were spent in
amendments offered by our Democratic colleagues, they amounted to over
$1 trillion. Now, they would say to you what they did is they
eliminated our tax cuts, and, in some cases, increased taxes to pay for
their $1 trillion of new spending over the next 10 years.
When we came to Washington, a number of us said we wanted to get our
country's financial house in order and balance the Federal budget and
not grow this government. But what we see in the other budget is a
growing of the government.
Mr. Chairman, what is disappointing to me is that when we have seen
their amendments, both last week and this week, we have not seen any
effort to reduce spending but increase it. And when we see what we do,
what we are having to defend, I am embarrassed that it seems so
difficult to defend. We have to defend a 1 percent cut in discretionary
spending over this year's budget for just 1 year. Then we allow the
budget to go up in the second year, we allow it to go up in the third
year, we allow it to go up in the fourth year. The logic, though, is if
you can make cuts in 1 year, they have benefit in terms of reducing
spending for 10 years. I am proud of that.
But when our colleagues talk about the savings we are making, they
add up all 10 years and then imply that it happens all in 1 year, or
they say we are going to cut 1 percent every year, and we are not
allowing the budgets to grow.
We want to slow the growth in the budgets next year, and then we are
going to allow them to grow in the second year, allow them to grow in
the third year, allow them to grow in the fourth year, allow them to
grow in the fifth year, allow them to grow in the sixth year, allow
them to grow in the seventh year, allow them to grow in the eighth
year, allow them to grow in the ninth year, and allow them to grow in
the tenth year.
But we are having to defend a 1-cent-per-dollar cut next year in some
programs, but we are not cutting defense, homeland security, Medicare
or Social Security, and we have also agreed that veterans' spending is
going to go up.
So, for me, I am having a difficult time, because I would have liked
our budget to have reduced spending more. But this is what we can agree
to.
Now, when we talk about the 1 percent reduction, what we are looking
at is waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. You mean to tell me there
is not 1 cent on a dollar of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in
our government? You could not look at anyone with a straight face and
tell them that.
I happen to have served on the Committee on Government Reform, for 16
years. I love that committee. We look at waste, fraud and abuse, and we
attempt and are successful in many ways in getting reform. But it is
taking too long. We need the authorizers to do a better job of looking
at waste, fraud and abuse now, and we need the appropriators to do so
as well.
Mr. Chairman, on my desk are hundreds of GAO reports. These are just
for a few months. Financial Management Service:, Significant Weaknesses
In Computer Control Continue. You could save millions of dollars there.
Weak Controls Result In Improper and Wasteful Purchases at FAA. You
can save money there.
Medicaid Financial Management: Better Oversight Of State Claims For
Federal Reimbursement Needed.
I love this one. Medicare Home Health Care. Payments To Home Health
Agencies Are Considerably Higher Than Costs.
U.S. Postal Service: Deteriorating Financial Outlook Increases Need
For Transformation. We have got to do those things.
Now, DOD has to be looked at as well, and that is one way we can help
pay for all the needs that we have in DOD. Overpayments Continue, And
Management And Accounting Issues Remain. Defense Inventory: Control
Weaknesses Leave Restricted And Hazardous Excess Property Vulnerable To
Improper Use, Loss And Theft.
These are just a few of the hundreds on my desk. This is just GAO.
What

[[Page H2163]]

about the Inspector General's reports? We could fill up this whole
table. This is literally the tip of the iceberg.
So, I am proud of our budget, because it is better than the budget we
are seeing, but, Lord knows, it could be even better.
I encourage my colleagues to vote out our budget resolution. Let us
get our country's financial house in order, and let us have the needed
tax cuts that will generate the economic activity that will grow this
economy. We want to protect America, strengthen the economy, and have
fiscal responsibility. Our budget does that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) each will control 30
minutes on the subject of economic goals and policies.
Is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) a designee of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan)
will control the time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

{time} 1600

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding the time, and I thank the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, the vice chairman, and the Members from both sides for the work
that they are doing.
Let us face it. Every one of us can come here and every one of us
would do it differently, but I would like to address something that has
been talked about quite a bit and lend some perspective.
There was a movie known as the American President, and in it Michael
Douglas played the American President, and in it there is a great line.
Michael Douglas was being attacked for a very difficult decision he had
made as President of the United States. He called a press conference,
he stood before the media, and he says, ``America has serious problems,
and we need serious people to solve them.''
So for one second I would like to be a serious person and talk about
the fundamental foundation of the beginning of what we must do; that
is, the reconciliation language regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.
We have to in America prioritize our spending and slow the growth in
that spending, or we are going to spend ourselves into a position that
we cannot afford, either our citizens or ourselves. And it is an
appropriate first step, as this budget recognizes, to go through these
agencies and look for the reduction in the rate of growth, it is a
reduction in the rate of growth, and find that funding wherever
possible where there has been waste, where there has been fraud, or
where there has been abuse.
And we in this Congress already have set one precedent. There is a
program that is off limits, so to speak, in this budget called
Medicaid, but when we established the Medicaid program and experienced
waste and fraud and abuse in that program, particularly fraud, this
Congress, years ago, established that we would offset from the Federal
65 percent match, the amount of money that was found to have been
fraudulently spent by the State that administers the program. From the
time that was implemented, the rate of fraud went down, which ensured
that the money going into Medicaid was going where it should be, and
that is to benefit those most in need.
We need to establish the same mechanism in every department of the
Federal Government. If there is an accountability for the allowance of
waste, for the allowance of fraud, or for abuse, with no consequence in
the future, then it will continue. I commend the committee, and I
commend the chairman.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, last night, President Bush started the war
against Iraq, a war that offends the vast majority of moral and
religious groups in the world. Most major religious organizations, the
Vatican, Muslim, Buddhists, Jewish, Protestant religious groups, oppose
his war on moral grounds. Over 80 percent of the nations in the world
oppose the war on ethical and moral grounds.
But now that Bush has created this disaster to cover up his failed
diplomatic, social, and economic agenda, it is up to Congress to find
ways to support our troops overseas, and support them we must. For
President Bush talks the talk of support for our troops while he and
Republican leaders fail to walk the walk. In reality, they trash the
future lives here at home for our brave servicemen and women today.
How do George Bush and his Republican henchmen mistreat our troops?
Well, let me counts the ways. They are all outlined in the Republican
budget before us today. Even though Bush may lie from time to time, the
figures in his budget reveal his true intentions, and here they are.
First, there is no money for our troops to fight this war of his, no
money, period. So much for Republican support for our troops.
Second, troops. Watch out if you come home as a veteran, because Bush
and his Republican allies are cutting $15 billion from veterans'
benefits, a fine thank you for your service. When you return from war,
no health care at the VA hospital? Do not turn to Medicaid or Medicare
for help. Bush and his Republican allies are cutting more than $160
billion from these vital health care programs as well. These cuts mean
over 5 million children will lose their health coverage benefits.
Benefits will be reduced by 30 percent for the children lucky enough to
remain in Medicaid, which, by the way, may have to drop its
prescription drug coverage altogether.
Now, Republicans talk about a Medicare drug benefit, but they do not
budget funds to provide it, and a million elderly nursing home
residents could be put out on the streets. So much for the parents of
our military.
Now, for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, got kids? Do not
look for help from Bush. His budget takes child care away from 30,000
children, kicks 570,000 kids out of after-school programs, eliminates
Head Start for 28,000 children, and prevents a half a million poor
children from getting free and reduced-price school meals. Even if your
kids are lucky enough to get to school, they will be left shortchanged
by Bush's $9.5 billion cut to education that was needed to assure his
often-touted plan to leave no child behind. Clearly, that campaign is
history.
Need help with housing when you get back? Too bad. The President cuts
housing subsidies for 75,000 families.
Having trouble finding a job in the Bush recession? Sorry.
Republicans do nothing in this budget to extend unemployment benefits
for those who cannot find jobs. At least his daddy and Ronnie Reagan
extended unemployment benefits for over 33 weeks.
Say your war takes a long time and you want to retire when you come
home. Forget about Social Security and Medicare. Bush took the money to
fund those programs and gave it away as $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to
the very richest Americans, 80 percent of those cuts going to people
with incomes over 100 grand a year. The only servicemen and women I
know who are making that much are working two night jobs.
So there you have it. The President starts a war to eliminate terror,
knowing that it will only increase terrorist attacks at home. He tries
to disarm a nation with no proven weapons of mass destruction, and he
ignores a far worse threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons. He orders
the assassination of an inhumane dictator to cover up the fact that he
cannot find bin Laden, and then tells us in Congress to support the
troops while he dishonors their very future by giving America's
resources away to a small, rich cadre of Republican officeholders and
campaign contributors.
Mr. Chairman, you do not praise a person for driving home drunk and
avoiding an accident. You do not praise an A grade awarded to a child
who cheats to get it. And thus, we should not support the war program
of a President which defies every moral and ethical standard set by
religious and government leaders around the world.
If you truly want to support and honor our servicemen and women, vote

[[Page H2164]]

against this antiveteran, antichild, anti-Christian, ``Bush-league''
Republican budget.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The Chair would remind all
Members that although remarks in debate may level criticism against the
policies of the President, still, remarks in debate must avoid
personality and, therefore, may not include personal accusations such
as lying.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
This is the period of debate where the Joint Economic Committee takes
over to discuss the Humphrey-Hawkins period of debate, which is
supposed to be about monetary policy. I see from my colleague, the last
speaker, we are going to move beyond monetary policy, I guess. So in
that spirit, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Terry).
(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his introduction.
Now, one of the realities that we must recognize as we debate our
budget are the realities of today's economy and those facing our
municipalities, our cities, and our States, and our families today. The
reality is that when we have this economic slowdown, all of those
entities that I just mentioned have made tough decisions to cut their
budgets. I hear about families doing it all the time. The city of Omaha
has done it, the State of Nebraska has done it. But yet when we are in
the Federal Government, because we do not have a balanced budget
amendment, heck, we just sit there and say, spend, spend more, give
away all the money at a time of economic slowdown, at a time when we
have to protect American citizens.
So I am proud to stand in support of a budget that recognizes those
realities today that face American families, that face our
municipalities, that face our States, and make the same tough decisions
that they have. I am proud that this budget, the Republican budget,
controls spending. Yes, I would like to see it control spending even
more. There is a lot of areas of this budget that I, frankly, do not
think we are restraining the spending. In fact, I believe that the
budget for veterans, actually we are increasing veterans spending under
this proposed Republican budget.
But what we are asking for in this budget, we are asking agencies to
save taxpayers' money, just as Americans are sitting down at their
tables trying to find ways to save money in their family budgets. And
our economic growth is contingent upon responsible spending in all
sectors of our economy: business, personal spending, and government.
Now, this budget protects the fiscal soundness of our government and
incorporates cost-cutting provisions that will pay dividends well into
the future. Through responsible tax cuts, we are returning the power
back to the people.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I was listening to my colleagues say that this was the Joint Economic
Committee, and we are supposed to talk about monetary policy, and I
want to return us to monetary policy, because I am kind of reflecting
back to when I first ran for Congress in 1992. That was the year that
deficits were approximately $130 billion, $140 billion. All of my
Republican opponents, colleagues, economists, everybody at that time
was telling me that there was something sinister about budget deficits,
and I could not quite understand what their preoccupation was. But I
did realize over a period of time that it was projected that the budget
deficit for 1993 and 1994 was going to keep going up, and at that time,
the maximum budget deficit that anybody was projecting was $260
billion. It was sacrilegious for anybody to think that we ought to be
projecting a $260 billion budget deficit.
So it is kind of amazing to me now that I could see a Republican
budget for the year 2004 project a $319 billion deficit.
I was talking to a reporter before I came over here and he said,
well, are you all talking about war today? I said, no, we are debating
the budget. He said, oh, you are talking about money for the war? And I
said, no, there is not a dime of money for the war that we are fighting
in the budgets that anybody has proposed today, except for the defense
spending, which would be there even if we were not fighting a war.
Well, over time I came to understand that when you have those kinds
of budget deficits every year accumulating, they keep adding into the
national debt, and when you have a national debt, you have to pay
interest on that national debt. So to see a Republican budget that in
the outyears, 2009, 2010, projects that we will be paying $250 plus
billion in interest only on the national debt, it does not take much
for me to understand, well, if I had that $250 billion in my budget, I
could do something with it, like pay for education and health care and
things that are important to our country's future.

{time} 1615

That is the microbasis that I want to talk about.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, we do not know how much the war is going to cost. The
war just got started, and it is not over yet. When we know how long it
will have lasted, then we will know how much it will have cost. Then we
will be able to budget for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the majority budget
resolution today. Mr. Chairman, I love being in Congress. It is a place
of unbounded personalities and unbounded debate and enthusiasm. But
today is the first day that I have been called a henchman and anti-
Christian all in the same speech, simply because I believe that in this
struggling economy that we should speed tax relief to working families,
small businesses, and family farms.
Or perhaps it is because I believe that once we set aside the
spending, a historic increase in military spending for defense, once we
set aside our commitment to our veterans, our commitment to our
seniors, and even our commitment to seniors' health care in Medicare,
that what is left behind, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I earn those monikers
because I believe that we could find one penny out of all of the
remaining spending in waste, fraud, and abuse.
I come from a heartland district that serves most of eastern Indiana
here in Washington, D.C. One of the maxims that we Hoosiers have
endorsed since a Californian rode to the White House on that message in
1980 was that government is too big and it spends too much.
I believe the overwhelming majority of the American people believe
that today, from the storied days of the Grace Commission to the
present moment, the Republican vision of government has not been a
vision of hardship for families or cuts in education. The truth of it
has been about meeting our public obligations while sharpening our
pencils and trying to serve the interests of taxpayers in the long
term.
Those who doubt that the provisions of the Republican budget that
call for the finding of one cent out of every dollar, outside defense,
homeland security, Medicare, and Social Security, cannot happen ought
to look at some research on government spending. According to the GAO,
the Federal Government right now cannot account for $17.3 billion that
it spent in 2001.
Also, according to the Government Accounting Office, they are
currently refusing to certify the government's own accounting books
because, in an almost Enron-like statement, they say the bookkeeping is
too poor by the Federal Government to do that.
In fact, the Federal Government made nearly $20 billion in
overpayments on contracts, according to their own records. In
department after department we find examples, not always through
malfeasance and misfeasance, but oftentimes through mistake and

[[Page H2165]]

error and sometimes negligence, we find ample evidence of waste and
abuse.
The Republican budget is about taking a penny out of a dollar out of
those nonessential programs, because government is too big and does
spend too much.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would note that there is $1.8 billion being cut from
the Medicaid contributions to the State of Indiana, which I am sure the
previous speaker supports.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, who knows all too well what it is to fight in a war with real
bullets, unlike the White House and the current Republican
administration.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) for giving me this opportunity to address the
House in probably the saddest day that I have had in my career, to be a
Member of Congress and to not be able to respond to my constituents,
and indeed, to so many people in our great Nation, as to how we find
ourselves in the situation we do today.
What is even more remarkable is how we can debate putting together a
budget and say that we have to wait until the war gets started good or
the war is over, and then we will be able to come back and fit it into
the budget. It is almost like saying that we would like to give
prescription drugs and hospital assistance, but we do not know how many
people are going to be sick. We would like to give prisons and cops and
security, but we really do not know how many people are going to commit
crimes, so wait until it is all over and then trust us, we will come
back.
Another problem that I have today is that so many of my colleagues
find it very, very difficult to understand that we come together in our
hearts, and wanting to make certain that no young person that is in our
military today will ever have any reason to challenge that this United
States Congress appreciates them for their dedication, their loyalty,
and that we are prepared to do anything and everything that we can for
them to have the security in knowing that we are all Americans together
and nothing, not Republicans and not Democrats, not liberals and not
conservatives, is going to breach this bond that we have a
constitutional and moral right to have.
I have been involved in a lot of debates as to when American troops
should be introduced into harm's way. I was not here when they went
into the Dominican Republic. God knows I was not here when they went
into Korea. I was not even here when they had a vote on the Tonkin Gulf
resolution.
I was here and I heard debate on Kosovo. I was here and heard debate
on Haiti and the Persian Gulf. We had Democrat and Republican
Presidents, and we had serious differences of opinion. Most of the
time, at the conclusion of these debates, we praised each other and
expressed support that it was intellectually and politically the right
thing for the Republic and a great Nation like ours to do. Nobody
accused someone of being unpatriotic because they differed with the
President, whether he was Republican or Democrat.
Today I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are not going to challenge each
other as to who loves our country and who respects our flag the most;
but we concentrate on the fact that those that are placed in harm's
way, they do not have the opportunity to debate which war they support
or which war they are against. They do not have the opportunity to make
the decisions. When the decision is made, they have to go; and we have
to be there for them.
I suspect if the gauge of patriotism was gauged not on how many flags
we had stuck on your automobiles but, rather, how patriotic we were in
wanting to help the troops, that we would be here and we would be
coming here saying how many members of our family have we encouraged to
join up and to volunteer and to get involved in this thing, not only to
bring democracy to Iraq but to bring democracy to the region.
I would suspect that if we were all as patriotic as sometimes I hear
the words said, that we would reflect this not only in the budget, but
we would be talking about expanded services for our veterans, for our
warriors, for those people who would want to expand and join the
Reserves and join the National Guard.
I would suspect that if we did not have this attitude that ``we will
hold your coat, you go ahead and fight,'' but we were really saying, we
appreciate what you are doing, that we would say, ``and when you come
home we are not going to treat you just as disabled veterans or sick
veterans or veterans without homes, we are going to treat you as the
heroes that you are for what you have done for us.''
I would find it awkward when my veterans come home from Iraq to tell
them that what I was really debating on the floor was how much money
could we really take out; that I would be saying what we were trying to
do on your behalf would be to have a $1.5 trillion tax cut because we
want to stimulate the economy; that what we were doing was trying to
cut back a budget, to cut back health care, to cut back housing.
I would find it difficult to explain how the thought of terrorism
would have this Congress so petrified that instead of doing the things
that we have been sent down here to do, we are cutting back in
spending, we are cutting back in taxes, and we are cutting back in
being those things that we are asking people to fight for, that is, a
country where everyone has an opportunity to decent health care, a
decent education.
I am going to be just as critical of this President as I can; but
more than that, I am going to be just as supportive as this Congress
allows me to be supporting those programs that allow them to get back
home healthy and safe and to be able to be discharged and knowing that
we are going to protect those rights.
I hope when that flag goes up we recognize one thing, that no one has
a right to say that someone is less patriotic because they did not
support every intrusion that a Congress has made or a President has
decided of our men and women into a foreign country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would just like to point out that veterans spending has increased
in this majority budget. Discretionary veterans spending goes up by
$1.6 billion, and mandatory spending goes up by $2.3 billion, about a
$4 billion increase in veterans spending.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I just want to say, when the Republicans took over the Congress in
1995 and became the majority party, they started working on our
budgets. Probably since then almost every single Democrat has voted
against every single budget, it is fair to say. It is always because of
the seniors, it is because of veterans, it is because of the children,
it is because of the teachers, because of education, because save the
whales, killing baby seals. It does not matter. If they want to vote
no, they find good reasons to vote no.
The reality is that despite all the gloom and doom, here is the
Medicaid budget under the Republican majority. It has grown by 76
percent. Here is the transportation budget. Under Republican control,
it has grown by 76 percent. Here is the veterans benefits. Under
Republican control, it has grown by 51 percent.
Why is that important, Mr. Chairman? Because not one Democrat voted
for it. Here they are coming down to the floor saying, we are the
champions of this, we are the champions of that, yet they have voted
against all the budgets that increase the spending.
Here is Medicare. There is a 56 percent under Republican control, an
increase. Where are the Democrat votes? They are voting no on every
single budget ever since our majority has taken over.
Here comes another budget. We are going to increase some of these
very important areas for our seniors, for our national security, for
our homeland security, for our troops overseas. Again,

[[Page H2166]]

where are the Democrats? It is the same parade we have been seeing
nearly 10 years now: voting no, scaring the people back home, scaring
the vulnerable members of our society by saying these budgets do
horrible things.
The reality is that the budget takes care of the critical needs of
our society. It takes care of defense, it takes care of Social
Security, it takes care of homeland security, it takes care of
unemployment. Yet the Democrats are focused in on the fact that we are
asking some very wasteful government bureaucracy to reduce their
budgets by one cent, one penny on the dollar.
We do that routinely to Americans back home. As families, as
taxpayers, we often have to cut our budget. I find it unbelievable, and
only in this town are people suggesting that bureaucracy cannot find
one cent on one dollar outside of these very critical areas.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The Committee will rise
informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence) assumed the Chair.

____________________