[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4767-4839]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 100 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. 83.

                              {time}  1032


                     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. 83) establishing the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2002, revising 
the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
year 2001, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of 
fiscal years 2003 through 2011, with Mr. LaTourette 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.
  The period of debate on the subject of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2002 that occurred on March 27, 2001, 
pursuant to the order of the House of March 22, 2001, shall be 
considered to have been debated on House Concurrent Resolution 83, and 
the time for debate prescribed in section 305 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 shall be considered to have expired.
  A further period of general debate shall be confined to the 
concurrent resolution and shall not exceed 40 minutes, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of 
opening the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, good morning. We are in the midst of continuing the 
debate on the budget for fiscal year 2002, and let me review what our 
plan has in store. We wrote a budget that has six principles that we 
think are pretty important as we stand on this very important threshold 
of the 21st century.
  In our budget, we have maximum debt elimination, a historic $2.3 
trillion of paying down the public debt by 2011 during this 10-year 
period.
  Tax relief for every American taxpayer: $1,600 on average income tax 
break for the average family of four.
  Improved education for our children: $44.5 billion commitment in 
fiscal year 2002 alone, an 11.5 percent increase for our kids. But we 
also recognize that it is not just the money, it is also reform of 
education.
  A stronger national defense is our fourth principle: $14 billion 
increase, not only in 2001, but a $5.7 billion increase for pay, 
housing, and health care in 2002.
  Health care reform that modernizes Medicare, provides for a 
prescription-drug benefit. It modernizes our Medicare benefit, because 
it is not just about the current Medicare and the current trust fund, 
it is about extending the life of the trust fund, extending the 
solvency through modernization. It is not a zero-sum game as some of my 
friends on the other side would have it.
  Finally, saving Social Security. Third year in a row, the Republicans 
are setting aside all of the Social Security trust fund for exactly 
what we pay the FICA taxes for, for Social Security, for the retirement 
of our seniors. It is totally protected in this budget.
  We have a good plan. These are the six principles that make up the 
plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, to talk about improved education for our children.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand before the House this morning in 
support of a budget blueprint that represents America's families and 
America's priorities.
  Our colleagues on the Committee on the Budget have presented us with 
a common sense plan to improve education, strengthen the economy, and 
secure America's future. It reflects President Bush's efforts to close 
the achievement gap in education between disadvantaged students and 
their peers, and to work with States to push America's schools to be 
the best in the world.
  Despite a decade of economic growth in the 1990s, the achievement gap 
between students, Anglo and minority, remains very wide. Washington has 
spent more than $130 billion since 1965 in a well-intentioned effort to 
close this gap. We spent more than $80 billion on that goal since 1990 
alone; and, unfortunately, those efforts have not worked. Nearly 70 
percent of inner city and rural fourth graders cannot read on a basic 
level, and low-income students lag behind their counterparts by an 
average of 20 percentile points on national assessment tests.
  The hard lesson of the last 35 years is that money alone cannot be 
the vehicle for change in our public schools. There must also be 
accountability.
  To ensure that Federal education dollars are being used effectively, 
we must ask States to assess student achievement in academics. One 
cannot correct a problem if one does not know that it exists; and for 
far too long, we have been spending Federal tax dollars in education 
without being able to track our students' progress and make certain 
that they are learning.
  The budget before us today provides a framework for the most 
important change in Federal education policy since President Johnson. 
It paves the way for us to rededicate the Federal role in education to 
helping students who might otherwise fall through the cracks. It 
provides the resources needed to implement a system of accountability 
so parents will be able to know whether their children are learning.
  This budget provides the resources necessary to accomplish these bold 
goals. It provides money to States to develop the test to track student 
performance each year, the centerpiece of the President's plan to leave 
no child behind. It targets resources to those who need it most by 
providing substantial funding for title I which provides aid to low-
income students. Federal education funding for the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, the principle Federal law to aid disadvantaged 
students, is increased significantly.
  Funding for reading programs is tripled, increasing to $5 billion 
over 5 years. This program will help reduce the number of children 
placed in special-education classes simply because they have not 
learned to read, moving the Federal Government closer to its original 
promise of providing up to 40 percent of the average per-pupil 
expenditures in IDEA to the States.
  This budget also provides $2.6 billion for States to improve teacher 
quality through high-quality professional development, recruitment, and 
retention activities.
  It addresses other educational priorities as well in higher 
education. An additional $1 billion is included for Pell Grants, 
increasing the maximum award for all students to provide more need-
based grant aid to low-income college students.
  Mr. Chairman, until we have a real system of accountability in place, 
it is truly unfair to our children to enact massive increases in 
Federal education

[[Page 4768]]

spending beyond the reasonable steps outlined in this budget 
resolution. Spending without accountability is the approach that 
Washington has followed in the past; and as a tragic consequence, many 
children have been trapped in chronically failing schools and denied 
the opportunity to realize the American dream.
  This budget provides a framework that allows Republicans and 
Democrats to work together to close the achievement gap and to improve 
education quality and hope to our Nation's most disadvantaged students.
  I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his leadership in 
crafting a budget that represents the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of 
all Americans, particularly those of the next generation of American 
students.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, our Republican colleagues have just laid out six 
principles by which to judge their resolution and our resolution. Let 
me take each one of those principles and apply it and compare the two 
resolutions.
  First of all, maximum debt elimination. I heartily agree the more 
debt we can eliminate the better. Let's look at the bottom line on the 
two resolutions. Our budget resolution will provide $3.7 trillion for 
debt reduction. Theirs will provide $2.8 trillion for debt reduction. 
We provide $915 billion more for debt reduction. It is not even close. 
Furthermore, to the extent that they spend $1 out of this $500 billion 
contingency fund that they create, that will be $1 less for debt 
reduction.
  Tax relief. Some of this surplus, a substantial share of it surely 
should be given back to the American people. We heartily agree with 
that principle. So what have we got? A third of the surplus that we set 
aside for tax relief, and we target it to those taxpayers who need it 
most, hard-working middle-income families.
  Furthermore, this resolution makes in order, directs the Committee on 
Ways and Means by May 1 to provide $60 billion in tax relief this year, 
fiscal year 2001, before September 30, in order to give this sagging 
economy a stimulus. That means we have got $800 billion of tax 
reduction in this bill. By any yardstick, that is substantial tax 
reduction.
  Education is at the top of the charts, a big concern amongst all 
people all over this country. Their budget increases education by 5.6 
percent next year. Compare that to last year: 18 percent increase last 
year. Compare it to the last 5 years: 13 percent over the last 5 years. 
Compare it to our budget resolution: $130 billion more for elementary 
and secondary education, higher education, Pell Grants across the 
spectrum, $130 billion more than they provide for education. There is 
no comparison. There is no question. We win hands down on the issue of 
education.
  National defense. I believe in a strong national defense. That is why 
we put in our budget realistic funding for defense. We have $115 
billion in our budget over and above inflation for national defense. 
Their budget, on the other hand, baselines national defense and tells 
us that, when Mr. Rumsfeld tells us what the number is, they will 
supply a new number. In the meantime, we are providing substantial 
increase and realistically budgeting national defense.
  Medicare reform, Medicare reform, read their budget. I defy my 
colleagues to find one syllable in there that deals with Medicare 
reform. It does not take up the issue. The only thing that even 
pretends to be Medicare reform in their resolution is a vague proposal 
to have some kind of prescription-drug coverage. But guess what. It is 
paid for out of the Medicare trust fund, the HI trust fund, which is 
already obligated for inpatient benefits. Now they double-obligate it.
  They drain $153 billion off the Medicare trust fund, I guess you can 
call that reform; but I will tell you, my colleagues, what it does, it 
shortens the solvent life. It makes the problem worse. I would not call 
it wholesome reform.
  Finally, Social Security. They make it point number six. We make it 
point number one.

                              {time}  1045

  Now that we have the wherewithal, the resources to do something about 
the Social Security situation, that is, the liabilities that we have 
for benefits promised but not yet provided, we intend to do something. 
We take $910 billion, one-third of the surplus over the next 10 years, 
and put it, 50 percent, in the Social Security Trust Fund, 50 percent 
in the Medicare Trust Fund. We extend the solvent life of Medicare to 
2040 and Social Security to 2050.
  There is no question that on all six of these principles we win hands 
down. Look at the scorecard, then decide how to vote. My colleagues 
should vote for our resolution. It is better even by the criteria they 
set down.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution currently before the House sets a 
level of funding for the national defense function of $324.6 billion, 
or $14.3 billion higher than the previous provided for in the current 
year. This was also the level proposed by the President in his February 
27 economic plan.
  However, it should be understood that this level of funding should be 
viewed only as a placeholder pending the completion of the 
administration's comprehensive strategy review that will define the 
proper course this Nation should take in securing our national security 
interests in the coming decade and beyond. At the completion of this 
review, scheduled for later this spring, Secretary Rumsfeld will 
forward conclusions to the President that I am confident will recommend 
an adjustment in the amount of funding proposed for the national 
defense functions.
  In anticipation of this process, the budget resolution contains a 
specific provision, section 6, which establishes a strategic reserve 
fund and the mechanism to use this budget resource within this fund to 
accommodate an increase in defense allocation resulting from the 
administration's strategy review.
  I support President Bush's decision to first establish the strategic 
framework for the Department of Defense before putting forth a 
definitive defense spending plan. It marks a refreshing break from the 
previous administration's practice of allowing arbitrary budgetary 
considerations to set national security policy.
  However, I am firmly convinced that regardless of what strategy 
adjustments the President proposes, there are severe and immediate and 
compelling needs facing the military that will require an infusion of 
additional budget resources this year and beyond. Therefore, while I 
would have preferred that the defense number in the budget resolution 
reflect this reality, I am satisfied that the resolution provides an 
adequate mechanism to revisit this question later in the year after the 
decision has been made for the proper funding level for defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman 
Nussle) for working with me and other members of the Committee on Armed 
Services on this very difficult problem. With the colloquy that he and 
I had yesterday, I am satisfied that this clarifies our outstanding 
concerns, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard people talking about a shell game, and I 
listened to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I 
thought of having seen this shell game actually played in the State of 
Illinois, southern Illinois. I want to use one example so my colleagues 
will understood it.
  In the budget that is being proposed, the American people have paid, 
or will pay, $526 billion more than is necessary over the next 10 years 
to cover Medicare. So that $526 billion is represented by this little 
coffee bean, and we put it underneath the contingency fund. We also say 
we are going to use it for Medicare, and we are also going to use it 
for the drug benefit.

[[Page 4769]]

  The Republican budget uses that same $526 billion in two different 
places. They use 239 billion over here and 153 billion over there, and 
they still say, that we have a contingency fund over here. Now, that 
bean cannot be under all three of these shells. It simply is not 
possible. It can, however, be moved around, and that is why the game is 
like a county fair. You keep moving the bean or the money around, and 
the public guesses which one of the shells that bean is under.
  The Republicans are figuring that the public is not smart enough to 
know that we are going to move it around and move it around and keep 
talking, and they will never know that they are spending it in three 
different places.
  Now, the Democratic alternative, which is very simple, says we are 
going to use that money for advancing the long-term strength of 
Medicare. It is to be used after 2010, when the baby boomers start 
coming on the rolls, rather than spending it on the contingency fund 
for things in the next 10 years, or using it for the drug benefit. We 
are going to keep it for the time when the baby boomers come on line. 
Additionally, out of the money that we save from not cutting so many 
taxes, we put an honest-to-God $330 billion benefit for prescription 
drugs.
  This is the foolishness of what they have done. The President says 
$153 billion for prescription drugs. The bill they had on the floor 
last year was for $159 billion, now estimated to be $200 billion. So 
they are not even funding what they offered last year. And what we--the 
Democrats--are saying is that is not an adequate benefit. $330 billion 
is what we are offering to the American people, and we are not going to 
play a shell game with them.
  We are saving the Medicare surplus for Medicare as we know it, and we 
are adding to it a benefit.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) for working closely with us. This budget resolution 
contains an innovative feature that I want to address.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congress and the Committee on Agriculture that I 
chair have been struggling for over 3 years to cope with major economic 
crises on the farm. The basic programs that we passed in 1996 have not 
been able to keep up with collapsing prices and skyrocketing costs, 
leaving family farmers hanging on by a thread. As it should have, 
Congress has stepped in with emergency economic assistance in each of 
the last 3 years, and many farmers are in business today because of 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop ad hoc assistance and move to a more 
permanent solution that producers and their lenders can count on.
  Mr. Chairman, in preparation for this, the Committee on Agriculture 
is completing a series of almost 1\1/2\ years of hearings to determine 
what our future course should be. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
recognizing the critical need that our farmers face, worked closely 
with us to address the problem. This resolution names agriculture along 
with defense as a budget item eligible for access to the $517 billion 
reserve fund for fiscal years 2002 through 2011. In addition, it 
accesses fiscal year 2001 reserve funds for assistance in the current 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on Agriculture reports legislation 
later this summer, budget allocations can be adjusted to reflect the 
Committee on Agriculture's action. By granting access to the reserve 
fund, the House will have an opportunity to consider a policy reform 
that will meet the needs of our farmers within the constraints of our 
budget. This will not produce a debate over numbers, but instead a 
serious discussion of the farm policies needed in the current situation 
in the coming years.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to the President at length about the 
problems facing farmers. I was impressed by both his understanding of 
the problem and his willingness to help address them. The gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and his budget team have brought to the floor a 
resolution that not only makes provision for the immediate crisis of 
this year's crop, but provides the means to put a more permanent policy 
in place based upon policy needs rather than driven by number fixation.
  Mr. Chairman, every Member who is working to relieve the pain of 
American farmers should join me with enthusiasm in supporting this 
budget. It is just the prescription to deliver a cure for farmers' 
problems instead of another Band-Aid.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the last two speakers on the 
other side have made a very important point, and that is there is 
universal acknowledgment that in this upcoming fiscal year, there will 
be a spending increase for agriculture, and, more significantly, in 
defense. But we are not prepared today to confront those facts in terms 
of how much it is going to cost, and it is one reason why the 
contingency fund is not an appropriate way for us to be having this 
debate.
  We ought to be honest with the American people on how much is the 
President going to propose for defense. Many of us are prepared to 
support a large percentage of that. How does that affect our ability to 
choose between the size of the tax cut and our ability to pay down the 
debt.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the other things I want to highlight that you 
have heard a lot of discussion about in support of the Democratic 
alternative is why paying down the debt, taking one-third of the 
surplus and paying down the debt, or, as the Blue Dogs would propose, 
half of the surplus, will help Medicare and Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, as the baby boomers start to retire in 2012, this is 
going to put enormous strain on both Medicare and Social Security. 
There will be no easy choices. Raising the retirement age, nobody in 
this Chamber is going to advocate an increase in the payroll taxes. In 
fact, a lot of us would like to reduce the payroll tax.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the few things available to us to soften the 
pain associated with these choices is to use more general revenue. We 
already put general revenue into Medicare. It is something that we have 
to consider doing with Social Security as part of the solution to 
preserve Social Security and Medicare for the retirement of the baby 
boomers, not to mention the cost of a prescription drug plan, which we 
all have to acknowledge will not be inexpensive. How can we do that?
  Mr. Chairman, by paying down the debt, we preserve our ability to use 
general revenue to be part of the solution to preserve the solvency of 
Social Security and Medicare. The State of Florida, and every State in 
this Nation, has a tremendous amount at stake if we do not do this 
right. We need to plan now.
  Mr. Chairman, the only prudent thing to do is to use the lion's share 
of the projected surplus to pay down the debt and begin to prepare 
Medicare and Social Security for the retirement of the baby boomers.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to draw 
attention to what I believe is a serious deficiency in the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. Chairman, while I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
for his hard work on the budget resolution, I would be remiss if I did 
not speak to the yearly military budget shortfalls of between $50 
billion and $100 billion per year.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not address this reality now, we are facing a 
budgetary train wreck that is simply unavoidable. My concern is that 
this budget only allows for marginal improvements. Mr. Chairman, we 
must push beyond marginal improvements. This requires a dual-track 
approach. While we plan for the realities of the 21st century's many 
challenges, we must take care of the force that we are fielding today 
and ensure peace

[[Page 4770]]

through strength. I do not believe that we adequately address this in 
the budget resolution; however, I intend to support this budget 
resolution and take it as a good-faith effort, but I do so with 
reservations.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump) to address military funding shortfalls during the 
authorization process and with the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget 
resolution because it is not balanced. The consuming desire of our 
Republican colleagues for immediate political gratification has caused 
them to pursue exploding tax cuts for the most privileged people in our 
society without regard to our obligations both to our parents for 
Social Security and Medicare and to our children for educational 
opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, with the tax cuts for the privileged that are 
authorized by this resolution, we are setting a course, a path, to head 
back to the era of deficits, to head back to a period when we are no 
longer reducing the national debt and encouraging economic expansion 
and lower interest rates. That is a fiscal mistake.

                              {time}  1100

  A budget is more than number crunching. People can get crunched, too. 
Recently, the first particulars of this Bush budget and its impact on 
children in this country have leaked out. These are the troubling 
numbers and details that will be coming out this next month after votes 
are taken on the tax cuts. Under this Bush budget, the children of 
America, who rely on child care will be ``bush-whacked.'' The entire 
Early Learning Opportunities Fund designed to improve the quality of 
child care in this country, will be totally eliminated. $200 million 
will be removed from block grants to the states, for assisting the 
working poor in obtaining child care. This cut at a time when we 
already have 41,000 children in the State of Texas waiting to get 
access to child care; that under this waiting list will only grow. 
Although there are 900,000 reported cases of abuse and neglect of 
children across America, there will be an 18 percent cut in federal 
funding for state child protective services.
  I am for all of the tax cuts that fiscal sanity will permit, but 
reality of this budget is that these tax cuts really cost. They cost 
and crunch our children in a very harsh way.
  Last year, candidate Bush borrowed the slogan from the Children's 
Defense Fund, ``leave no child behind,'' but the unrealistic tax breaks 
for those at the top make clear that this Republican budget has as its 
mantra ``leave no millionaire behind.''
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Culberson), a new member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member of Congress who has been 
here less than 3 months and a member of the Committee on the Budget, I 
have sought earnestly and honestly to find the true facts of the 
situation here; and I want to make two quick points.
  First and foremost, it has come to my attention, I understand that 
the previous Congresses, when the Reagan tax cut was enacted, revenues 
doubled but spending tripled. I also want to make the point to the 
listening public that the Republican budget plan pays off as much 
publicly held debt as is legally possible to do so without incurring a 
penalty. That is a vitally important point, and I want to make sure the 
listeners understand that we cannot pay off any more debt than is 
contemplated by President Bush's budget without incurring penalties, 
and the Democratic budget plan would tax the taxpayers with $100 
billion to $150 billion in penalties over 10 years, according to the 
Office of Management and Budget. And a very good source, who has been 
objective, is Alan Greenspan who says we are paying off all Federal 
debt that can be paid off and the publicly held debt will be eliminated 
by the end of this decade. That is a vitally important point that I 
hope the public will remember.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice before us today is not a choice between 
economic theories. It is a choice between moral positions. There is a 
major difference between the Democratic plan that I support put forth 
by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the majority 
plan, and that major difference is this: Our plan pays off about $1 
trillion more of debt over the next 10 years than does the Republican 
plan.
  This is a choice between instant gratification in 2001 or responsible 
treatment for our children for the next 10 years. The Republican budget 
does reflect one thing about American life. It reflects an unfortunate 
cultural tendency toward instant gratification; have a party now; spend 
all the money now and pass the bills off to the next generation.
  A vote for the Spratt budget means that our children are $1 trillion 
less in debt than they would be under the majority budget. Forsake 
instant gratification. Do what is responsible for the future. Reject 
the Republican budget and adopt the Spratt substitute instead.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a very able, new member of our committee and 
the president of the freshman class.
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, this good budget contains about $400 
million for military housing for our men and women in uniform, and that 
is a good thing. To give an example how bad military housing is, let me 
talk about Fort Story, which is an Army post in Virginia Beach, the 
Second Congressional District that I represent. There are 168 family 
units. Two have been condemned; 166 have been labeled code red, which 
means unacceptable. Most have been built before 1958. Several predate 
World War II.
  As an example, the sergeant major of that command, the highest 
ranking enlisted man at that post, was living in a 1,700 square foot 
set of quarters that had been condemned. The floors had turned to 
sponge; termite infested and there was asbestos everywhere. It was 
going to cost $70,000 to clean it up; and Congress would only allow 
$20,000 to repair that, so it has to be condemned.
  If we are going to make the mom and kids happy and keep dad in, what 
we have to do is make sure we provide the quality of life issues that 
are so important to the military people; and housing is one of them. I 
am delighted that this very good budget contains money for that.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the authors of this budget resolution owe my 
constituents and owe every American an explanation. How can they 
justify siphoning money out of the Medicare trust fund when Medicare 
solvency is already in jeopardy? Which of their budget priorities is 
more important than Medicare?
  In 1965, Republican Members of Congress overwhelmingly opposed 
establishing the Medicare program. In 1994, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker 
of the House and the Republican leader of this House, stated that he 
would like to see Medicare, quote, ``wither on the vine,'' unquote.
  Now the Republicans control the White House and control the Congress. 
They want to accelerate Medicare insolvency, and they want to privatize 
the Medicare program.
  Medicare is not some throw-away program that one can experiment with, 
that one can starve, that one can walk away from, that one can 
ultimately abandon. To the Republicans, I say do America a favor. Put 
the best interests of Americans ahead of their top-heavy tax cuts and 
their indiscriminate disdain for public programs, especially

[[Page 4771]]

those as overwhelmingly successful and popular as Medicare.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the subcommittee chairwoman in charge 
of Medicare.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing such purposeful 
politics with this budget debate. The bottom line is that the HI trust 
fund, that is the hospital trust fund, that is part of the larger fund, 
can only be used for Medicare and it can be used for Medicare reform as 
well, because this body, Democrats and Republicans, voted for the 
lockbox bill. In fact, we voted 407 to 2. Everybody voted for it, and 
it said that the money in the HI trust fund could be used for Medicare 
and Medicare reform. So that is just that. Also, in this resolution we 
have explicitly provided the funding for a proposal that the President 
might propose for prescription drugs and/or Medicare reform or that we 
in Congress might write.
  Where is the money going to come from? First of all, there is more 
money in this budget for prescription drugs than there ever was in a 
Clinton budget, and he talked about it all the time. So we have pretty 
good money in this budget.
  Remember that Clinton funded his entire first prescription drug bill 
from savings within Medicare.
  Now, I did not believe that was possible then and I do not believe it 
now, but it does remind us that we can make some savings within the 
program to also rededicate those resources to prescription drugs.
  Then there are 40 trust funds currently in surplus. Any one of those 
trust funds could be used to carry the money into Medicare reform or 
prescription drugs. In other words, there is money in the bill, there 
is authority in the bill for us to write the prescription drug bill 
that we think will serve seniors and their children and grandchildren 
in the future.
  If we just pay for all of the drugs, we are talking a trillion 
dollars over 10 years. Medicare is going to double its costs in the 
same 10 years. So now we are at a trillion five. The defense budget, at 
its biggest, will never exceed $300 billion.
  We simply have to bring a prudent drug bill to the floor because the 
seniors do not need just prescription drugs. They need chronic-disease 
management. They need much better preventive health services than 
Medicare now offers.
  Is it not pathetic that only last year we gave them coverage for 
pelvic exams and pap tests? So we have a lot of things we have to do to 
modernize Medicare, and we are obliged to bring back a disciplined, 
prudent prescription drug bill that meets the needs of seniors but also 
allows them the additional new services they need.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) brings out the walnut shells in me because when she starts 
talking about the fact that all of the money is going to Medicare and 
do not worry, it is in a lockbox, anybody who reads that lockbox bill 
and can read the English language can realize that one can call 
anything reform and the money comes out of it. That is all that bill 
says.
  What it means is benefits are either going to be cut or provider 
payments are going to be cut, or something is going to be taken away if 
they are not going to cut down. The President says we are $645 billion 
short, and we are still talking about modernizing, which means cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, when I talk with the folks back home in New Jersey and 
they discover that the tax cuts, three-quarters of them, will not even 
kick in until more than 5 years from now, and they combine that with 
their realization that there is a lot of uncertainty about these 
projections, they wonder whether they are ever going to see this.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, we would be doing them a much greater favor in 
putting more money in their pockets if we pay down the debt. The 
Democratic version would pay down the debt a trillion dollars faster in 
the next 10 years. That would make us better able to deal with Social 
Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire.
  It would lower interest rates, which would help farmers and students 
and small businesswomen, home buyers; and by establishing fiscal 
discipline, it would improve consumer and investor confidence. That 
would be more money in the people's pockets.
  Furthermore, the Democratic version goes considerably farther in 
investing in education and research, the necessary ingredients of a 
successful economy.
  In both of those areas, they are necessary to lead to productivity 
growth. Again, more money in the pockets of the people of America.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, this is really a debate 
about our Nation's priorities. What do we want this country to be in 
the next 20 years? Do we want it to remain the strongest country on the 
face of the Earth or do we want it to slip back into third world 
status?
  If this country is to remain strong, we need to invest in our people. 
That is the single most important investment this country can make in 
the future.
  One in four children in my district in Rhode Island, in my first 
district, grows up in poverty; one in four. Yet, this Republican 
Congress would propose giving nearly half of the $2 trillion surplus to 
the richest 1 percent of our country.
  Let us look at it, right here, choosing how we spend $280 billion. 
Are we going to invest it in our kids or are we going to invest it in a 
few millionaires who already have made it? I might add, to anyone who 
thinks that everyone who has made a million dollars earned it, let me 
just say something. I made a million dollars, and I did not earn it. I 
was given it by my parents and my grandparents. Know what? Wealth is 
now transferred from the rich to the rich.
  Know what? People who are working for a living are not even earning 
enough to make it rich because this Republican Congress is gutting 
education; it is gutting job training; it is gutting those things that 
we know help people earn a living.
  One of the things that this budget cuts is actual child care 
subsidies. Hello. I thought that this Congress was family friendly. 
What are they doing? They are eliminating over 50,000 subsidies for 
child care. Now what does one think those parents are going to do 
without the child care? Oh, they will go back on welfare. No, we do not 
want welfare, the Republicans say.
  Okay, well, give me a solution. I will say that this budget is all 
wrong for this country. The President of the United States says he 
wants to leave no child behind, but in this budget he will end up 
leaving millions of children behind.
  Know what? Those kids out there do not even know it today. Those 
parents do not even know it. The people in this gallery may know it, 
but there are going to be millions of children who are never going to 
even know that the vote we make today is the vote that is going to seal 
their future. It is going to seal their future either in poverty or it 
is going to brighten up their future, like the Democratic plan would 
have it by investing in the programs that will make them strong people.

                              {time}  1115

  The thing that made this country so strong after World War II was the 
GI bill. It invested in a whole generation of Americans. Let us not 
miss the lesson of that importance of education; let us invest in the 
Democratic budget.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic

[[Page 4772]]

budget and in the alternative, the Blue Dog budget. It is quite 
familiar for me to stand here and address the subject of military 
budgets. For many years under both administrations, Democrats and 
Republicans, I would point out where we believe this body and America 
as a Nation were failing to set appropriate priorities in the defense 
budget. Far too often I have known that we were trying to do too much 
with too little. So I was glad to see both candidates for President 
advocate increases in the defense budget. It was good news. But that is 
not what is coming to pass.
  I am disappointed with the President's defense budget for 2002 which 
the majority adopts in the budget resolution. The Bush budget provides 
about $325 billion for national security activities, of which $310.5 
billion is for the Department of Defense. But then we have to take out 
the retiree health professions and then we have to adjust for 
inflation; and when that is done, we have an actual increase of only 
$100 million, $100 million. That will fix the gymnasium at West Point. 
So the $100 million increase in the defense budget makes a mockery of 
the President's campaign pledge that help is on the way. He must have 
meant spiritual help.
  In contrast, both the Democratic budget and the Blue Dog budget 
provide more money for defense. The Democratic alternative provides for 
$2.7 billion more in fiscal year 2002, $48 billion more in 10 years, $7 
billion in fiscal year 2001 for a supplemental. The Blue Dog provides 
for $4.5 billion more in fiscal year 2002, $19.3 billion over 5 years, 
$7 billion in fiscal year 2001 for a supplemental.
  So despite the campaign rhetoric, the Republican administration has 
utterly failed to live up to its commitments. I thus speak in favor of 
the Democratic budget and, in the alternative, the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the 
time.
  I just want to say in benediction here that it did not have to be 
this way. We had no hearings at which the Secretary of Defense would 
even come up to the committee and tell us. There is not anybody on this 
floor who does not think there is going to be more money in the defense 
budget, but he would not even come up and talk to us about it. There 
was no talking with our side about this budget.
  What we have here is a sham budget from the Republicans. They get 
full credit for it. God bless them.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we saw from particularly the gentleman from 
Rhode Island probably the biggest contrast between the Republican and 
the Democrat substitutes. The gentleman from Rhode Island was very 
clear that the Democrats believe that government can solve people's 
problems, that government can take care of people, that government can 
solve all of the ills that our Nation has before it.
  Republicans believe something just a little bit different, and that 
is we believe individuals and families make better decisions about 
their daily lives than the government can for them, and that if we 
could just keep the resources in their pocket to begin with, they could 
be empowered to make those decisions.
  The most important debate of today, March 28, is not happening in the 
halls of Congress. Do we know where it is happening? It is happening 
around the kitchen tables of America as families struggle to balance 
their checkbooks, as they struggle to figure out how to send their kids 
to college, as they struggle between the decisions of, do I buy Nikes 
or do I buy Keds, whether we should buy name-brand cereal or should we 
buy generic. How do I pay my heating bill when I live in California? 
How do I pay my heating bill when I live in Iowa? How do I make the 
decisions that face me every single day about mortgages, about paying 
my visa bill, about my own debt; and when they hear on C-SPAN, which is 
probably droning in the background as they sit around their kitchen 
table, and they hear us talking about the debt held by the public and 
how we are doing such a great job, they say, what about me? What about 
my debt? How much money are you taking from me? It is almost April 15. 
These people have paid their taxes, and they find out, we have more 
money than we need.
  Mr. Chairman, we are balancing the budget. We have this done now for 
the fifth year in a row, number one; number two, the most debt reduced 
by any budget that has ever been provided, and there is still money 
left over. After paying for all of the Medicare reform with a 
prescription-drug benefit, there is still money left over. With all of 
Social Security set aside so that we can make sure that generations to 
come have got Social Security to retire, and there is still money left 
over. With an 11.5 percent increase in education, there is still money 
left over. Increases for military, for agriculture, a number of other 
opportunities and priorities within the budget, and there is still 
money left over.
  I would say to my friends, it is not your money. It is not my money. 
It is their money, and they deserve it back, because they have paid 
enough, they have paid too much. We have met the priorities of this 
budget, and it is time to give them a refund. There is no 7-Eleven in 
the country that once you have paid for your gas and your Snickers bar 
and your Coca Cola or whatever it might be and you give the person a 
$20 bill and the bill comes up to only about $18, who would keep the 
change? In fact, in Iowa, they would even run out into the parking lot 
and chased you down to give you your change.
  Mr. Chairman, let us give the American people back their change, and 
let us do it today.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, to govern is to choose--and 
today the House was called on to make some basic choices about the 
future of the economy and the future of our country.
  We need to proceed carefully and responsibly. We should steer a 
course that responds effectively to the challenges of today without 
risking the opportunities of the future on the outcome of a riverboat 
gamble.
  That is why we should take a different course than the one proposed 
by the Republican leadership. And that is why I supported the Blue Dog 
alternative and the Spratt Substitute--because those alternatives were 
more credible, less risky, and more responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, Coloradans know well the dangers of relying on long-
range forecasts. We live in an arid state--visit us in the summer and 
you will see that the sun shines almost every day. We like it that way, 
and so do our summer visitors. But it means we have to be careful and 
plan ahead.
  We know it would be imprudent to drain the reservoirs and rely just 
on forecasts of surplus water in the years ahead.
  But that is what the Republican budget does--not with water, but with 
fiscal policy, with the budget, and with the economy.
  The Republican plan relies on a ten-year economic forecaster and runs 
the risk of shortening the solvency of Social Security and Medicare if 
that forecast doesn't pan out.
  And, in the meantime, it would neglect other important needs in order 
to pay for the President's tax plan.
  As a result, it would not do enough to reduce the publicly-held debt 
and would shortchange education, seniors, research, and the 
environment.
  By contrast, the Blue Dog substitute was far more prudent. To start 
with, it was a five-year plan, not one depending on a 10-year forecast. 
It would have allowed us to immediately reduce taxes by $23 billion 
this year, and to make further substantial reductions in taxes over the 
next four years. It would have allowed us to pay off a full half of the 
publicly-held debt by 2006. And it would have allowed us to make the 
investments we need to make in education, health care, and our 
communities.
  Unfortunately the refusal of the Republican leadership to proceed on 
that reasonable course meant that the Blue Dog substitute was rejected. 
That was a mistake--and it was compounded by the rejection of the 
Spratt substitute.
  The Spratt substitute was also a ten-year plan. But it was much 
better than the Republican plan. It would have allowed us to pay off 
most of the publicly-held debt by 2008. It would have enabled us to 
provide tax relief to all taxpayers, including the millions of people 
who pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. It would have 
allowed us to provide a real and meaningful prescription-drug benefit 
for Medicare beneficiaries--without risking the solvency of Medicare as 
the Republican plan

[[Page 4773]]

does. And it would allow us to do what needs to be done to promote 
science, protect our environment, and respond to the pressures of 
population growth and sprawl--needs that the Republican plan seriously 
shortchanges.
  When the Spratt substitute was rejected, I was left with no 
responsible choice except to vote against the risky Republican budget 
plan.
  That plan is very deficient--it is filled with problems. In area 
after area it seriously shortchanges our country's needs and offers the 
American people a series of empty promises--all that while betting our 
continued prosperity on a 10-year forecast that leaves no room for 
error.
  Mr. Chairman, the list of deficiencies in the Republican plan is a 
long one--too long for me to spell out now. So, let me focus on just a 
few.


                     shortchanging the environment

  The Republican budget plan backtracks on last year's landmark 
agreement to provide dedicated funding for conservation. It does not 
provide the funding called for in that agreement, and falls far short 
of a commitment to meeting the needs of our communities to protect open 
space and respond to the pressures of growth and sprawl.
  In contrast, the Democratic substitute offered by Representative 
Spratt would have provided the full $10.4 billion called for in last 
year's agreement. It also would have made sure we have the resources to 
improve the nation's water-supply infrastructure, revitalize 
brownfields in our cities, and make other needed investments in our 
public lands and environment.
  These are areas of particular concern to all of us in Colorado, and I 
am particularly disappointed by these shortcomings in the Republican 
plan.


                         shortchanging science

  The Republican plan also pays too little attention to important 
funding needs of our science, space, and technology programs.
  In particular, the numbers on NSF and NASA concern me. Neither of 
these premier science agencies receives a requested increase that even 
keeps pace with inflation. Even VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee 
Chairman Walsh has described the NSF request as falling far short of 
what is needed. Along with my Democratic colleagues on the Science 
Committee, I have committed my support to an increase in the NSF budget 
for FY 2002 of at least 15 percent to enable the Foundation to carry 
out adequately its vital role in support of science and engineering 
education and research.
  Federal funding for research is a necessary precondition for 
continued economic success and security in our high-technology economy. 
I believe that science funding for all our agencies must be increased.
  Also of particular concern to me is the funding levels of research 
accounts at the Department of Energy. The Republican resolution would 
cut appropriated energy programs for FY2002 by 15 percent, or $500 
million, below the level needed, according to CBO, to maintain constant 
purchasing power. It remains unclear how this 15 percent cut will 
translate into decreases in specific DOE programs, but rumors are that 
DOE's clean energy research and development programs will see cuts of 
between 20 to 50 percent from FY2001 levels.
  Funding for these accounts is critical to help us reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and diversify our energy production 
portfolio.
  The Bush budget claims an increase in this account, but it would not 
materialize until FY2004, and then only under the far-from-certain 
scenario of oil extraction from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR). I am glad that the Republican budget resolution does not assume 
receipts from oil leasing in ANWR--but neither does it make clear how 
clean energy accounts will be funded.
  Dr. D. Allen Bromley, former President Bush's science advisor from 
1989-1993, wrote in a March 9 New York Times op-ed that the Bush 
budget--which the Republican budget resolution mirrors almost exactly--
``includes cuts, after accounting for inflation, to the three primary 
sources of ideas and personnel in the high-tech economy: NSF is cut by 
2.6 percent, NASA by 3.6 percent, and the Department of Energy by an 
alarming 7.1 percent. The proposed cuts to scientific research are a 
self-defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal investment in 
science. No science, no surplus. It's that simple.''
  I believe we must heed Dr. Bromley's call. In FY2002, the Democratic 
substitute would provide $300 million more than the Republican 
resolution for NSF, NASA, and Department of Science programs--and $3 
billion more than the Republican resolution over the ten-year period.
  Here again, adoption of the Democratic substitute would have been a 
step in the right direction.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I regret that today the House decided to 
bet so much on such a risky proposition as the Republican plan. I hope 
that our losses are less than I fear--but the odds are very much 
against us.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, budgets are about making choices. When a 
family sits down at the beginning of the year to write a budget, it 
must anticipate expenditures and honestly balance these against 
available resources. Families understand they have to allocate limited 
income among any number of competing priorities: paying the mortgage, 
car payments, dinners out, groceries, summer vacation expenses, saving 
for retirement or a child's future college expenses. The purpose of a 
budget is to confront these choices and make informed decisions.
  The budget before the House today has little or nothing to do with 
making honest, informed choices. The document we are debating is about 
one thing, and one thing alone: enacting the President's tax program. 
It sacrifices everything else to that end.
  At the heart of this budget is a gamble that future budget surpluses 
will be large enough to pay for the President's ten-year, two-trillion-
dollar tax package. As the Congressional Budget Office has admitted, 
these surplus estimates are notoriously inaccurate. If the projected 
surpluses fail to materialize, the President's tax cut will eat into 
Social Security and Medicare. No one in his right mind would take out a 
home equity loan with a balloon payment and then count on winning the 
lottery to pay it off. Committing to such an oversized tax package on 
the basis of uncertain surplus projections is not budgeting. It's 
gambling with our nation's economy.
  Budgetary considerations aside, the President's tax package is also 
the wrong medicine for the economic situation we face today. The 
President's plan is heavily backloaded, and provides almost no tax 
relief now when it's most needed.
  The holes in this budget are big enough to drive Air Force One 
through. The defense budget anticipated by the budget resolution is 
tentative, pending the completion of the Administration's strategic 
review. The budget attempts to paper over these and other deficiencies. 
The same is true for Social Security and Medicare. Every one of us 
knows that significant resources will be needed to shore up these 
critical programs as the Baby Boom generation approaches retirement in 
a few years. We should step up to the plate to meet the financial 
challenges ahead, yet the budget before us actually makes the situation 
worse by diverting funds out of the Medicare Trust Fund, shortening the 
life of the Medicare Trust Fund by five years.
  The Republican budget is long on rhetoric but actually shortchanges 
critical domestic initiatives. For example, the Republican prescription 
drug proposal provides insufficient funding for the President's so-
called ``immediate helping hand'' proposal. The President's proposal is 
neither immediate, nor helpful to millions of seniors struggling with 
escalating drug costs. Even worse, the Republican budget pays for their 
prescription drug bill out of the Medicare Trust Fund, shortening 
Medicare's solvency. By contrast, the Democratic budget alternative's 
prescription drug proposal is more than twice as large and provides a 
meaningful benefit for seniors without endangering Medicare.
  Similarly, the Majority's budget underfunds education. The Republican 
budget guts the school renovation program, diverts the money to other 
programs, and has the nerve to call this an education increase. It 
shortchanges funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act. By contrast, the Democratic budget alternative boosts funding to 
reduce class size, provides for school modernization and teacher 
recruitment, and adequately funds special education and Head Start.
  We can do better, which is why I will support the Democratic budget 
framework. Our budget provides $730 billion for tax relief. Unlike the 
GOP plan, which lavishes a disproportionate share of the tax cuts on 
the richest one-percent of taxpayers, the Democratic plan provides tax 
relief to all working families. It extends the solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare. We pay down more of the nation's debt. Finally, 
the Democratic framework sets aside resources for critical investments 
in education, prescription drugs, veterans, defense, and protecting the 
environment.
  No company in America could get away with a business plan like the 
one offered today by the Republican majority. None of the families we 
represent would mortgage their financial future on such a risky 
foundation. We shouldn't either. Reject the Republican budget and adopt 
the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly disappointed 
that none of the proposed budgets offered today address the serious 
problems facing Social Security. Setting aside the surplus coming in to 
Social Security

[[Page 4774]]

actually does nothing to avert Social Security's insolvency. I think 
there is a greater understanding in this body in the last few years 
about the serious problems that Social Security faces in the future. 
Because of that increased understanding, I am even more disappointed in 
the unwillingness of Members to address Social Securities unsolvency. 
Suggesting the budget provides for paying down all the available 
``public debt'' is actually a negative for me. It means we won't be 
using the surplus for fixing Social Security.
  Social Security today has an unfunded liability of $9 trillion and we 
need to solve the problem now. That $9 trillion unfunded liability 
translates in terms of future dollars to an astounding shortage of a 
$120 trillion over the next 75 years. This means that there will be 
$120 trillion additional funding needed over and above the revenues 
coming in from the Social Security tax, if we are to maintain promised 
benefits over the next 75 years. The shortfalls are real. We know the 
number of people that are working now and will be entitled to benefits. 
We know the number of future workers and future retirees and therefore, 
the funding needed to fund benefits.
  So, again Mr. Chairman, it should concern us all that we are not 
addressing this serious problem within the context of this budget--or 
any of the substitutes offered today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution--
Securing America's Future, A Budget that Works for Every Family--is a 
budget that is realistic and reasonable. While I personally would like 
to see a slower increase in the overall growth of spending and 
supported the Republican Study Group's amendment to do so, this budget 
does attempt to hold spending increases to roughly the rate of 
inflation.
  Republicans have already proven that we can balance the budget and 
pay off the federal debt. With this budget we are refusing to squander 
the $5.6 trillion surplus projected over the next 10 years. The 
Republican budget has the right balance of priorities: cutting taxes, 
paying off debt, strengthening Social Security, modernizing Medicare, 
and bolstering our national defense.
  The Republican plan will pay off $2.3 trillion of the national debt, 
the maximum that can be repaid without penalty. The Republican plan 
will also provide needed tax relief for working families by cutting tax 
rates, eliminating the marriage tax penalty, doubling the child tax 
credit, and repealing the death tax.
  Looking back a decade ago, it seems impossible that the government 
could ever dig itself out of its financial hole. For too long, 
uncontrollable spending and reckless ``borrowing'' reigned in 
Washington. Now, thanks to a fiscally-responsible Republican Congress, 
we have a budget that is realistic and reasonable, holding the overall 
growth of spending to roughly inflation, while increasing spending on 
important priorities that will ensure a more secure future for every 
American family.
  This budget reins in government spending, limiting it to the about 
same rate of growth as the average family's budget. It reduces federal 
taxes. It pays down the debt. And it takes care of important priorities 
like Social Security, Medicare, and national defense.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, American farms face the deepest 
agricultural recession of the century. Current farm conditions are 
worse than those during the Great Depression, World War II, or the 80s 
farm crisis. The combination of low commodity prices, unfair markets 
abroad, repeated natural disasters, and skyrocketing input costs has 
put not just the farmer, but the entire fabric of rural America at 
risk. This is the recession that the Republican budget proposal 
ignores. Rather than providing real economic assistance in the budget 
baseline, the Republican budget relies on a red herring ``reserve 
fund.'' This reserve fund supposes to cover not only agricultural 
interests, but defense, tax extenders, and all other appropriate 
legislation.
  It is also worth pointing out that the reserve fund in today's budget 
resolution is far smaller than we have been led to believe. Once the 
Medicare portion of the reserve fund is taken off-budget, about $500 
billion dollars over $10 years remain. In reality, this leaves little 
room for agriculture. For example, in FY 2005 and 2006, the contingency 
fund has only $12 and $15 billion, respectively, available. This is 
barely sufficient to cover the requests of agricultural needs, not to 
mention other appropriate legislation of which there is certain to be 
plenty. This year a broad coalition of commodity and farm groups wrote 
to Congress requesting $9 billion for FY 2002, and $12 billion for each 
year thereafter. My amendment would have increased farm assistance 
programs by $9 billion in FY 2002 and by $45 billion over the next ten 
years. On a straight party line vote of 21 to 16 Republicans on the 
House Budget Committee, voted it down. This same amendment was also 
considered not in order by the Rules Committee.
  The time is now for us to provide the needed funds by raising the 
agricultural baseline. If we are to be honest and of true assistance to 
our farmers, we must move away from the emergency assistance that we 
have provided in recent years. Emergency, ad-hoc funding is inherently 
unstable and unpredictable. Producers and lenders alike are 
understandably nervous about basing their financial decisions on money 
that may or may not materialize. This uncertainty threatens to chill 
the entire farm economy.
  Mr. Chairman, farmers need help now. And they deserve better than to 
be promised so much, but with so little assistance. I urge my 
Republican colleagues to join with me in supporting our hardworking 
farmers by voting no to the Republican budget resolution. I will only 
support a budget resolution this year that supports farmers in the same 
way that they have supported this nation for so long. The Republican 
budget absolutely does not.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, today the House debates the Budget 
Resolution. This critical legislation lays out the framework for the 
federal budget and spells out our nation's economic priorities. I cast 
my vote for a budget that is fiscally responsible, provides tax relief 
for all Americans, and invests in the programs that improve our quality 
of life.
  The prosperity that we have enjoyed over the last decade has produced 
today's record budget surpluses and projections for huge future 
surpluses. These projections present us with the opportunity to keep 
our fiscal house in order, while meeting the key important needs of the 
American people.
  The budget I support will allow us, first of all, to pass substantial 
tax cuts. Since coming to Congress, I have voted repeatedly to cut 
taxes. At a minimum, we should lower overall tax rates, fix the 
marriage penalty, and reform the estate tax laws.
  Secondly, I voted for a budget resolution that devotes a third of the 
surplus to debt reduction. Clearly, we must continue paying down the 
$3.4 trillion national debt. Our progress in debt reduction has kept 
interest rates down and allowed families to pay less for their homes 
and cars.
  Finally, the budget framework provides the funding necessary to 
address the most pressing needs of families on the Central Coast and 
across our nation. It invests in education, strengthens Social 
Security, Medicare and national defense, and provides the funding 
needed for an affordable prescription drug plan for all seniors.
  Mr. Chairman, I pride myself on working in a bipartisan manner to 
address the concerns of my constituents. But I cannot, in good 
conscience, support the President's budget, as proposed today by the 
majority party.
  The $2 trillion tax cut proposed by the President is simply too big. 
It won't allow us to pay down the debt. I also fear that a tax cut of 
this magnitude could open the door to a new era of runaway deficits 
that would cripple our economy and saddle our children with the burden 
of crushing debt.
  In addition, I opposed the majority party's budget proposal because 
it depletes the resources we need to keep Social Security and Medicare 
solvent and provides only a slight increase in education. Finally, the 
President's budget will actually bring about deep cuts in several key 
areas, like veterans, agriculture, and environmental protection.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House was faced with starkly differing 
proposals for setting the economic priorities of our nation. I truly 
believe that the votes I cast were in the best interests of our 
families and our future.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget 
resolution before us today.
  This budget resolution is unrealistic and irresponsible. It makes 
optimistic and incautious assumptions about future budget surpluses to 
justify a massive series of tax cuts that would result in the chronic 
underfunding of important federal action on health care, education, 
transportation, veterans' benefits, housing, justice, environmental 
protection, and scientific research over the next ten years. This 
budget resolution would not do enough to shore up Social Security and 
Medicare, and it will effectively rule out the enactment of a 
comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  If recent years are accurate indicators, and I believe that they are, 
the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will adopt a budget 
resolution that even they are unwilling to implement. There are a 
number of Republican Representatives and Senators who will not support 
appropriations bills later this year that make irresponsible cuts in 
programs that they support.
  Consideration of the annual budget resolution, unfortunately, has 
become a grotesque caricature of what is supposed to be. In recent 
years, Congress has consistently passed budgets that everyone knew it 
couldn't abide

[[Page 4775]]

by. The House has already passed a trillion-dollar tax cut, and we are 
scheduled to pass a $400 billion tax cut tomorrow--after we have passed 
a budget resolution, granted, but certainly not after the House and 
Senate have agreed on the final tax cut and spending figures for Fiscal 
Year 2002. If Congress enacts massive permanent tax cuts and then 
passes appropriations bills that spend more than the amount authorized 
in this fantasy budget resolution, it seems all too likely that the 
federal budget will soon be running massive deficits again.
  The budget resolution is in no way binding on the Republican 
majority. The all too common practice of disregarding the budget 
resolution in recent years has been formalized in the document before 
us today by the inclusion of a provision which allows the chairman of 
the House Budget Committee to adjust tax and spending levels 
unilaterally later in the year.
  Congress has made many difficult decisions in order to produce the 
substantial surpluses we enjoy today. Our success has been made 
possible, however, only by remarkable economic conditions that we have 
done little to produce, and economic developments beyond our control 
could dramatically alter our fiscal reality in a very short period of 
time. Do we really want to throw this all away by celebrating 
prematurely and profligately? I don't think that we should.
  I urge my colleagues to act conservatively and wisely. I urge them to 
pass a budget that funds discretionary programs at levels that reflect 
the appropriations levels we all know we will enact later this year. I 
urge them to use much of the on-budget surplus to pay down the national 
debt. And I urge them to pass a smaller, fairer, more fiscally 
responsible, and more honest tax cut that provides tax relief to the 
households that need it the most. In short, I urge my colleagues to 
reject the budget resolution before us and support the Democratic 
alternative budget.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, last week the President told us that it 
was all right for American families to swallow drinking water with five 
times the arsenic allowed in Europe when he halted a safe drinking 
water regulation. Today we are being asked to swallow another dangerous 
proposal--his budget.
  I am proud of the day in 1964 when I presided over the House when it 
passed Medicare legislation. It is probably the most important vote I 
cast in my life. It has brought protection and health to our country's 
seniors ever since. But today, just like in 1995, when my Republican 
colleagues took control of this chamber, Medicare is under attack 
again--and for the same reason--to pay for a tax cut, which will go 
primarily to the richest individuals in the country.
  The budget before us would actually raid the Medicare Trust Fund, 
just weeks after we passed legislation to stop that. According to 
Budget Committee analysts, the budget will ultimately dip into the 
Trust Fund to pay for either tax cuts or undefined contingent funding.
  The budget resolution marks a retreat from the President's promise to 
design a meaningful prescription drug benefit. The budget includes just 
$153 billion over ten years for the new benefit, which is even less 
than the plan brought forward by my Republican colleagues last year. 
That proposal, which would give money to HMO's, was called unworkable 
and far too little.
  The Democratic proposal would allocate more than double this amount 
and provide a meaningful drug benefit to all Medicare recipients who 
choose to participate, not just a small percentage who are poor. We 
could easily afford this benefit. But the President's budget puts tax 
cuts ahead of the needs of our seniors.
  Even worse, this budget pays for its drug benefit by using the 
Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund--money intended to pay for 
seniors' hospital care. In simple terms, this means we will pay for a 
drug benefit today by bankrupting Medicare sooner, and reduce future 
ability to pay for the doctor and hospital care seniors need, the old 
proverbial borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. That is wrong. We need to 
add a real prescription drug benefit to Medicare, but this is not the 
way to do it.
  I could mention many other problems in this budget--how it 
shortchanges veterans and safe drinking water for starters--but let me 
just mention the energy budget. As Ranking Member on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the 
Administration on how we need to focus on our energy needs, but what 
does the President's budget do?
  It actually cuts $700 million from the Department of Energy's budget. 
While the President has refused to tell us where these cuts will come 
from, news sources indicate it will come from energy research into 
conservation and renewable energy. How can this make any sense 
whatsoever?
  The bottom line is that the President's tax cut of over $2 trillion 
is driving all of these decisions. This debate helps all of us, and the 
American people, understand that we must choose our priorities 
carefully. Last year's campaign was marked by Republican obfuscation. 
But now they are making choices--the wrong choices.
  Do we want to protect Social Security and Medicare or do we want a 
big tax cut now? The President has told us, for example, that reducing 
taxes on estates over $2 million is more important than saving Social 
Security and Medicare. Will we agree? I, for one, will not.
  The Republican budget is a blueprint for future borrowing at best, 
and draconian cuts at worst. It should be rejected. The Democratic 
Substitute, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] 
is a much better alternative that will provide a fiscally responsible 
tax cut and will provide more adequate funding for education, Social 
Security, Medicare and prescription drugs, while continuing to pay down 
the debt.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, in poll after poll, the American 
people have stated that tax cuts should not come at the expense of 
Medicare.
  Still, the Republican budget resolution we are considering in the 
House this week takes $153 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund and 
diverts it to a new prescription drug benefit and unnamed Medicare 
``reforms.''
  CBO Director Dan Crippen has testified that adding a prescription 
drug benefit to the Medicare program could cost not $153 billion--but 
more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
  Even Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin has admitted that a 
prescription drug benefit for seniors will cost far more than $153 
billion. We all know the problem.
  The Bush ``super-sized'' tax cut puts the solvency of the Medicare 
Trust Fund in jeopardy.
  And Bush's oversized tax cut will squeeze out the budget resources we 
must have for a sorely-needed prescription drug benefit for our 
seniors.
  The working families and senior citizens in my Los Angeles district 
can count. They realize that the Republican budget resolution just 
doesn't add up. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
legislation.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the Republican Budget because it severely cuts many of the programs, 
which benefits the needy in our country in order to pay for huge tax 
breaks for the wealthy.
  I rise, as well, to urge support for the Democratic substitute which 
provides a fiscally responsible tax cut for middle income families, as 
well as, adequate funds for education, Social Security, Medicare, 
prescription drugs and it continues to pay down the national debt.
  Mr. Chairman, 20 days ago, this House took the first step in 
dismantling all of our hard work and the progress that we have made in 
education, health care, housing and the many other needs of our 
constituents by passing the first piece of the Bush $1.6 Trillion tax 
cut.
  Today, my friends on the other side of the isle intend to compound 
this shame by adopting what the Washington Post on Sunday called ``a 
Lollipop Budget'' because of the lollipops it provides to the few who 
need them the least, while leaving the government without the means to 
meet its obligations.
  The budget the majority intends to pass today most surely will 
squander all of the funds necessary for critical investments in our 
nation.
  Under this regressive budget plan for fiscal year 2002, there will be 
no money for, prescription drugs and ensuring the solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Because of estimates that 12.2 million low and moderate income 
families with children--31.5 percent of all families with children--the 
majority of them headed by hard working adults, would not receive any 
tax reduction at all under this budget plan meaning that many 
Americans, especially Black and Hispanic will be left further behind.
  Under this budget plan there will be inadequate spending for 
education, no New Markets initiative to provide the venture capital 
needed in our communities, 45 million Americans will continue to be 
without health insurance, and that HMO's will continue to make profits 
by denying care and the continued denial of prescription drug coverage 
for the over 25 million seniors who must choose between paying for food 
or medicine.
  For my constituents who's tax system mirrors the Federal IRS Code, 
this budget will mean that the loss of $28 million to our local 
treasury on top of the devastating cuts in programs upon which they 
rely for a helping hand up.
  Under this budget plan Americans living in the territories and others 
living in the states

[[Page 4776]]

will be denied access to health care because Medicaid will be cut so 
that those who are in the top 10% of incomes in this country can get 
more.
  Unlike the Republican Budget, the Democrat Budget retires the public 
debt by 2008, provides tax relief to all taxpayers, provides a credible 
prescription drug benefit, extends the solvency of Medicare and Social 
Security and provides realistic funding for priority investments for 
veterans, healthcare, the environment, education and law enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to pass the Republican budget because 
of the harm that it will do to average Americans.
  We have the resources today to right the wrongs of the past. We must 
insist that President Bush and the leadership of this Congress not 
squander our nation's wealth, but to invest it instead in the people.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution. Today, 
we are preparing to vote to approve a responsible budget that meets our 
priorities: saving Social Security for seniors today and tomorrow, 
repaying $2.3 trillion in debt, improving education, providing a 
prescription drug benefit to our needy seniors, and providing tax 
relief to restart our flagging economy.
  This budget also addresses a number of other key issues. The value of 
investment in foreign assistance is included, with special mention 
given to the urgent funding needs to support the Middle East Peace 
Process and the war on drugs in the Andean countries. The work of the 
U.S. Agency for International Development is commended. This is a 
direct result of the critical work being performed in areas including 
health care, democracy building and disaster relief.
  The Great Lakes Naval Training Center is located in my district, and 
because of this vital role in training the fleet, naval training 
receives the attention it deserves in this resolution. Additional 
support is offered to the initiative to improve our national defense by 
reviewing the goals and needs of our Armed Forces to improve overall 
efficiency. This budget offers the Department of Defense the 
flexibility it needs to complete this thorough review and grants the 
Congress the ability to provide additional funding if the review deems 
it necessary.
  Special mention is made of our imperative need to clean up nuclear 
waste, an issue of great importance in the City of Zion. It is here 
that 1,000 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is stored less 
than 120 yards from Lake Michigan.
  Both the President and now Congress commit to doubling funding for 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's leading biomedical 
research institution. Because of the ground breaking research conducted 
at NIH, lives are saved and health care costs are reduced while jobs 
are created. This is particularly important for the health care 
companies based in my district, and this resolution addresses this 
critical need.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I have seen Chairman Nussle and 
Ranking Minority Member Spratt set out to do the work of our Committee 
with a spirit of bipartisanship that shows itself in mutual respect, 
open dialog, and a willingness to hear all points of view. I am proud 
to support their efforts.
  Mutual respect has been evident during all of this year's budget 
debate. Open dialog has been the order of the day in all bipartisan 
meetings, and was especially evident during the markup of this budget 
resolution, when Budget Committee staff members presented a detailed 
functional breakdown of the budget and answered questions from all 
members of the Budget Committee. I want to commend the staff, 
particularly Rich Meade, Jim Bates, Jim Cantwell, Jason McKitrick and 
Paul Restuccia, for their expertise and hard work over the last few 
weeks.
  This budget is a first step toward implementing the priorities we all 
value. I urge my colleagues to support me in voting for it. To succeed 
in implementing the goals of this resolution, we need to continue to 
follow the principles of bipartisanship that Chairman Nussle has shown 
us in the Budget Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Chairman in this, as well, and vote in favor of the resolution.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, during last year's campaign, President Bush 
made many promises to the American people. He promised to preserve 
Social Security and Medicare. He pledged to provide a prescription drug 
benefit for seniors. He said that he would increase our spending on 
national defense to improve readiness on national defense to improve 
readiness and the morale of our troops; and he declared that he would 
increase the federal commitment to education and maintain our efforts 
to protect the environment.
  The FY 2002 budget before us today, based upon the President's own 
budget blueprint, sacrifices all of these promises and priorities in 
order to fulfill just one: a giant tax cut that offers its greatest 
benefits to the wealthiest Americans.
  In my judgment, this budget is fiscally unsound because it relies 
upon rosy assumptions of economic growth and of subsequent government 
revenues to generate continued budget surpluses. And if these projected 
surpluses do not materialize, this Republican budget will cause the 
nation to return to the days of budget deficits and escalating national 
debt from which we only recently emerged. I would caution my colleagues 
to consider this point before casting their vote on the measure.
  I am especially concerned about the shortsightedness of this budget 
with regard to our nation's defense. Although the President promised to 
increase defense spending to ensure that our military is prepared to 
meet challenges it will face in the 21st century, this budget 
allocation will not even keep pace with inflation. We already know that 
$3.9 billion will be necessary to provide health care benefits to 
Medicare-eligible military retirees for 2002 in accordance with last 
year's National Defense Authorization Act, a fact that is not 
considered in this budget. The President and many of my colleagues also 
support a national missile defense program, the cost of which will be 
enormous, further draining resources from an already depleted defense 
budget.
  This budget also does not assume any action in this current fiscal 
year to address the urgently-needed supplemental appropriations for the 
Department of Defense. This is another faulty assumption and another 
area in which the Bush administration is retreating on the promise that 
``Help is on the Way'' to address readiness concerns, the already-
approved pay raise, and the need to improve quality of life for 
military personnel and their families. I believe that this issue is so 
important that I have already proposed a supplemental appropriations 
bill for my colleagues' consideration, containing legitimate emergency 
appropriations items that have been submitted by all of the services. 
To ignore these requests, as has been done in the Republican budget, is 
unwise.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that Congress 
still may increase defense spending pending the outcome of a strategic 
review of defense requirements. I would point out to my colleagues that 
by the end of this week, it is likely that the House will have passed 
tax cuts totaling more than $1.35 billion--almost 85 percent of the 
allocation provided for tax cuts in this budget resolution. Several 
components of the President's tax proposal remain to be considered, 
including the elimination of the estate tax, expanding the charitable 
deduction, and making permanent the research and experimentation tax 
credit. Once this tax package is approved, where will the money be 
found to fund any increase in defense? Very likely it would require 
deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and to education and the 
environment.
  In contrast to this anti-defense Republican budget, the Democratic 
substitute delivers on defense, providing a $7.1 billion defense 
supplemental for 2001 and providing $48 billion more for defense over 
the next 10 years than the Republican budget. This level of funding 
will improve the quality of life for our troops and their families, 
enable the modernization and replacement of aging equipment, and 
provide the research and development needed to ensure that our military 
remains the strongest and most efficient armed force in the world.
  I am also very concerned about the shortcomings in the Republican 
budget with regard to natural resources and the environment. Their plan 
cuts $2.3 billion from last year's level, effectively an 11 percent cut 
considering inflation. Even after adjusting the budget to take into 
account for emergency funding made last year, the Republican budget 
plan does not return to last year's funding level until 2007.
  As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I have concerns about what the proposed budget 
implications will be for our public lands and natural resource 
priorities. We already have unmet needs and backlogs. Any cuts to these 
important programs only worsen these problems.
  The Democratic alternative is much more responsible with regard to 
our nation's commitment to protecting the environment. Our substitute 
budget provides $3.6 billion more than the Republican plan for natural 
resources and environmental programs, adhering to last year's agreement 
regarding conservation programs, making needed investments in water 
infrastructure, and helping western states such as my state of 
Washington to better plan for and respond to the threat of wildfires.
  Although Congress considers a budget resolution every year, there are 
times when annual decisions like this one have impacts that extend far 
beyond the next 12 months. In 1993, for example, Congress considered 
and

[[Page 4777]]

approved one such budget that helped our nation to gain control over 
the escalating budget deficits we had experienced under the previous 
Bush and Reagan Administrations--deficits that were launched, 
interestingly, by the Reagan Administration's insistence on passing an 
enormous tax reduction bill. With the assistance of hindsight, I 
believe it is clear that this 1993 budget is, in no small part, 
responsible for the extremely positive financial circumstances we have 
enjoyed in the past several years.
  In my judgment, the FY 2002 budget we are debating today will be much 
like that 1993 budget: a major landmark in our nation's fiscal history. 
What we pass today will outline how we will allocate the surpluses we 
project over the next ten years. We are determining whether we will 
devote necessary resources to preserving Social Security and Medicare, 
improving our national defense, protecting the environment, improving 
education, and providing sensible tax relief for working Americans; or, 
if we are going to abandon these needs to finance a politically popular 
tax cut. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget 
resolution and to support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, simply stated, H. Con. Res. 83 should be 
defeated. The budget resolution reported by the House Budget Committee 
on a straight party-line vote, fails our veterans. It does not provide 
the discretionary funding needed for veterans' benefits and services, 
particularly health care. H. Con. Res. 83 falls far short of the $2.1 
billion increase in discretionary funding for veterans programs next 
year which Chairman Chris Smith and I agreed was needed to, ``Help us 
raise veterans benefits and services to a level at which we can 
confidently say as a Nation in freedom and at peace, at a time of 
plenty, we provide for our veterans.''
  It is bad enough that this budget fails to provide the funding needed 
for next fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2001. But adding 
insult to injury, this budget plan actually calls for a nearly one 
billion dollar cut in funding for veterans benefits and services in the 
following budget year, fiscal year 2003. The $24.3 billion in 
discretionary spending proposed by the Budget Committee will not 
adequately fund veterans programs for fiscal year 2002. The nearly one 
billion reduction in funding for 2003 is a blueprint for devastating 
cuts in benefits and services for veterans. These are the benefits and 
services our veterans have earned by their honorable service to the 
Nation.
  Perhaps even worse, the Budget Committee plan directs the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs to achieve ``savings'' in veterans 
benefits programs of more than $7 billion. I look forward to the Budget 
Committee members who support this blueprint providing details on the 
specific veterans benefits they propose to reduce or eliminate. 
Clearly, Congress should not cut veterans benefits provided in current 
law to help finance a nearly $2 trillion tax cut. A tax cut that mainly 
benefits those who are already the richest in our society. That is what 
this budget asks. I say no.
  This nation honors its commitments. We have a national obligation to 
veterans. But it seems some want to ignore our nation's obligations to 
veterans. For them honoring this nation's obligations to veterans is 
not a priority.
  Their priorities include instead a massive tax cut for the wealthiest 
in our society. Some veterans wait an entire year for a medical clinic 
appointment. That is shameful. That does not honor the sacrifice and 
service of our veterans. Some pay lip service to veterans, but veterans 
need real service.
  If we do not honor veterans in both words and deeds, then we dishonor 
their service. I will not ignore America's veterans. They have already 
given of themselves for us.
  As a nation, we owe veterans a tremendous debt. Our budget surplus 
allows that debt to be repaid if veterans are truly a priority. 
Veterans should be first in line. Today they are being pushed to the 
back as massive tax cuts for the wealthiest in society are the flavor 
of the month.
  Our nation does not fully honor its obligations to veterans when we 
pause briefly on Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Our nation does not 
fully honor its obligations to veterans by building monuments. How well 
our nation honors its obligations to veterans is best measured in the 
benefits and services we provide those who have served and sacrificed 
for our Nation.
  For these reasons and others, I urge the defeat of H. Con. Res. 83.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the changes that were made to the emergency budget reserve account 
language in the FY02 Budget Resolution reported out of the House Budget 
Committee.
  The reported budget reserve account language was meaningful. It 
created a $5.6 billion budget reserve account that could only be used 
for major emergencies. The most important feature was that the Budget 
Committee held the keys to determining whether the spending proposed 
met the legal definition of an emergency.
  The compromise that has been negotiated since then guts the budget 
reserve account. The Appropriations Committee unilaterally determines 
if the proposed spending meets the definition of an emergency. 
Furthermore, the Appropriations Committee can exhaust the $5.6 billion 
budget reserve account with low level ``emergencies'' and rely on 
Congress to pass legislation to fund ``major'' emergencies above the 
discretionary caps when the time comes.
  I urge my fellow colleagues to join me and Chairman Nussle in 
sponsoring legislation that will be introduced today to make a real 
budget reserve account a permanent feature of our budgeting process.
  In closing, I want to thank Chairman Nussle for his efforts to reform 
our budget process. He has been at the forefront of this issue since he 
first came to Washington, D.C. As the process moves forward, I will be 
pleased to support his efforts every step of the way.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote against the ten-year 
budget offered by the Republican leadership today because its $1.6 
billion tax cut is too large and it fails to adequately fund important 
priorities such as agriculture, education, veterans, the COPS program, 
prescription drugs for seniors and national defense. I will also vote 
against the Democratic budget, because while it is a vast improvement 
on the Republican plan, it is also based on unreliable ten-year 
projections.
  Instead, I will support the alternative budget offered by the Blue 
Dogs, because it is based on economic estimates covering only the next 
five years. This body knows from experience that trying to predict the 
economy over five years is difficult, and that over ten years it is 
impossible. The Blue Dog five-year budget makes sense. It provides for 
a reasonable tax cut while paying down the debt and devoting more 
resources to critical priorities that the Republican budget neglects.
  I am particularly concerned about the excessive Republican tax cut 
amid signs that the economy is slowing, which could lead to big 
deficits in the future. While I support a significant tax cut and will 
vote again this year to repeal the estate tax and eliminate the 
marriage penalty tax, I believe a five-year budget will allow a better 
opportunity to assess the health of the economy and to tailor policies 
to keep it strong. I am also concerned that the Republican budget 
allows for the privatization of Social Security, which could jeopardize 
the long-term solvency of the program.
  Mr. Chairman, we learned from the Reagan polices of the 1980s that 
large tax cuts do not lead to balanced budgets, let along surpluses. We 
need a more fiscally responsible approach than the Republicans are 
currently offering to provide tax relief while keeping our important 
commitments to programs like Social Security and Medicare. I believe 
the Blue Dog budget meets these goals and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution shall 
be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendment 
specified in part A of House Report 107-30 and the amendment specified 
in the order of the House of earlier today are adopted and the 
concurrent resolution, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 83, as amended, is as 
follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 83

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2002.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2003 through 2011 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,624,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,635,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,699,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,755,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,816,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,872,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,948,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,041,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,143,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,256,600,000,000.

[[Page 4778]]

       Fiscal year 2011: $2,387,000,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $67,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $83,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $108,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $133,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $167,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $187,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $201,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $217,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $232,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $240,900,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,556,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,613,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,660,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,723,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,799,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,851,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,918,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,998,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,077,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,161,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,252,800,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,508,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,579,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,634,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,698,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,777,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,825,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,889,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,973,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,053,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,139,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,230,200,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $115,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $56,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $64,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $57,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $39,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $46,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $58,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $68,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $89,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $116,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $156,800,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,575,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,623,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,674,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,733,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $5,807,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,875,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,928,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,969,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,988,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $6,344,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $6,721,000,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2001 through 2011 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $324,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $333,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $325,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $342,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $334,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $361,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $375,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $404,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $397,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $416,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $409,200,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,900,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $900,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,500,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2001:

[[Page 4779]]

       (A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,200,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,400,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $175,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $204,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $251,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $329,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $327,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $354,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $352,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,200,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $243,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $291,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $336,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $336,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $362,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $423,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $459,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $459,400,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $292,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:

[[Page 4780]]

       (A) New budget authority, $308,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $314,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $321,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $336,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $359,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,400,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,700,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,200,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $233,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $219,100,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,200,000,000.

[[Page 4781]]

       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,300,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     for Tax Relief.--The House Committee on Ways and Means 
     shall--
       (1) report to the House a reconciliation bill--
       (A) not later than May 2, 2001;
       (B) not later than May 23, 2001; and
       (C) not later than June 20, 2001; and
       (2) submit to the Committee on the Budget recommendations 
     pursuant to section (c)(2)(F)(ii) not later than September 
     11, 2001,

     that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues by not more 
     than: $5,783,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $64,427,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002, $80,036,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     $106,584,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $130,973,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $165,166,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and 
     $1,625,951,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2001 through 
     2011.
       (b) Submissions by House Committees on Energy and Commerce 
     and Ways and Means for Medicare Reform and Prescription 
     Drugs.--(1) Not later than July 24, 2001, the House 
     Committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to increase outlays by not more 
     than the following: $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $11,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $12,900,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, $14,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $12,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $12,800,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $153,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays by not more than the 
     following: $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $11,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $12,900,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, $14,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $12,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $12,800,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $153,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (c) Other Submissions by House Committees.--(1) Not later 
     than September 11, 2001, the House Committees named in 
     paragraph (2) shall submit their recommendations to the House 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to increase outlays by not 
     more than the following: $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2003, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $7,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $87,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (B) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays by not more than the 
     following: $0 for fiscal year 2001, $180,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002, $466,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $561,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2004, $681,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, 
     $836,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $7,867,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (C) The House Committee on Financial Services shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce revenues, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $139,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $101,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $92,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004, $96,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $101,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $1,112,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     year 2001 through 2011.
       (D) The House Committee on Government Reform shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays by not less than the 
     following: $0 for fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $496,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $523,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004, $501,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $475,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2006, and $3,871,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (E) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays by not more than the 
     following: $0 for fiscal year 2001, $264,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002, $479,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $761,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2004, $816,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, 
     $885,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $7,087,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (F)(i) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays by not more than the 
     following: $0 for fiscal year 2001, $820,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002, $3,035,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     $2,842,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $3,925,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $4,267,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and 
     $39,515,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2001 through 
     2011.
       (ii) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the total level of revenues as specified in subsection (a).
       (d) Special Rules.--In the House, if any bill reported 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (c)(2)(F)(ii), 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, has 
     refundable tax provisions that increase outlays, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may increase the amount of new 
     budget authority provided by such provisions (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) allocated to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and adjust the revenue levels set forth in such 
     subsection accordingly such that the increase in outlays and 
     reduction in revenue resulting from such bill does not exceed 
     the amounts specified in subsection (a) or subsection 
     (c)(2)(F)(ii), as applicable.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Allocations for Emergencies.--(1) In the House, in 
     addition to the allocation provided under section 302(a) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the joint explanatory 
     statement of managers accompanying this resolution shall 
     include a separate allocation of $5,627,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $2,617,000,000 in outlays for emergencies for 
     natural disasters for fiscal year 2002 to the Committee on 
     Appropriations. Such allocation shall be deemed to be an 
     allocation made under section 302(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 for purposes of section 302(f)(1).
       (2) In the House, after the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution by the Committee on Appropriations, or the 
     offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a 
     conference report thereon, the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations shall suballocate the amounts of new budget 
     authority and outlays allocated to it under paragraph (1) by 
     the amount provided by that measure for an emergency for 
     natural disasters as defined by this section and so 
     designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 
     Suballocations under this paragraph may be made only after 
     the Committee on Appropriations has reported legislation (as 
     adjusted for any amendments thereto or conference reports 
     thereon) providing at least $1,923,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2002 for accounts identified in the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying the 
     conference report on this resolution. Such suballocations 
     shall be deemed to be suballocations made under section 
     302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for purposes 
     of section 302(f)(1).
       (b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) The term ``emergency'' means a situation (other than a 
     threat to national security) that--
       (A) requires new budget authority (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) to prevent the imminent loss of life or property 
     or in response to the loss of life or property; and
       (B) is unanticipated.
       (2) The term ``unanticipated'' means that the underlying 
     situation is--
       (A) sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not 
     building up over time;
       (B) urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need 
     requiring immediate action;
       (C) unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated as 
     an emerging need; and
       (D) temporary, which means not of a permanent duration.
       (c) Development of Guidelines.--As soon as practicable, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall, 
     after consulting with the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House, publish in the Congressional 
     Record guidelines for application of the definition of 
     emergency set forth in subsection (b).
       (d) Committee Explanation of Emergency Legislation.--
     Whenever the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     (including a committee of conference) reports any bill or 
     joint resolution that provides new budget authority for any 
     emergency, the report accompanying that bill or joint 
     resolution (or the joint explanatory statement of managers in 
     the case of a conference report on any such bill or joint 
     resolution) should explain the reasons such amount designated 
     under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 falls within the 
     definition of emergency set forth in subsection (b) pursuant 
     to the guidelines published under subsection (c).
       (e) CBO Report on the Budget.--The Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall include in each report 
     submitted under section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 the average annual enacted levels of 
     discretionary budget authority and the resulting outlays for 
     emergencies for the 5 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year 
     of the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.

[[Page 4782]]

       (f) Section 314(b)(1) Adjustment.--Section 314(b)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall not apply in the 
     House--
       (1) for fiscal year 2001; or
       (2) for fiscal year 2002 or any subsequent fiscal year, 
     except for emergencies affecting national security.

     SEC. 6. STRATEGIC RESERVE FUND.

       (a) Adjustments.--In the House, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may, not later than July 25, 2001, 
     increase allocations of new budget authority (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) and adjust aggregates (and adjust any 
     other appropriate levels) for fiscal year 2002 for a bill 
     making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for any fiscal 
     year for a bill to reauthorize title I of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996 and other appropriate 
     legislation, reported by July 11, 2001, and legislation to 
     provide for medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit; 
     and, in the House, the chairman may also make adjustments for 
     amendments to or conference reports on such bills. The 
     chairman shall consider the recommendations of the 
     President's National Defense Review, any comparable review by 
     the President of national agricultural policy, and any 
     statement of administrative policy or supplemental budget 
     request relating to any matter referred to in the preceding 
     sentence.
       (b) Limitations.--(1) The adjustments for any bill referred 
     to in subsection (a) shall be in an amount not to exceed the 
     amount by which such bill breaches the applicable allocation 
     or aggregate.
       (2) The total adjustments made under subsection (a) for any 
     fiscal year may not cause the surplus set forth in this 
     resolution for any fiscal year, as adjusted, covered by this 
     resolution to be less than the surplus of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year, as 
     determined consistent with procedures set forth in H.R. 2 
     (107th Congress), as passed the House.

     SEC. 7. SUPPLEMENTAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE.

       In the House, whenever a reconciliation bill is reported, 
     or an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted, under section 4, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may, for any of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2011, increase any allocations and aggregates of new 
     budget authority (and outlays resulting therefrom) up to the 
     amount provided by that measure to reform medicare and 
     provide coverage for prescription drugs that is in excess of 
     the instruction to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means under section 4(b) (and make 
     all other appropriate adjustments). The total adjustments 
     made under this section for any fiscal year may not exceed 
     the amount by which the Congressional Budget Office's 
     estimate of the President's prescription drug plan (or, if 
     such a plan is not submitted in a timely manner, the 
     Congressional Budget Office's estimate of a comparable plan 
     submitted by the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction 
     at levels to be determined by the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget) exceeds the levels set forth in section 
     4(b)(2) for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2011.

     SEC. 8. RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001.

       (a) Adjustments.--In the House, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase allocations of new 
     budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) and adjust 
     aggregates (and adjust any other appropriate levels) for 
     fiscal year 2001 for reported bills, or amendments thereto or 
     conference reports thereon: (1) by the amount of new budget 
     authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) provided by 
     such measure to eliminate shortfalls for the Department of 
     Defense, for assistance for producers of program crops and 
     specialty crops, and for other critical needs; and (2) by the 
     amount of reduction in revenue caused by such measure 
     providing immediate tax relief.
       (b) Limitations.--(1) The adjustments for any bill referred 
     to in subsection (a) shall be in an amount not to exceed the 
     amount by which such bill breaches the applicable allocation 
     or aggregate.
       (2) The total adjustments made under subsection (a) for 
     fiscal year 2001 may not cause the surplus set forth in this 
     resolution for that fiscal year, as adjusted, to be less than 
     the surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for 
     that fiscal year, as determined consistent with procedures 
     set forth in H.R. 2 (107th Congress), as passed the House.

     SEC. 9. RESERVE FUND FOR PROMOTION OF FULL FUNDING FOR 
                   SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       In the House, whenever the Committee on Appropriations 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto 
     is offered, or a conference report thereon is submitted that 
     provides new budget authority for fiscal year 2002 in excess 
     of $6,368,000,000 for programs authorized under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase the 
     appropriate allocations of new budget authority and outlays 
     by the amount of that excess, but not to exceed 
     $1,250,000,000 (and adjust any other appropriate levels).

     SEC. 10. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS AND DEBT 
                   REDUCTION.

       If the report provided pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the budget and economic 
     outlook: update (for fiscal years 2002 through 2011), 
     estimates an on-budget surplus for any of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2011 that exceeds the estimated on-budget surplus set 
     forth in the Congressional Budget Office's January 2001 
     budget and economic outlook for such fiscal year, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House may, in 
     an amount not to exceed the increase in such surplus for that 
     fiscal year--
       (1) reduce the recommended level of Federal revenues and 
     make other appropriate adjustments (including the 
     reconciliation instructions) for that fiscal year;
       (2) reduce the appropriate level of the public debt, 
     increase the amount of the surplus, and make other 
     appropriate adjustments for that fiscal year; or
       (3) any combination of paragraphs (1) and (2).

     SEC. 11. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution, and any adjustments permitted under sections 6, 
     7, and 8 may include changes in the appropriate 
     reconciliation instructions.

     SEC. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of such Act to the Committee 
     on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary 
     administrative expenses of the Social Security 
     Administration.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying 
     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     estimates of the level of total new budget authority and 
     total outlays provided by a measure shall include any 
     discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security 
     Administration.

     SEC. 13. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       For purposes of title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, advance appropriations shall be scored as new budget 
     authority for the fiscal year in which the appropriations are 
     enacted, except that advance appropriations up to the levels 
     specified in the joint explanatory statement of managers 
     accompanying this resolution for programs, projects, 
     activities or accounts identified in such joint statement 
     shall continue to be scored as new budget authority in the 
     year in which they first become available for obligation.

     SEC. 14. FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY.

       (a) Findings.--The House of Representatives finds the 
     following:
       (1) Members of the uniformed services and civilian 
     employees of the United States make significant contributions 
     to the general welfare of the Nation.
       (2) Increases in the pay of members of the uniformed 
     services and of civilian employees of the United States have 
     not kept pace with increases in the overall pay levels of 
     workers in the private sector, so that there now exists--
       (A) a 32 percent gap between compensation levels of Federal 
     civilian employees and compensation levels of private sector 
     workers; and
       (B) an estimated 10 percent gap between compensation levels 
     of members of the uniformed services and compensation levels 
     of private sector workers.
       (3) The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2002 
     includes a 4.6 percent pay raise for military personnel.
       (4) The Office of Management and Budget has requested that 
     Federal agencies plan their fiscal year 2002 budgets with a 
     3.6 percent pay raise for civilian Federal employees.
       (5) In almost every year during the past 2 decades, there 
     have been equal adjustments in the compensation of members of 
     the uniformed services and the compensation of civilian 
     employees of the United States.

[[Page 4783]]

       (b) Sense of the House of Representatives.--It is the sense 
     of the House of Representatives that rates of compensation 
     for civilian employees of the United States should be 
     adjusted at the same time, and in the same proportion, as are 
     rates of compensation for members of the uniformed services.

     SEC. 15. ASSET BUILDING FOR THE WORKING POOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress find the following:
       (1) For the vast majority of United States households, the 
     pathway to the economic mainstream and financial security is 
     not through spending and consumption, but through savings, 
     investing, and the accumulation of assets.
       (2) One-third of all Americans have no assets available for 
     investment and another 20 percent have only negligible 
     assets. The situation is even more serious for minority 
     households; for example, 60 percent of African-American 
     households have no or negative financial assets.
       (3) Nearly 50 percent of all children in America live in 
     households that have no assets available for investment, 
     including 40 percent of Caucasian children and 73 percent of 
     African-American children.
       (4) Up to 20 percent of all United States households do not 
     deposit their savings in financial institutions and, thus, do 
     not have access to the basic financial tools that make asset 
     accumulation possible.
       (5) Public policy can have either a positive or a negative 
     impact on asset accumulation. Traditional public assistance 
     programs based on income and consumption have rarely been 
     successful in supporting the transition to economic self-
     sufficiency. Tax policy, through $288,000,000,000 in annual 
     tax incentives, has helped lay the foundation for the great 
     middle class.
       (6) Lacking an income tax liability, low-income working 
     families cannot take advantage of asset development 
     incentives available through the Federal tax code.
       (7) Individual Development Accounts have proven to be 
     successful in helping low-income working families save and 
     accumulate assets. Individual Development Accounts have been 
     used to purchase long-term, high-return assets, including 
     homes, postsecondary education and training, and small 
     business.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Federal tax code should support a significant expansion 
     of Individual Development Accounts so that millions of low-
     income, working families can save, build assets, and move 
     their lives forward; thus, making positive contributions to 
     the economic and social well-being of the United States, as 
     well as to its future.

     SEC. 16. FEDERAL FIRE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Increased demands on firefighting and emergency medical 
     personnel have made it difficult for local governments to 
     adequately fund necessary fire safety precautions.
       (2) The Government has an obligation to protect the health 
     and safety of the firefighting personnel of the United States 
     and to ensure that they have the financial resources to 
     protect the public.
       (3) The high rates in the United States of death, injury, 
     and property damage caused by fires demonstrates a critical 
     need for Federal investment in support of firefighting 
     personnel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Government should support the core operations of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency by providing needed fire 
     grant programs to assist our firefighters and rescue 
     personnel as they respond to more than 17,000,000 emergency 
     calls annually. To accomplish this task, Congress supports 
     preservation of the Assistance to Firefighters grant program. 
     Continued support of the Assistance to Firefighters grant 
     program will enable local firefighters to adequately protect 
     the lives of countless Americans put at risk by insufficient 
     fire protection.

     SEC. 17. SALES TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) in 1986 the ability to deduct State sales taxes was 
     eliminated from the Federal tax code;
       (2) the States of Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, Washington, 
     Florida, Nevada, and South Dakota have no State income tax;
       (3) the citizens of those seven States continue to be 
     treated unfairly by paying significantly more in taxes to the 
     Government than taxpayers with an identical profile in 
     different State because they are prohibited from deducting 
     their State sales taxes from their Federal income taxes in 
     lieu of a State income tax;
       (4) the design of the Federal tax code is preferential in 
     its treatment of States with State income taxes over those 
     without State income taxes;
       (5) the current Federal tax code infringes upon States' 
     rights to tax their citizens as they see fit in that the 
     Federal tax code exerts unjust influence on States without 
     State income taxes to impose one their citizens;
       (6) the current surpluses that our Government holds provide 
     an appropriate time and opportunity to allow taxpayers to 
     deduct either their State sales taxes or their State income 
     taxes from their Federal income tax returns; and
       (7) over 50 Members of the House have cosponsored 
     legislation to restore the sales tax deduction option to the 
     Federal tax code.
       (b) Sense of House.--It is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the Committee on Ways and Means should 
     consider legislation that makes State sales tax deductible 
     against Federal income taxes.

     SEC. 18. FUNDING FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION AT CHILDREN'S 
                   TEACHING HOSPITALS.

       It is the sense of Congress that:
       (1) Function 550 of the President's budget should include 
     an appropriate level of funding for graduate medical 
     education conducted at independent children's teaching 
     hospitals in order to ensure access to care by millions of 
     children nationwide.
       (2) An emphasis should be placed on the role played by 
     community health centers in underserved rural and urban 
     communities. An increase in funding for community health 
     centers should not come at the expense of the Community 
     Access Program. Both programs should be funded adequately, 
     with the intention of doubling funding for increased capacity 
     for community health centers, in addition to keeping the 
     Community Access Program operational.
       (3) The medicare program should emphasize such preventive 
     medical services as those provided by vision rehabilitation 
     professionals in saving Government funds and preserving the 
     independence of a growing number of seniors in the coming 
     years.
       (4) Funding under function 550 should also reflect the 
     importance of the Ryan White CARE Act to persons afflicted 
     with HIV/AIDS. Funds allocated from the CARE Act serve as the 
     safety net for thousands of low-income people living with 
     HIV/AIDS who reside in metropolitan areas but are ineligible 
     for entitlement programs. Moreover, the CARE Act provides 
     critically needed grants directly to existing community-based 
     clinics and public health providers to develop and deliver 
     both early and ongoing comprehensive services to persons with 
     HIV/AIDS.

     SEC. 19. CONCURRENT RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY BENEFITS TO 
                   RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that the Secretary of Defense 
     is the appropriate official for evaluating the existing 
     standards for the provision of concurrent retirement and 
     disability benefits to retired members of the Armed Forces 
     and the need to change these standards.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense should report to the 
     congressional committees of jurisdiction on the provision of 
     concurrent retirement and disability benefits to retired 
     members of the Armed Forces;
       (2) the report should address the number of individuals 
     retired from the Armed Forces who would otherwise be eligible 
     for disability compensation, the comparability of the policy 
     to Office of Personnel Management guidelines for civilian 
     Federal retirees, the applicability of this policy to 
     prevailing private sector standards, the number of 
     individuals potentially eligible for concurrent benefits who 
     receive other forms of Federal assistance and the cost of 
     that assistance, and alternative initiatives that would 
     accomplish the same end as concurrent receipt of military 
     retired pay and disability compensation;
       (3) the Secretary of Defense should submit legislation that 
     he considers appropriate; and
       (4) upon receiving such report, the committees of 
     jurisdiction, working with the Committees on the Budget of 
     the House and Senate, should consider appropriate 
     legislation.

  The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment is in order except the amendments 
printed in part B of the report. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
  It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part B 
of House Report 107-30.


 Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:


[[Page 4784]]


  Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
Kucinich:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2002.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 through 
     2011 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,671,613,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,743,536,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,820,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,903,395,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,979,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,060,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,170,035,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,264,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,377,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,499,618,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $34,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $41,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $46,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $49,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $62,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $75,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $84,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $98,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $114,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $130,900,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,644,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,691,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,756,548,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,836,715,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,881,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,946,814,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,016,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,086,903,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,159,932,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,238,940,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,605,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,662,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,734,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,812,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,852,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,915,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,991,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,062,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,136,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,215,937,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $65,742,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $80,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $85,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $91,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $127,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $144,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $178,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $202,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $240,948,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $283,681,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,641,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,671,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,696,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $5,712,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,700,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,665,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,596,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $6,006,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $6,361,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $6,737,000,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,495,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $280,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $287,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $299,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,561,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $321,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,107,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $330,102,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,998,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,327,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,031,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,118,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,287,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,087,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,725,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,055,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,274,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,328,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$72,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,254,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$91,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,336,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,882,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $579,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,990,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $691,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,305,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,648,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:



       (A) New budget authority, $33,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,417,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,714,000,000.

[[Page 4785]]

       (B) Outlays, $35,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,841,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,819,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,825,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,745,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,601,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,796,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,183,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,967,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,233,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $110,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $110,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $125,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $134,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $148,706,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $156,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,127,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,085,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $226,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,281,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $321,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $346,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,436,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $371,993,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $339,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $352,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $378,665,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $378,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $430,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $430,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $460,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $492,688,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $492,601,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $319,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $332,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $348,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,130,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $350,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:

[[Page 4786]]

       (A) New budget authority, $371,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,313,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,446,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,496,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,388,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,615,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,036,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,637,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,538,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,543,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,347,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,665,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,284,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,278,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,568,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,048,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $251,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,958,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $194,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,136,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$665,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$44,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$44,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,988,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the 
     House a reconciliation bill not later than May 2, 2001, that 
     consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues by not more 
     than: $34,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $41,200,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2003, $46,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $49,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $62,600,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $737,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2002 through 2011.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FUND FOR ELECTION REFORM.

       In the House, whenever a bill is reported, or an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, to provide comprehensive election reform (that 
     includes provisions to provide matching grants to States and 
     localities to upgrade voting equipment with an 80/20 Federal/
     State-locality match), the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may, for any of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     increase any allocations and aggregates of new budget 
     authority (and outlays resulting therefrom) up to the amount 
     provided by that measure for that purpose (and make all other 
     appropriate adjustments). The total adjustments made under 
     this section for any fiscal year may not exceed $500,000,000.

[[Page 4787]]



     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS.

       In the House, whenever a bill is reported, or an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, to provide comprehensive medicare prescription 
     drug coverage for all beneficiaries with an 80/20 Federal/
     beneficiary match, and provisions to allow for reimportation 
     and bulk purchase discounts, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may, for any of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, 
     increase any allocations and aggregates of new budget 
     authority (and outlays resulting therefrom) up to the amount 
     provided by that measure for that purpose (and make all other 
     appropriate adjustments). The total adjustments made under 
     this section may not exceed $500,000,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  A budget is a plan. It shows what we stand for. It measures that 
commitment in dollars. The Progressive Caucus budget stands for 
building enough schools, hiring enough teachers to create the 18-
student classrooms ideal for learning, affordable prescription drugs 
for everyone, 100 percent government help to lower the price of 
prescription drugs, and an 80 percent direct assistance on Medicare, 
enough polling booths to accurately record the votes of every American, 
building affordable new housing, cutting wasteful spending in the 
Department of Defense.
  The Progressive Caucus budget will give every American a $300 
dividend as a fair share of the budget surplus. We have set aside one-
third of the budget surplus to give the American people their dividend.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look at the Progressive Caucus 
budget, take a measure of our commitment. You will see that the caucus 
leads in advancing education, affordable prescription drugs, accurate 
elections, affordable housing, and government efficiency, and we 
provide more tax relief for average Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate a vitally important 
point that the American people need to remember as they listen to this 
debate. The Republican budget pays off as much of the publicly held 
debt as can be paid without incurring a significant financial penalty. 
This is a logical point that I as a new Member of Congress was not 
aware of until as a member of the Committee on the Budget we listened 
to the testimony of the experts. I sought very carefully to find the 
truth of this matter and determined as logically and clearly as I could 
see that a bond can only be paid off within the time period specified 
in the life of the bond; and clearly, all of the Americans out there 
listening to me know that if you have a bond fund and you as a bond 
holder expect to be paid on a regular schedule, want to be paid off 
early, you are going to get a premium for being paid off early.
  The Republican budget, as confirmed by the testimony given to the 
Committee on the Budget, pays off as much publicly held debt as can be 
paid without incurring a penalty. The chart that we prepared shows what 
we are paying off. This is the amount of the national debt after a 10-
year period. Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is, everyone acknowledges, an 
objective, impartial observer, said in his testimony to the Committee 
on the Budget that we are paying off all of the Federal debt by the end 
of this decade. In fact, Chairman Greenspan points out that we need to 
think about what happens when we have eliminated all publicly held 
debt.
  The Progressive budget, the amendment before the House offered by the 
Democrats, seeks to pay off $747 billion more debt than can be paid off 
without incurring a penalty. If we adopt the amendment offered by the 
Democrats, the American taxpayers will incur a very significant 
financial penalty. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that 
the penalty that the American taxpayers will incur will exceed $100 
billion.
  Why should we incur this additional penalty? Why should we saddle the 
American taxpayer, who is already overtaxed, with an additional 
penalty?
  The Republican budget alternative I want to stress pays off every 
single penny of this debt that can be paid off, and I think it is also 
vitally important for the American public as they listen to this debate 
to think about the implications of paying off more publicly held debt. 
Once all of that debt is paid off, we reach a point, as Chairman 
Greenspan said in his testimony, where once all the debt is eliminated, 
what is the Treasury going to do with all of this additional money that 
is coming in that is above and beyond what is necessary to pay for 
government programs and since there is no more publicly held debt to 
pay off, what do we do with all of that extra cash?
  Chairman Greenspan said in his testimony he believes for long-term 
fiscal stability that it is far better for the Nation that the tax 
surpluses, and they are tax surpluses because we are being overtaxed, 
that the tax surpluses be lowered by tax reductions rather than by 
spending increases.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman from Texas 
that our budget would give $151 million to Texas for energy assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), one of the architects of this budget.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The question here is are we going to have a people's budget, a budget 
that addresses the real needs and priorities of average Americans; or 
are we going to have a special-interest budget that cuts the programs 
important to most Americans in their daily lives, such as education, 
Medicare and others, and returns to the days of huge deficits? If we 
care about education, school construction, smaller class size, Pell 
grants to access higher education; if we care about Head Start, if we 
care about a real Medicare prescription-drug benefit, not a subsidy to 
the pharmaceutical industry, they are doing just fine, thank you very 
much. If we care about election reform, if we care about real tax cuts 
targeted to average Americans and not to those at the very top who have 
done so well already, then the Progressive budget is a much and far 
better alternative than the Republican budget.

                              {time}  1130

  It pays down more debt more quickly, despite this new concern about 
the Republicans about not paying down the debt too fast. No, that is a 
sham.
  Then, if we are concerned about our veterans, we had better fund our 
veterans, particularly for the aging veterans population, World War II 
and Korea. If we care about our young men and women in the military, 
their quality of life, we will vote for this budget.
  Yes, if Members care about the continuing waste at the Pentagon, I 
hear again and again, do not throw money at problems, do not throw 
money at problems. The Pentagon has huge problems. They cannot keep 
track of the money they spend. They are still paying $400 for $40 
items. They have spent $50 billion on Star Wars, and they cannot hit 
anything. They have three new jet fighter programs in the works, two of 
which are over budget, behind schedule; a new helicopter that does not 
work, cannot meet its mission, way over budget.
  They have huge management problems at the Pentagon, and their answer 
is throw more money at them. If it were any other part of the Federal 
budget, if it is education or the concerns of average Americans, no, we 
cannot put more money there. Do not throw Federal money at it. But the 
Pentagon, yes, throw more money at it.
  This budget essentially does all the things the American people need 
most, and reforms the Pentagon and pays down the debt. This is the best 
alternative before the Congress today.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller), a member of the Committee.

[[Page 4788]]


  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, we 
talk about education. We in our budget have proposed an increase in 
education, yet the proposal we have before us today is more mandates 
for local school districts. It says, when you are through hiring 
100,000 teachers, we want you to hire another 100,000 counselors.
  Well, maybe schools do not want counselors; maybe they need 
facilities, maybe they need money for special education. Maybe they do 
need money for counselors, but if they do not, we should not mandate 
them.
  What we should do is tell education and the institutions associated 
with it that, here is the money; they know the needs of their children, 
they know the names of their children: Educate their children.
  We have many Members coming before the House as if poor people only 
come in one color. There are black, white, brown, and red poor people. 
I know when I was a young man, I was raised by a single mother with my 
grandparents. We were poor. I remember coming home from school one day 
driving in a bus in seventh grade, and having the two boys before me, 
when we were driving on my street, they said, ``Can you imagine anyone 
having to live on that street?'' I never knew until that day I was 
poor.
  When I decided to start a business, I had an old van that used more 
oil than gas. Every tool I had came in a cardboard box in the back. 
What did government do? Every time I tried to better myself, they took 
more of my money. All the Tax Code does today is build a wall between 
poor people and success and says, ``We are going to hold you down,'' 
because every time somebody works harder, every time they make more 
money, we take more money from them as government.
  We need to allow the working people of this Nation to keep their 
money, and people in Congress need to realize it is the money belonging 
to the people who earned it, it is not our money, because government 
does not earn any money.
  Some say it is too much of a tax cut, that we want to eliminate the 
tax cut, we want to use it for new programs that the government thinks 
are better programs. Then one will say, we need to pay down more debt.
  Our budget pays down every bit of the available debt that we have 
over a 10-year period. Members can go beyond that and say, we are going 
to pay our debt that is not due. First of all, we have to find somebody 
who wants to allow us to pay off debt that is not due. If we do find 
those people, I guarantee Members, we will pay a premium to pay off 
that debt.
  We need reasonable government, reasonable structure, as the private 
sector has. We pay our debts as they come due. We are saying we are 
going to do that, but we want to go farther. We want to tell the 
American people that they earned their money. We want them to succeed. 
We want to give them more than lip service.
  When we tell people they do not deserve a tax cut, we are giving them 
lip service when it comes to them being successful in life. Let us 
allow people to succeed. Let us allow people to be entrepreneurs if 
they want to, to take advantage of the capitalistic system we have out 
there, a free-market system. If people want to work, want to work 
harder, let them keep more of their money.
  Their budget does not do that, our budget does that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure my good friend, the gentleman 
from California, that California would get $306 million in energy 
assistance under our bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Solis), who is someone who fights for the economic rights of her 
people.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my full support for the Progressive 
Caucus budget resolution, which provides responsible and just resources 
for all Americans.
  Unlike the Republican-proposed budget, which would ravage any 
reliable social programs that serve our Nation's poor, hard-working 
Americans, the Progressive Caucus would offer a fair tax without 
sacrificing the welfare of any of our citizens.
  On the other hand, the Republican budget alternative would absolutely 
devastate the people in my district. They get no benefit from this 
budget. The majority of the people in my district make $31,000 a year. 
They get absolutely zero. The glass is empty. It is not even half full 
for them.
  I am asking Members to consider alternatives that we are putting 
forward in the Progressive Caucus budget which would add and actually 
double grants, Pell grants, for needy students who would have a first 
chance, many the first in their family, to go forward and get a good 
education. Let us not leave any child behind. Let us not leave any 
minority or low-income student behind. Let us give them that education.
  Let us also not rob those senior citizens that rely on MediCal and 
Social Security. There are thousands of senior citizens who need that 
support, many who have paid into the system. This is their money. They 
have worked many, many years here in our country to build this economy. 
Let us make sure that it goes back to their pockets, to those programs 
that they vitally need to survive.
  I would also ask that we consider looking at what is happening right 
now in America. What we are talking about is an energy crisis in 
California, and we are talking about that happening all over the 
country. We really need to focus in on how we are going to provide some 
relief.
  In California we know the experiment did not work. Let us not make 
that something that other States adopt as well. Let us move forward. 
Let us provide relief where it is needed. It is our money; send it back 
home. Vote for the Progressive Caucus budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the chairman on putting 
together a mighty fine budget. Having chaired the Committee on Ways and 
Means in South Carolina, I recognize the difficulty of trying to match 
all the needs and all the requirements that are out there in this 
Nation with the limited resources we have.
  But I applaud the gentleman and the other members of the Committee 
for standing firm that we would address the major issues that are 
facing this country, one being paying down the debt, and the other 
being returning some of the excess money back to those people that 
worked hard to make this great Nation strong, and giving some of that 
money back to them.
  Our goal was to save Social Security, we have done that; to repay the 
debt, and we have a program to do that; improving education and 
returning tax overcharges back to our citizens, and those are being 
accomplished in this budget. I applaud the chairman and the other 
members of the committee for making that happen.
  We all know that paying down the debt will mean better interest rates 
for all Americans. The Progressive Caucus budget calls for $745 billion 
more debt reduction than the committee's budget during the years 2002 
to 2011. To achieve this, however, the government will either pay a 
penalty premium to retire ``unredeemable'' debt, or will build up cash 
surpluses which would be invested in private equities, introducing 
government ownership of the private economy.
  We are making the strongest strides possible without unwise 
penalties. In 2002, we will eliminate some $213 billion in debt; in 5 
years we will be up to $1.2 trillion; and in 10 years, $2.34 trillion.
  In defense, we have made a decision that policy would drive the 
budget for defense, not dollars.
  Another great concern of mine surrounds the Armed Forces budget. 
While the committee budget recognizes both immediate and long-term 
defense needs, the Progressive Caucus budget cuts deeply in defense. It 
provides $753

[[Page 4789]]

billion less in budget authority and $698 billion less in outlays 
during the years 2002 to 2011 than does the committee budget.
  The quality of life for our Armed Forces personnel and their families 
is a priority in the House Republican budget, including increased pay, 
better housing, and $3.9 billion for the first year of expanded health 
benefits for over-65 military retirees.
  The progressive budget slashes funds for national defense. We cannot 
afford to neglect our Armed Forces any longer. I applaud the chairman 
for supporting the committee budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend from South Carolina should be delighted to 
know our budget includes an additional $45.5 million for energy 
assistance for the people of his great State.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis), a fighter for the people of Chicago.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the need for public housing, 
low- and moderate-income housing, housing for the homeless, housing for 
veterans, housing for people with AIDS, all of these needs are well 
defined and well documented, yet the Bush budget cuts $859 million from 
the public housing budget.
  We all know about the problems of drugs in public housing, yet the 
Bush budget takes $316 million from drug elimination grants. The Bush 
budget cuts $422 million from the Community Development Block Grants 
program, $200 million from home housing block grants, $640 million from 
Section 8. It is unbelievable.
  Mr. Chairman, these cuts can do nothing but leave pain, frustration, 
and blood. I hope that people will know how to bleed with compassion, 
because these cuts surely are not. When we cut, cut, cut, and cut, all 
that we get is blood, blood, blood, and blood. The blood of the 
American people will be on the heads of those who wielded the knife.
  On the other hand, the Progressive Caucus has a budget which invests 
$2 billion per year in affordable housing, gives increased funding for 
Section 8 by $575 million to provide 100,000 more vouchers; $500 
million more to address the backlog of public housing; a 50 percent 
increase for the Child Care Block Grant program, and a $200 million 
increase for homeless assistance grants.
  This is the kind of budget, Mr. Chairman, that we need. This is the 
kind of progressive budget that I would be pleased to vote for. So I 
urge support for the Progressive Caucus' budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Committee on the 
Budget's budget. This is a budget that balances very clearly the need 
to provide tax relief for working Americans, the need to save and 
protect Social Security, the need to pay down our Nation's debt, and, 
yes, the need to meet unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government.
  I would commend our chairman, who has led the way every single year 
that he has been on this Committee on the Budget, and now as chairman, 
in finding the necessary resources to significantly increase funding 
not only for education programs, but most specifically the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
  Every year that I have been in this Congress, as contrasted with the 
years prior to me being in Congress, funding for this critical program 
has increased. I am pleased to say that this year in this budget we 
have set aside $1.25 billion to increase the part B IDEA funding 
program. It was never done before, and it is testimony to this 
chairman's commitment to IDEA as a program.
  I will yield to the chairman for a couple of clarifications on this 
ground-breaking accomplishment. The fact is that the reserve fund 
allocation of $1.250 billion is intended solely for the part B IDEA 
grants to States, not just IDEA-related funding generally.
  Now, the report specifies that the IDEA reserve fund is for part B, 
but the resolution does not. I was wondering if the chairman would 
respond to that briefly.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, number one.
  Number two, we anticipate that the Committee on Appropriations will 
provide and other committees will provide the continued flexibility so 
that States and local school districts can meet the challenges of IDEA.
  While the gentleman gave me some of the credit for that, and I 
appreciate that because it is a labor of love for me, there has been no 
one in this Congress who has held the banner any higher than the 
gentleman from New Hampshire.
  I want to show Members what the gentleman has accomplished. This is 
the gentleman's work, I say to the gentleman from New Hampshire, since 
he has been here in Congress, these kinds of increases for special 
education. We are going to build on this average annual increase of 23 
percent for special education.
  While we celebrate that in this speech here today, we are not where 
we want to be yet. It is a labor of love for us. It is a labor of 
intellectual honesty, as well, of unfunded mandates. We are going to 
keep that fight going, but we have accomplished quite a bit in this 
budget. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to emphasize, 
carrying on the point of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), that 
this is not necessarily instructions to the Committee on Appropriations 
to cap the fund at this amount. They are more than welcome to increase 
it above that. We certainly encourage them to increase the part B 
funding above that $1.25 or 1 and a quarter billion dollars, if they 
choose to do so.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. It is a commitment of that $1.25 billion, yes, number 
one, but, more importantly, as the gentleman knows, the House should 
work, under the circumstances will, to increase that as much as 
possible to meet its commitment to special education.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass), my good friend, he will be glad to know this 
budget does not leave the people of New Hampshire out in the cold. We 
have $53 million for energy assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner), who is a champion of veterans rights.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as the ranking member of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, in support of the 
Progressive Caucus budget, and to say that the Republican budget on the 
floor does not meet the needs of our veterans.
  The budget this year not only provides merely for an inflationary 
increase for our health care for our veterans, but in the 2nd and the 
3rd years of this budget, it actually is a decrease for our veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) can explain 
why our veterans in the years 2002 and 2003 of the budget resolution 
are cut from in the budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. We will get back to the gentleman.
  When we have a veterans community that is waiting up to 2 years for 
health appointments, when we have 500,000 claims backlogged at this 
moment, claims for adjudication of benefits that are mounting at 
$10,000 a week, this budget that the Progressive Caucus has

[[Page 4790]]

meets those needs, whereas the budget resolution of the Republicans 
does not.
  Our budget is supported by those who made up the independent budget, 
a coalition of veterans groups who said that the President's budget is 
short and the budget was short by up to $2 billion.
  This is what we need for our veterans. We need to make sure that 
their health care is provided for in a timely basis; that their claims 
are adjudicated in a timely fashion.
  We have a GI bill today, Mr. Chairman, that pays merely $500 a month 
to go to school. You cannot go to college with that kind of stipend. 
The Progressive Caucus budget actually begins to fund the Montgomery GI 
bill so we have a benefit that means something for our veterans.
  It is a decade since the Persian Gulf War. We do not know what caused 
that illness, and we have no treatment for it. The budget of the 
majority has no funds for research into the Persian Gulf War illness. I 
can go on and on.
  I say to the majority, my colleagues do not have a surplus unless we 
paid the bills. We have not paid our bills to our Nation's veterans. We 
have not lived up to our commitment. Vote for the Progressive Caucus 
budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the 
question of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The Progressive Caucus say they spend more on veterans. Well, that is 
interesting. I appreciate that the Progressive Caucus may spend more, 
but evidently it is spent in the wrong places, because it is the 
Republican budget that has been applauded and endorsed by the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the American Legion, the AMVETS, the 
Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and 
the VFW.
  So I guess the gentleman can make his claims, but the veterans are on 
the side of the budget that we have here as the base bill today.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I asked the gentleman to yield. The gentleman did not 
yield.
  Mr. FILNER. The gentleman did not answer my question.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I certainly would be willing to do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds and say I am very 
happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), but I 
would appreciate the same courtesy allowed to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Crenshaw), my friend and member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things wrong with this 
Progressive budget, but probably the most important thing that is wrong 
with it is the way it slashes defense spending.
  I happen to believe that the number one responsibility of the Federal 
Government is to protect American lives, and the only way you keep 
America safe is you keep America strong. This budget moves in the wrong 
direction.
  In the last 8 years, we watched our military get hollowed out, 
reduced by 40 percent; and, yet, deployment has increased almost 400 
percent. We sent our troops gallivanting all over the world; and, 
today, the young men and women in uniform are worried about the 
direction that we are going to take.
  I would say this budget as it is slashes defense spending. It does 
not recognize the world as it is today. The Cold War is over, yes, but 
we still face nuclear proliferation, non-State terrorists groups, world 
criminal elements with tentacles all over the world, and I think we 
have to recognize that.
  We have to make America strong again, and that is what our budget 
does. It increases defense spending almost 5 percent. It adds $5.6 
billion to begin to increase the pay of our military, give them better 
housing, give them health care benefits. Already, you can see the 
morale is boosted among our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget spends $2.6 billion on research and 
development. It is a down payment for what we need to spend in the 
future. The President believes, and I believe, that we ought to have a 
top-to-bottom review, so that our defense strategy will drive our 
defense spending and not the other way around.
  It is a time of transition, a time of testing, and we do not want to 
go out and spend money on technology that might not work or be 
available.
  And once this top-to-bottom review is finished, once our President 
and our military leaders know the direction we want to take and have a 
clear vision, I am confident he will come back to this Congress, ask 
for our help, and we will give him the necessary resources.
  Let us not go backwards and continue to hollow our military; let us 
move forward and make America strong again.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Crenshaw), my very good friend, would be delighted to know there is $91 
million for energy assistance in our budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I would like the gentlewoman to know how much 
we appreciate her leadership on housing issues.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we speak, one part of the Progressive Caucus budget 
has already become well known in the country; that is, our American 
people's dividend which, as it appears, may well be introduced in the 
Senate. We proposed $300 per family member. The Senate looks like it is 
going to promote $300 per worker. I would just as soon declare victory 
if Senators did, because it would return us to the proud tradition of 
progressive taxation long associated with the Federal Tax Code.
  This is allegedly a quick fix. It certainly is, because that is all 
this economy needs now. Witness the Consumer Confidence Index that came 
out yesterday, which was way up above expectations. If we need more, we 
can revisit the tax cut later.
  One part of the Progressive budget that I would like to focus on is 
the forgotten stepchild of the Federal budget, that is, affordable 
housing. We have experienced the biggest housing boom of the century, 
and the worst housing bust for affordable housing since the Great 
Depression.
  As the economy has spun up, housing costs have spun out of control. 
There is zero, amazingly zero, for affordable housing in the majority's 
budget. The Progressive Caucus budget would give $2 billion. Amazingly, 
the majority actually cuts public housing repairs by $1 billion. We 
would increase it $500 million, because at the very least, we ought to 
save what pitiful housing stock we already have invested in.
  There is more than enough tax cut to pay for help for affordable 
housing for working people. We would only make a start with our budget. 
Surely, a start is what working people are entitled to.
  The Progressive Caucus budget focuses on the documented priorities of 
the American people: Affordable housing, prescription drugs, money for 
school construction and funds to reduce class size and electoral 
reform, finally.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things I am reminded of as a freshman in 
this body is how diverse our land really is and how diverse the 
viewpoints are that come to Congress and stakeout their positions. The 
Progressive Caucus has laid out an interesting blueprint for the future 
of this country.
  It has gutted defense allocations. It says to those young soldiers 
and sailors who are out there keeping the peace, defending the freedoms 
that we take for granted each and every day, it says to them that you 
are not our highest priority; that national defense is not our highest 
priority.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that if that is progress, then I would 
rather stay put. I submit that that is regressive. We are going in the 
wrong direction.

[[Page 4791]]

  Progress would be to look those soldiers and sailors in the eye and 
say we are behind you 100 percent. America supports the efforts and the 
dedication and the commitment that you display each and every day and 
the Congress will back up your sacrifice in a very meaningful and real 
way.
  The Progressive Caucus budget does not address principle-based tax 
relief, the principle that it is wrong to tax people after they have 
died. It is wrong to treat people differently in the Tax Code because 
they choose to get married.
  It does not address those bedrock foundation principles that 
government should not be involved in allocating how people run their 
lives based on the Tax Code. When it comes to education, it does not 
address the situation with individuals with disabilities, a very 
important issue that we have set aside, a tremendous trust fund in the 
Committee on the Budget presentation of the budget to address those 
needs.
  It adds Federal mandates to those local school teachers, the local 
principals and counselors from California to Florida, from Maine to 
Texas who are trying day in and day out to treat the young people with 
respect, who inculcate in them the lessons of life instead of freeing 
them up to do what they do best. It adds another Federal mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the Federal Department of DOE has 
never graduated a single student. They have never had the first parent-
teacher conference, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge 
this body to reject the regressive caucus position on the budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), 
I am sure, would be pleased to know that our budget provides $51 
million for child care.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), who is a strong defender of the rights of workers.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the majority party here, the Republicans, 
are seeking to sell their budget principally by advancing a huge tax 
reduction, and they claim to justify that huge tax reduction by saying 
that it is the people's money and they want to give that money back to 
the people.
  First of all, that assertion is simply false. The biggest bulk of the 
tax cut goes to a tiny fraction of the American people, the wealthiest 
people in the country get the most reduction. If you are a millionaire, 
you will receive a reduction of about $50,000 when their budget and 
their tax cut is fully implemented.
  The rest of the people in the country get very little and most of 
them get nothing.
  If we were really interested in putting the people's money back in 
the pockets, in the hands of people so they could go to a 7-Eleven and 
make the purchase that was talked about a few moments ago, we would 
adopt the Progressive budget; that puts more money into the hands of 
more people sooner than the Republican tax cut does.
  Yes, it is the people's money, but it is also the people's Social 
Security. The Republican budget cuts Social Security. It is also the 
people's Medicare. The Republican budget cuts Medicare. Their budget 
takes fully $1 trillion out of Social Security and Medicare in a bogus 
attempt to fund a prescription drug program, by which they subsidize 
the insurance companies and would provide very little in the way of 
prescription drugs to the people who really need them.
  If we are interested in doing something for health care, adopt the 
Progressive budget. If we are interested in putting money in the hands 
of the people who can use it and would spend it, adopt the Progressive 
budget. If you are interested in doing something about education 
improving the quality of education for all the people of this country, 
adopt the Progressive budget, therein lies the solution to much of our 
economic problems not in the Republican budget.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Show me where it shows Medicare or a Social Security cut in here. 
Show me a Medicare cut in here. Come over here and show me. It is not 
in our budget. My colleagues know it is not. Let us not use war of 
words like that. Show me the cut. We have a difference of opinion on 
how to get there, but do not tell me.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to come over here and 
show me the cut.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Come here and show me the cut.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? If the gentleman 
will yield and give me an opportunity, I would be happy to show it to 
him.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the committee 
budget. It is a good budget. It meets our priorities. I am interested 
to hear my friends from the Progressive Caucus. They represent the 
liberal wing of their party, and I will be speaking for the 
conservative wing when we have the Republican Study Committee budget 
coming up.
  But I heard the tax cut attacked in this committee budget, that it 
was giving the money away to the wealthiest taxpayers. It does no such 
thing except it does give the money back to the people who paid the 
taxes. Thank heavens we do not live in a socialist republic yet, 
although perhaps if my friends in the Progressive Caucus have their 
way, we may get that. But thankfully, we still believe in equality 
under the law, and we do not believe it is just to take from one to 
give to another. So this is simply giving the money back to the people 
who pay the tax.
  On the question of taxes, Mr. Chairman, I note that our budget here 
lets taxpayers keep substantially more of their own earnings, $1.6 
billion over 10 years versus the less than $700 million under the 
Progressive budget.
  Every American who pays income taxes receives tax relief under the 
House Republican budget. Only a select few get tax relief under the 
Progressive Caucus plan.
  The other thing I would like to focus on in my remaining time is the 
question of defense. While the committee budget recognizes both the 
immediate and long-term defense needs, the Progressive budget cuts 
defense deeply. It provides $753 billion less in budget authority than 
does ours.
  Now, we all know the quality of life for armed forces personnel.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
misstatement of fact?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do not have the time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will not yield for a 
misstatement of fact?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the quality of life for armed forces 
personnel and their families is a priority in the House Republican 
budget. We need to do something for our men and women in the Armed 
Forces, and this does it.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the courtesy of all Members on both 
sides of the aisle to only speak to the Chair when under recognition. 
Members apparently have great passions and great interests on all sides 
of this issue, but the Chair would ask that Members respect the rules 
of the House.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Budget Proposal 
submitted by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
  This budget delivers what the Republican budget promises--substantial 
and equal tax relief for all Americans.
  Over ten years, this budget would provide the American People's 
Dividend--$300 annually to every man, woman, and child, as long as the 
budget surplus exists.
  Many people may think that $300 is not a lot of money. But for a 
working family of four

[[Page 4792]]

with two children, the Progressive Caucus budget represents an extra 
$1,200 that could be applied toward basic needs like school shoes, 
winter coats, and groceries.
  On the other hand, the Republicans have proposed giving 42 percent of 
the tax benefits to the wealthiest 1% of the population--essentially, a 
new luxury automobile. The bottom 95 percent would receive less than 
half of the benefit.
  The Progressive Caucus has focused upon spreading relief around 
equally, to help people to deal with the skyrocketing costs of housing, 
medicine, college education and other elements that we consider part of 
the American dream. The American people are fair people. The 
Progressive Caucus budget is a fair budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
would be pleased to learn that, in his State, which had a 40 percent 
increase in utility rates yesterday, there is a $306 million amount for 
energy assistance under this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think most people in this country know what is going 
on today. At a time when the wealthiest 1 percent of the population own 
more wealth than the bottom 95 percent, at a time when CEOs of major 
corporations now earn 500 times more than their workers, at a time when 
the wealthiest people in large corporations flood the United States 
Congress with all kinds of money, Mr. Chairman, this is payback time. 
That is what is going on.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the previous speaker, 
made a funny remark. He said the Progressive Caucus is only providing 
tax relief to, I believe he said, the select few. Do my colleagues know 
who the select few is? It is the middle class and the working class of 
this country, the vast majority.
  Yes, we plead guilty. We are not providing 43 percent of the tax 
breaks to the richest 1 percent. We are apologetic about that, but we 
think the middle class, the working class, the people who are working 
50 and 60 hours a week, who are making $30,000, $40,000 a year, need 
the help and not the millionaires and the billionaires.
  The issue that I want to focus on and urge people to vote for the 
Progressive Caucus budget on is prescription drugs. The Progressive 
Caucus says it is absurd that, at a time when the pharmaceutical 
industry is enjoying record-breaking profits, that the American people 
have to pay by far the highest prices in the industrialized world for 
prescription drugs.
  We say that every American senior citizen is entitled to prescription 
drugs because they are a citizen in this country and because they are 
on Medicare, and no senior should pay more than 20 percent out-of-
pocket for their prescription drugs.
  We do this in a number of ways, but one of them is by doing away with 
the loopholes in last year's reimportation bill. We say that, if people 
in Europe can pay 30 or 40 or 50 percent for the same exact 
prescription drug that our people are paying for, then prescription 
drug distributors and pharmacists should be able to bring that drug 
into this country and sell it to the American people for the same 
price.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
that he has 45 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close 
the debate.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), a champion of women and children's issues.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how Congress chooses to spend our Federal 
funds says a great deal about who we are as leaders, who we are as 
people, and who we are as a Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the President may say that he supports improving 
education, but the Republican budget fails to reflect on that priority. 
It fails to reflect what he said during the campaign, that he wants to 
leave no child behind.
  In order to truly support children, we must invest in education at 
every level. The progressive budget does just that by increasing 
funding to hire new teachers, by improving teacher compensation, by 
supporting school renovation, and by helping schools to invest in 
technology.
  Rather than cutting millions of dollars from Head Start, as the 
Republican budget does, the Progressive Caucus budget fully funds Head 
Start. It adds $11.5 billion to the Head Start program. This way, we 
will leave no child behind.
  Like my Progressive Caucus colleagues, I also believe that one of our 
national priorities in order to invest in our children must be to 
greatly increase the role of renewable energy sources, energy 
efficiency, and conservation measures. In that way, we will be able to 
meet our future energy needs. In that way, we can invest in our 
environment and at the same time invest in our children and in our 
Nation's future.
  Lastly, the Republican budget increases military spending while 
making deep cuts in children's programs. This sends a message loud and 
clear to our children about what we value in this Nation. It tells them 
that we value weapons more than we value them. I believe that our 
Nation's strength is in our children. Our children are our national 
security, and we must support them.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens), a person who in this House really works very hard 
for school construction.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for bringing a budget to the floor which represents 
reality. It is very close to the reality experienced by the American 
people.
  In the area of education, it is proposing to expend about $110 
billion over the next 5 years. That is closer to what is really needed. 
Among those needs that will be addressed is the need for school 
construction, modernization, and renovation.
  I want to bring my colleagues' attention to the fact that President 
Bush has taken a step backwards with respect to school construction and 
renovations. We appropriated $1.2 billion last year. Now the President 
refuses to expend that funding on school repairs and renovations, and 
he has nothing in the ongoing budget to continue any school repairs and 
renovations.
  We made a major breakthrough, and now this President who proposes to 
leave no child behind is going to leave no child behind with arsenic in 
the water, with more carbon dioxide in the air, and unsafe schools that 
do not encourage learning, unsafe buildings.
  So we would like to stress the fact that we have made a breakthrough. 
This budget continues that.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit a letter that was sent to President Bush 
on February 6, 2001, by 141 Members of the House asking him to 
appropriate the money that was put in the budget last year.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Hilliard).
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the dangers to our 
great Nation, not from outside enemies, but from those within. These 
enemies are ignorance, poverty, crime, diseases, the destruction of our 
countryside, and most importantly, corporate greed.
  I believe that the most powerful Nation in the world, this country, 
can cope militarily with the weaponry it has.
  Rather than lining the pockets of the rich with a huge, unfair tax 
cut, and pumping our Nation's resources into the pockets of military 
contractors, we need to repair and build new schools and fund a 
complete medical system for everyone.
  Mr. Chairman, the Progressive budget protects all the American 
people, and the majority budget is a danger to the health and welfare 
of the American people.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.

[[Page 4793]]

  Mr. Chairman, our budget gives money to the troops for housing, for 
wage increases. Our budget takes money away from weapons systems which 
do not work. There has been 7.6 trillion in accounting entries in the 
Pentagon; and of that, 2.3 trillion were not supported by enough 
evidence to determine their validity.
  The Department of Defense stores nearly 30 billion worth of spare 
parts it does not need, according to the GAO. The GAO also reports that 
the Navy recently wrote off as lost over $3 billion worth of intransit 
inventory, and the Air Force is missing over 2.3 billion in stock.
  Today's defense budget is 80 percent of the amount allocated during 
the height of the Cold War and is 15 percent higher than in real terms 
than when Mr. Rumsfeld left the Pentagon in the 1970s.
  We need to pay attention to housing, to education, to opportunities 
for all Americans and adopt this progressive budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to close the debate on behalf of the Progressive 
Caucus.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, everything in the majority's budget revolves around a 
$2.6 trillion tax cut of which 43 percent will go to the people in the 
top 1 percent, people who average over $912,000 a year.
  In order to do that, they are going to cut education, Head Start. 
They are going to jeopardize Medicare, Social Security. They are going 
to pay down the debt more slowly than the Progressive alternative.
  We have offered a responsible alternative based in reality. We are 
not going to spend the money before it comes in. One-third for debt 
reduction, one-third for the priorities of the American people, and 
one-third for targeted tax cuts. Yes, targeted tax cuts toward middle-
income families who are struggling to make ends meet, not the people at 
$920,000 a year. I have not noticed that they are having such a hard 
time.
  It is time that the Federal Government began to pay attention to the 
needs of average Americans in this country, not just the special 
interests and the wealthy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, since no one has shown me the Medicare or 
Social Security cuts in my budget, I yield the balance of our time to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget, and I 
really question the competence of those who wrote it. This budget pays 
massive prepayment penalties on the U.S. debt to wealthy bondholders. 
If one wants to extract hard-working taxpayers' money and give it to 
rich people, then vote for the Progressive budget because we would pay 
those penalties to wealthy Americans.
  I would say for all of those who have looked at the charts of either 
side showing steep cuts in the Medicare fiscal viability as the baby 
boom generation retires, adding money to Medicare without Medicare 
reform is like arguing about whether we can afford dessert in the 
cafeteria of the Titanic.
  Our budget lays the groundwork for bipartisan reform on Medicare, 
ensuring that Medicare will survive into the future as the baby boomers 
retire. This budget includes a prescription-drug benefit. This budget 
operates under the key principle that Medicare should offer health care 
coverage as good as the one offered Congressmen.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Progressive Caucus 
Budget.
  This budget reflects the real priorities of the American people, not 
big business, wealthy campaign donors, or big oil companies. Working 
families want us to improve education, health care, and the economy.
  We respond by spending $110 billion on education--for more teachers, 
school renovation, and school counselors. We double Head Start and 
triple funding for new schools.
  The Progressive Caucus Budget offers the only substantial Medicare 
prescription drug program--one that includes an 80/20 federal/
beneficiary cost sharing. Our plan would help millions of Americans 
struggling to pay the high costs of prescription drugs.
  Our budget is also designed to stimulate the economy. We provide for 
a $900 billion tax cut, by providing $300 annually to every man, woman, 
and child in America. Our plan would actually provide more tax relief 
to more people than the Administration plan. In fact, 80% of the 
American people would get more money from the Progressive Caucus tax 
cut plan.
  Our tax cuts are enough to boost consumer confidence and keep the 
economy growing, but not so large and so unfair as to force harsh 
budget cuts or create new deficits. It is time to leave the Reagan/Bush 
deficit legacy behind once and for all.
  We also stimulate the economy with funds for new housing construction 
and badly needed energy assistance. We increase LIHEAP by 400 percent 
and weatherization programs by 650 percent. We cut nuclear power 
research and instead direct those funds to clean alternative energy 
research on wind and solar power development. Lowering energy costs, 
stimulating the economy, and creating a cleaner environment for our 
children and grandchildren.
  This plan may sound radical to some in Congress and especially those 
conservatives in the Administration, but to the American people its not 
radical, its common sense. Why not spend the surplus on education, 
health care, and the economy? Why not? Because President Bush wants to 
give wealthy individuals $46,000 dollars each instead. What a shame!
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the great Republican hero Ronald Reagan 
once said, ``Trust, but verify.'' That is wonderful advice coming from 
the icon of the Republican revolution. So, I decided to verify Bush's 
new budget.
  Of course, a major portion of Bush's proposal will include a $1.6 
trillion dollar tax cut. Now we all know that the American people need 
and deserve a tax break. But it turns out that 50% of the tax relief is 
going to the richest 5% of the population. The very wealthy can expect 
to get back $46,000, while low income families will get zero.
  Meanwhile, President Bush and the richest Cabinet in the history of 
this country are pushing for Estate Tax Relief. This will provide a tax 
kickback of over $100 million to President Bush and his cabinet.
  Bush's first budget cuts Head Start, Child Care, and Public Housing 
repairs.
  At least now we have verified who is paying for the kickbacks to 
Bush's rich friends. The nation's children and the poor.
  It was once said that the true measure of a society is in how it 
treats its least fortunate. That is why we must support the Progressive 
Caucus Budget. In my home state of Georgia, the budget increase for 
Head Start would serve over 20,000 children. The brave Americans who 
served our country would see big increases in Veterans Medical care and 
construction programs. Low-income families would benefit from increases 
in Section 8 vouchers and the Public Housing Capital Fund.
  We will pay for the Progressive Caucus budget by eliminating wasteful 
programs and corporate welfare, such as the tax deductibility of 
Tobacco advertising. We cut back on Star Wars, so that we can pay our 
military personnel what they deserve rather than increasing profits of 
defense contractors.
  The Progressive Caucus budget takes care of our nation's children, 
seniors, veterans, military personnel, and middle and low income 
families.
  Upon verification, the Bush plan will fill the coffers of big 
business at the expense of the hard working men and women of this 
country who created the prosperity that led to our budget surplus. Mr. 
Chairman, I challenge my colleagues to do what they know is right for 
their constituents, and support the Progressive budget.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Progressive Caucus's alternative budget resolution and in strong 
opposition to the Republican budget. It is clear which budget truly 
benefits the American people.
  Let me give you just a few examples of why we should support the 
Progressive Caucus budget.
  First, the Progressive Caucus budget places a priority on affordable 
housing, which is not only important in the Bay Area, including my 
congressional district, but also in many other parts of this country. 
Families are finding the American dream of homeownership harder and 
harder to attain and the Progressive Caucus budget takes low- and 
moderate-income Americans one step closer to realizing that dream. We 
include $2 billion for affordable housing construction. The Republican 
budget does not include one penny for this purpose. And in order to 
ensure that low-income families don't have to live in squalor in public 
housing, our budget includes a $500 million increase for public housing 
repairs while the Republican budget actually cuts this program by $1 
billion! That is outrageous.

[[Page 4794]]

  Second, my home state of California is facing an energy crisis. Just 
yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission voted in favor of 
a rate increase for consumers, raising the rates by as much as 46 
percent. I order to try to help Californians and others around the 
country who need help paying their increased energy bills, the 
Progressive Caucus budget would provide a $6.7 billion increase for 
LIHEAP, a low-income energy assistance program. This 400 percent 
increase will make it easier for many more Californians to pay their 
energy bills during this crisis. The Republican budget freezes LIHEAP 
funds next year and does not provide any funding at all in the LIHEAP 
emergency account. Clearly what is happening in California is an 
emergency and will spread throughout the Western states and the nation. 
We must have these funds to help the people in our state.
  Finally, on a subject that is dear to me and many others in 
Congress--election reform--the Progressive Caucus provides $2.5 billion 
to ensure that what happened in Florida last year does not happen 
again. This funding for election reform would assist states and 
localities in upgrading election procedures and voting technologies. 
Far too many people in our country were disenfranchised by what 
happened in the 2000 election and we must do everything in our power to 
ensure that we never have another Florida. I think it is disgraceful 
that the Republican budget does not provide any funding for these 
essential reforms.
  The Progressive Caucus budget also includes large increases in 
education, health care, veterans' programs and true tax cuts that 
benefit all Americans and not just primarily the very rich, all while 
preserving Social Security and Medicare. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for a budget that cuts taxes, provides for debt relief, and allows for 
needed spending programs. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Progressive Caucus budget.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Progressive 
Caucus Alternative Budget. Already this Congress, our colleagues on the 
other side, have shown that they simply do not share the priorities of 
America's hard working families. They wish to gamble our savings and 
the surplus we have worked so hard to create, on a risky tax cut that 
benefits the wealthiest 1 percent of America. To pay for their tax cut, 
our colleagues have targeted for budget cuts important domestic 
programs such as child care, low income housing, and much needed 
environmental protections.
  The Progressive Caucus Budget provides for programs that are 
important to all of America's families: new school construction, one 
hundred thousand new teachers, one hundred thousand new school 
counselors, a Medicare prescription drug program, and affordable 
housing so that every family may achieve the American dream of owning 
their own home. It addresses our energy concerns and the debt we owe to 
our veterans. It provides for our priorities of strengthening and 
extending Social Security and Medicare. It also provides $2.5 billion 
for upgrading election procedures and voting technology.
  In doing so, the Progressive Caucus Budget addresses one of the most 
important issues to come out of the past election, assuring the 
American people that their elections are fair, free, and that everyone 
has the opportunity and ability to cast their vote. None of the other 
budgets we will consider today set aside any funding to address this 
issue, so critical to the integrity of our democracy. Antiquated voting 
technology in primarily minority communities casts a pall over our 
elections this past November. We must do everything in our power, to 
prove to ourselves and the world, that America is the cradle and the 
bastion of democracy. It is our duty as Members to foster and sustain 
America's faith in the very essence of democracy, the act of casting a 
vote. It is one of my highest priorities, to insure the integrity of 
the democratic process and I applaud the Progressive Caucus for making 
it their priority as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79, 
noes 343, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 66]

                                AYES--79

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 4795]]



                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Boucher
     DeLay
     Lampson
     Meek (FL)
     Mink
     Rothman
     Shaw
     Sisisky

                                  1236

  Messrs. GOODLATTE, DIAZ-BALART, NORWOOD, RAMSTAD, GARY MILLER of 
California, LIPINSKI and SAWYER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 66 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part B of House Report 107-30.


 Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Stenholm:
       Strike all after resolving clause and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2002.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,606,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,680,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,754,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,832,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,916,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,996,700,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $23,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $22,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $27,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $31,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $33,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $43,338,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,535,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,588,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,641,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,700,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,759,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,798,000,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,481,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,550,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,617,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,674,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,738,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,784,000,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $90,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $84,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $100,950,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $113,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $121,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $150,750,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,637,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,585,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,542,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,401,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $5,385,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,288,300,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2011 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $301,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $329,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $329,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $357,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $335,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,300,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,770,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$160,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,650,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,730,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,530,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,510,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2001:

[[Page 4796]]

       (A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,600,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,330,000,00.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,800,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $175,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,300,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $231,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $327,800,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,100,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,820,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,690,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $154,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,400,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,600,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,170,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,890,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$57,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$62,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,590,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     for Tax Relief.--The House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Budget recommendations 
     pursuant to section

[[Page 4797]]

     (c)(2)(D)(ii) not later than July 24, 2001, that consists of 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the total level of revenues by not more than: $23,230,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2001, $22,440,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $27,631,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $31,109,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $33,332,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $43,338,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (b) Submissions by House Committees on Energy and Commerce 
     and Ways and Means for Medicare Reform and Prescription 
     Drugs.--(1) Not later than July 24, 2001, the House 
     Committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: 
     $0 for fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $14,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $22,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $26,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $31,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (c) Other Submissions by House Committees.--(1) Not later 
     than September 11, 2001, the House Committees named in 
     paragraph (2) shall submit their recommendations to the House 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Agriculture shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: 
     $7,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $10,265,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, $10,675,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     $10,619,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $10,022,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, and $9,848,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (B) The House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as 
     follows: $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $5,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2004, $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (C) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $1,166,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $1,361,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $1,481,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $1,636,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (D) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $1,872,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $1,951,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $2,057,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $2,165,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $2,379,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (d) __.--After recieving the recommendations reported 
     pursuant to subsections (a), (b) and (c), the House Committee 
     on the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such reccomendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (e) Special Rules.--In the House, if any bill reported 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (c)(2)(D)(ii), 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, has 
     refundable tax provisions that increase outlays, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may increase the amount of new 
     budget authority provided by such provisions (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) allocated to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and adjust the revenue levels set forth in such 
     subsection accordingly such that the increase in outlays and 
     reduction in revenue resulting from such bill does not exceed 
     the amounts specified in subsection (a) or subsection 
     (c)(2)(D)(ii), as applicable.
       (f) In carrying out reconciliation instructions under this 
     section respecting any changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction to increase outlays or reduce revenues, the 
     applicable House committees shall only recommend changes that 
     will be fully phased-in by the close of fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FOR DEBT REDUCTION AND STRENGTHENING SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any reported 
     bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, that would cause a surplus for any 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2006 to be less than the sum of 
     the level set forth in subsection (b) and the level of the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund set forth in section 6, 
     except as provided for in subsection (c).
       (b) Debt Reduction Reserve.--
       (1) The sums referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       (A) Fiscal year 2002: $48,650,000,000.
       (B) Fiscal year 2003: $61,950,000,000.
       (C) Fiscal year 2004: $72,750,000,000.
       (D) Fiscal year 2005: $81,500,000,000.
       (E) Fiscal year 2006: $106,750,000,000.
       (2) The funds in the debt reduction reserve shall be used 
     exclusively for buying back publicly held debt, except as 
     provided for in subsection (c).
       (c) Exception for Legislation Strengthening Social Security 
     or Medicare Solvency.--
       (1) Subsections (a) shall not apply to social security 
     reform legislation or medicare reform legislation.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, social security reform 
     legislation refers to legislation that the chief actuary of 
     the Social Security Administration certifies extends the 
     solvency of the Federal Old Age and Surivors Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust fund, taken together, 
     for 75 years.
       (3) For purposes of this subsection, Medicare reform 
     legislation refers to legislation that the chief actuary of 
     the Health Care Financing Administration certifies extends 
     the solvency of the Federal beyond 2050.

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT OF MEDICARE LEVELS.

       (a) It shall not be in order in the House or Senate to 
     consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that would cause a decrease in surpluses or 
     an increase in deficits of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund in any year relative to the levels set forth in 
     subsection (b). This paragraph shall not apply to amounts to 
     be expended from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for 
     purposes relating to programs within part A of Medicare as 
     provided in law on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
       (b) The amounts referred to in subsection (a) are as 
     follows:
       (1) Fiscal year 2002: $36,000,000,000.
       (2) Fiscal year 2003: $39,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2004: $41,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2005: $40,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2006: $44,000,000,000.

     SEC. 7. USE OF CBO ESTIMATES IN ENFORCEMENT OF RESOLUTION.

       For purposes of enforcing the budgetary aggregates and 
     allocations under this resolution, the chairman of the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall, in advising the presiding 
     officer on the cost of any piece of legislation, rely 
     exclusively on estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget 
     Office or the Joint Tax Committee, in a form certified by 
     that agency to be consistent with its own economic and 
     technical estimates, unless in each case he first receives 
     the approval of the Committee on the Budget by recorded vote 
     to use a different estimate.

     SEC. 8. TAX CUTS AND NEW SPENDING CONTINGENT ON DEBT 
                   REDUCTION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, it 
     shall not be in order to consider a reconciliation bill 
     pursuant to section 4 of this resolution or any legislation 
     reducing revenues for the period of fiscal years 2002 to 2006 
     or increasing outlays for mandatory spending programs unless 
     there is a certification by Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office that the House has approved legislation which--
       (1) ensures that a sufficient portion of the on-budget 
     surplus is reserved for debt retirement to put the government 
     on a path to reduce the publicly held debt below 
     $1,700,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2006 under 
     current economic and technical projections; and
       (2) legislation has been enacted which establishes points 
     of order or other protections to ensure that funds reserved 
     for debt retirement may not be used for any other purpose, 
     except for adjustments to reflect economic and technical 
     changes in budget projections.

     SEC. 9. ADJUSTMENT FOR REVISION OF BUDGET SURPLUSES.

       (a) Allocation of Increased Surplus Projections.--If the 
     Congressional Budget Office report referred to in subsection 
     (b) projects an increase in the surplus for fiscal year 2000, 
     fiscal year 2001, and the period of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2006 over the corresponding levels set forth in its economic 
     and budget forecast for 2001 submitted pursuant to section 
     202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall 
     make the adjustments as provided in subsection (c).
       (b) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Year 2002.--The report referred to in subsection (a) 
     is the Congressional Budget Office updated budget forecast 
     for fiscal year 2002.
       (c) Adjustments.--If the Committee on Ways and Means 
     reports any reconciliation legislation or other legislation 
     reducing revenues exceeding the revenue aggregates in section 
     2(1)(B), reduce the revenue aggregates in section 2(1)(A) and 
     increase the amounts the revenues can be reduced by in 
     section 2(1)(B) by an amount not to exceed one-quarter of the 
     increased surplus. If the Committees on Agriculture, 
     Appropriations, Commerce, National Security, or Ways and 
     Means report legislation increasing spending above the 
     allocation for that committee, increase the allocation for 
     that committee and the aggregates set forth in sections 2(2) 
     and 2(3) by an amount not to exceed one-quarter of the 
     increased surplus.
       (d) Application.--Any adjustments made pursuant to 
     subsection (c) for any measure shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.

     SEC. 10. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to section 10, 11, or 12 for any 
     measure shall--

[[Page 4798]]

       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     as applicable; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Congress has made commitments to balance the 
     Federal budget without including the surpluses of trust funds 
     dedicated to particular purposes, such as the Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund, and the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
       (2) the assets of the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund are used to finance the military retirement 
     and survivor benefit programs of the Department of Defense;
       (3) the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund is 
     facing a long-term unfunded actuarial liability which will 
     require all of the fund's current surplus to pay the 
     retirement and survivor benefits promised to current and 
     future members of the Armed Forces; and
       (4) the assets in the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund are included in the calculation of the 
     Federal budget surplus and account for approximately 
     $100,000,000,000 of the estimated Federal budget surplus 
     during the next 10 years.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that any portion of the Federal budget 
     surplus attributable to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund should be used exclusively for the financing 
     of the military retirement and survivor benefit programs of 
     the Department of Defense, and not for the financing of tax 
     policy changes, new Federal spending, or any other purpose.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SURPLUS PROJECTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) disagreements on objective budget surplus figures, in 
     the annual budget and appropriations process, have led to 
     repetitive and time-consuming budget votes, decreasing the 
     time available for consideration and oversight of federal 
     programs, undermining legislation to provide responsible tax 
     relief, and delaying enactment of legislation necessary to 
     fund the Government;
       (2) Congress and the Administration want to work together 
     to do everything possible to maintain a strong and growing 
     economy;
       (3) an agreement on baseline estimates will prevent us from 
     undermining the fiscal discipline that has contributed to our 
     economic strength and allow Congress and the Administration 
     to address their collective priorities in a responsible, 
     bipartisan manner:
       (3) a bipartisan majority of the Members of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate have voted to protect the 
     social security and medicare trust funds;
       (4) empirical evidence and the Congressional Budget Office 
     agree that changes in economic conditions make projections 
     based on ten-year forecasts highly uncertain;
       (5) the caps on discretionary spending are set to expire at 
     the end of fiscal year 2002 and no formal rules will be in 
     place to contain the growth in discretionary spending;
       (6) baseline estimates typically overstate the size of 
     available surpluses by not assuming costs of extending or 
     changing policies that affect revenues, such as expiring tax 
     provisions and the cost of indexing the alternative minimum 
     tax (AMT) to protect middle-class families from the AMT; and
       (7) current baseline estimates do not recognize underlying 
     demographic pressures that will incur future obligations that 
     may threaten projected surpluses outside the ten-year budget 
     window.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     future budget resolutions, as well as all tax and spending 
     legislation, should maintain our commitment to fiscal 
     responsibility by using agreed-upon surplus, tax, and 
     spending figures derived from the following principles:
       (1) The size of the available surplus should exclude social 
     security and medicare trust funds.
       (2) The uncertainty of long-term economic forecasts should 
     be recognized.
       (3) Realistic assumptions for the growth in discretionary 
     spending should be accounted for.
       (4) The projected surplus should be adjusted to recognize 
     that scoring conventions do not incorporate the costs of 
     policies that Congress historically reauthorizes.
       (5) There should be a recognition that the Federal 
     Government will incur sizable, future obligations due to 
     demographic pressures set to occur upon the retirement of our 
     baby-boom generation.

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that legislation should be 
     enact legislation enforcing this resolution by--
       (1) establishing a plan to retire half of the publicly held 
     debt by the end of fiscal year 2006;
       (2) setting discretionary spending limits for budget 
     authority and outlays at the levels set forth in this 
     resolution for each of the next five years;
       (3) extending the pay as you go rules set forth in Section 
     252 of the BBEDCA for the next ten years; and
       (4) establishing modified line item veto authority 
     requiring Congressinal votes on rescissions submitted by the 
     President and reducing the discretionary spending limits to 
     reflect savings from any rescissions enacted into law.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON THE UNCERTAINTY OF BUDGET 
                   FORECASTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not produced 
     ten year forecasts frequently enough to produce meaningful 
     averages of its ten-year projection errors;
       (2) 71 percent of the projected surplus outside of Social 
     Security and Medicare occurs in the second half of the ten-
     year projection, the period more subject to error;
       (3) based on its own record, CBO concludes that the 
     estimated surpluses could be off in one direction or the 
     other, on average, by about $52 billion in 2001, $120 billion 
     in 2002, and $412 billion in 2006.
       (4) if this uncertainty continues to grow in years six 
     through ten at the same rate it has proven to grow in years 
     one through five, CBO's expected surplus in 2011, excluding 
     Social Security and Medicare, would be expressed as $524 
     billion, plus or minus $800 billion; and
       (5) recognizing these uncertainties, the Chairman of the 
     Federal Reserve Board has warned that ``we need to resist 
     those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of 
     the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their 
     wake'', while the Comptroller General testified that ``no one 
     should design tax or spending policies pegged to the precise 
     numbers in any 10-year forecast'';
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) this resolution recognizes the uncertainty of 10-year 
     budget projections; and
       (2) a reserve fund, consisting of non-Social Security, non-
     Medicare surpluses should be created to ensure that the 
     Social Security and Medicare trust funds are protected in the 
     event surplus projections do not materialize; and (3) surplus 
     funds materializing from this reserve in calendar years six 
     through ten should be dedicated to new revenue reducing 
     initiatives.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago I read a quote from a gentleman across 
the aisle who wondered why some of us got so exercised about having a 
budget put in place first. He said everyone knows the budget does not 
really mean anything because Congress will do whatever we want later on 
anyway.
  The Blue Dogs rise today to insist that the budget should mean 
something. It should provide the blueprint which carries enough 
integrity, realism and authority to force us to pound out our 
priorities and keep us in line through the subsequent appropriation and 
reconciliation steps. That is why the Blue Dogs put together a plan we 
can live with for the next 5 years. It prioritizes removing the 
taxpayers' debt off our children's shoulders. It maximizes the tax cuts 
we can afford while remaining fiscally conservative. It reflects the 
fact that taxpayers do want some of their dollars invested in things 
like Social Security, Medicare, veterans, education, prescription 
drugs, and agriculture.
  Today, we offer an honest, balanced plan that we can live with, both 
practically and politically. Even more importantly, it is a budget our 
constituents can live with. We ask support for the Blue Dog budget 
alternative.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, all parents want their children to succeed. 
In today's America, success often requires a college education. It is a 
way out of

[[Page 4799]]

poverty for many. Yet, for many families, particularly middle-class 
families, a college education is out of their reach. With rising 
tuition costs, rising room and board, the dream of a college education 
is simply that for too many people, a dream; a dream deferred for too 
many children of middle-class parents.
  However, if we pass the budget resolution offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), we can help make the dream of college education 
a reality for more of America's children.
  This budget provides significant educational help for families. Not 
only does it accommodate a significant increase in Pell grant programs, 
not only does it allow a 10-fold increase in annual contributions 
families can make to their educational IRAs, but, and this is why I 
rise, it provides for a full tax exemption for prepaid tuition savings 
plans.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Alabama State Board of Education, I 
was there when in 1989 we established our prepaid college tuition plan. 
Today, virtually all States have a prepaid tuition plan, or college 
savings plan. Those plans are working. Millions of middle-class 
American families are paying into those plans. They offer the only 
affordable option for many families to send their children to college. 
Yet our current tax law punishes those families for doing what is 
right.
  It punishes them for planning ahead and saving for their children's 
college education. The IRS taxes them when the student enrolls in 
college and begins to draw on that investment. Surely, all of us can 
agree that no tax makes less sense than one that hurts middle-class 
students trying to earn a college degree. No tax makes less sense than 
this tax on families that save for their children's college education.
  I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the budget 
resolution that he has offered for it goes a long way. It makes these 
plans tax exempt. It makes college more affordable. That helps more 
American children succeed.
  So I rise in strong support and offer one more reason to support the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore), the co-chair of the Blue Dog Budget Task Force.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the last 
statement made by the gentleman and basically point out and commend 
them to read the Blue Dog budget, because it does more for education 
than the majority's proposal.
  I want to talk for just a couple of minutes about 10-year budgets 
versus 5-year budgets. Just yesterday we filed a bill that would 
restore truth and integrity in budgeting called the Transparenting 
Budgeting Act of 2001. The first 10-year projection was made by CBO 
back in 1992 when they predicted a deficit for next year, 2002, of $407 
billion. In January of this year, the CBO projected a fiscal year 
surplus of $313 billion. There was only a swing of $700 billion, three-
quarters of a trillion dollars, in those projections.
  I think that illustrates what we are trying to say here, and that is 
we need to be realistic. We need to be responsible and fiscally 
conservative in our projections upon which these budgets are based, on 
which these tax cuts come.
  We have placed, Mr. Chairman, a $5.7 trillion mortgage on the future 
of our children and grandchildren, and now we are talking about tax 
cuts. All of us on both sides of the aisle are for tax cuts, but 
responsible tax cuts that we can afford. I suggest that if we do what 
we are talking about on this side, and that is look at 5-year 
projections as opposed to these 10-year projections, we are going to be 
on much steadier ground when it comes to enacting new tax cuts.
  I would ask the people on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look 
at the Blue Dog budget. I think it is fiscally responsible. It is 
conservative and it recognizes the income that we are going to have in 
terms of revenues in the next few years, not 10 years but the next 5 
years. I think if we do that we will have a much sounder basis for 
enacting tax cuts in the rest of our budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a friend and colleague from the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just say God bless our 
President, George W. Bush. Finally, we have a President who wants to 
limit government bureaucracy so the people can have more. Compared with 
the Blue Dog budget, the Republican budget sets in place common sense 
priorities that are good for America and simple to understand.
  First, the Republican plan gives the people some of their money back 
because the tax surplus is really theirs; not ours.

                              {time}  1245

  Second, the Republican proposal pays down the public debt by $2 
trillion, and it protects defense.
  Third, our plan protects Social Security and Medicare by locking away 
every penny of the trust fund surplus.
  Fourth, it stops Federal spending at 4 percent. That means to us in 
America that the era of tax increases and runaway government spending 
has ended. It means that Washington bureaucrats better run for cover, 
because this President, for the first time in 8 years, is going to put 
people first, not a bloated Federal Government.
  Furthermore, the people of America should know this: President Bush 
is going to be granting every American a pardon from high taxes because 
he will sign, not veto, elimination of the marriage penalty and the 
death tax.
  The Republican budget is responsible, fair, and above all, good for 
our economy. It is not a Blue Dog budget; it is an American budget that 
we need to vote for, the Republican budget. Vote for a strong America. 
Vote for freedom. Vote for the Republican budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscally 
responsible Blue Dog budget. From what I am hearing so far, I think we 
need to encourage everyone in this body to read this budget and pay 
attention to what it actually does, because it cuts through the 
rhetoric and it takes a fiscally responsible approach to what we ought 
to be doing here today.
  We agree we want to cut taxes, and we agree we want to have debt 
reduction. This budget commits four times the amount of tax relief in 
the first year, compared to the Republican budget. But beyond that, 
this budget represents the voice of fiscal responsibility. The Blue 
Dogs believe in paying down debt. In fact, this budget, over the first 
5 years, pays down $400 million of additional debt compared to the 
Republican plan.
  This is the real deal. This makes a down payment on our future. We 
need to take a look at our children and not place the burden of that 
debt that we ran up over the last 20 years on them.
  My concern is that we are all talking about a surplus here when, in 
fact, the proper term is a projected surplus; and if the projected 
surplus does not actually occur and if we come in underneath that, our 
tax cuts and our spending are going to move forward and debt reduction 
is going to fall off the table. It is going to be the odd man out. This 
budget says, let us be aggressive; let us pay down our debt first.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage everyone to support the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, it is my desire to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Iowa on an important science investment called the 
Spallation Neutron Source, which represents a $1.4 billion investment. 
It is under construction in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in my district; but 
the benefits will be generational. It is a physical science investment, 
but we are going to have life science and physical science benefits 
come out of this most important science initiative. It crosses over 
from the previous administration to this administration. We are in our 
second year of funding. This current year

[[Page 4800]]

is $278 million. The President is asking for a large number for the 
coming year. It is very important generationally. I think that we 
accede science and basic research investment for future generations for 
benefits that we really do not even fully realize at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the science community supports this initiative. It is a 
consortium of five different laboratories all across our country. It 
has been the subject of many technical reviews over the last couple of 
years. The science community really scrubbed this project clean before 
they fully supported it, and they do fully support it.
  So my question is, Mr. Chairman, as we are considering the budget 
resolution, there is a 5.7 percent increase in Function 250, General 
Science, Space and Technology, where the SNS will be funded. Is it the 
committee chairman's expectation to see the SNS continue on track and 
on budget with this increase in Function 250?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's belief that the 
President will continue his commitment for full funding, and there is 
room within this budget function to accommodate that request.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the leadership team for allowing us to have 
this debate on the Blue Dog budget.
  We have had many discussions with leaders here in Washington, 
including the President and the Vice President; and often the comment 
comes up, Mr. Chairman, that if we leave the money in Washington, they 
will just spend it. I think many of us in this country understand why 
some of us are leery of that and some of us have that feeling.
  So what we have suggested, Mr. Chairman, to the President and to 
others is that we will work with our colleagues to put reasonable 
spending caps in place. This budget, Mr. Chairman, provides for an 
average of 3.5 percent spending growth, discretionary spending growth, 
3.5 percent. That is very, very reasonable.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues strongly, all of 
the Members of this body, to look at this budget and the way it treats 
spending restraints.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, defense does need to be rebuilt. In the wake of the 
outgoing administration, the CBO estimates that we are spending $30 
billion just on equipment, that is on replacing the tanks, trucks, 
planes, ships. The army tells us we are $3.5 billion short on what they 
call critical ammunition supplies. The CBO estimates that we have 
underfunded training by about $5 billion; this is all per year. We are 
not giving our pilots enough time to train. We have a people-pay gap of 
about 10 percent. That means a difference between people wearing the 
uniform and people in the private sector.
  If we add all of those costs up, just people, equipment, training, 
ammunition, we come up with a shortfall with respect to the baseline 
that we have been spending over the last several years of about $310 
billion. Now $320 billion was the last Clinton estimate; we come up 
with a shortfall of about $50 billion. I agree with that. I think it is 
at least $50 billion short.
  Now, against that background we have a new administration coming in. 
They got into the saddle late because of the late election. When we 
would call up Assistant Secretaries and Secretaries, they were just 
then getting into their positions in the Pentagon, and the President 
told us he wants to do a review before he comes up with his budget on 
defense. Now, that leaves us in a difficult position. But their 
decision has been to get the review first and then come with the 
numbers, and the Committee on the Budget has made an allowance for that 
by accessing the strategic reserve under which this administration can 
come in with a new request in a couple of months and increase the top 
line for national security.
  Everybody realizes we are going to have to increase it. I want to 
salute the conservative Democrats for having more dollars for defense; 
I want to salute the Republican Study Committee who put in an 
additional $25 billion per year, which is a big step toward closing 
this gap. But the Committee on the Budget chairman and other Members of 
the House have been working with the administration. Our chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Stump), has been working, and they said help is on the way. We can 
expect that they are going to come in and increase the top line on 
defense.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, we have to rely on people. I will rely on 
Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Don Rumsfeld to bring that help in a 
couple of months. I, therefore, strongly support the Committee on the 
Budget's product.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I say to the last speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), my friend, that if he wants to fund defense plus-ups, as I do, 
he has a better chance of doing that if we enact the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blue Dog budget and 
urge bipartisan support for the most fiscally responsible plan we will 
consider in this House.
  Many of us are veterans of the hard budget votes of the early and 
mid-1990s, votes like the 1993 Clinton budget, Penny-Kasich, a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, a constitutional 
amendment for limiting tax increases, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. 
These hard votes helped produce the first budget surpluses in a 
generation and restored economic vitality to our Nation. Let us not 
squander our good fortunes.
  The Blue Dog budget is a responsible and balanced plan. It pays down 
the national debt, the best tax cut for all Americans.
  It protects Social Security and Medicare by enacting a strong lock 
box, and providing a cushion to ensure that missed estimates of the 
strength of the economy, projected surpluses, or the cost of tax cuts 
do not result in renewed deficit spending or borrowing from the Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses.
  The Blue Dog budget maps out a higher level of defense spending. It 
funds improvements in education and respects the sacrifice of our 
veterans, and it funds plus-ups in agriculture, a key component of 
California's economy.
  Unlike the GOP budget, the Blue Dog budget proposes a responsible 
approach to cutting taxes. It shapes what tax cuts we can afford, not 
the other way around.
  I enthusiastically support the Blue Dog budget. It is responsible, 
fair, balanced, and honest. It is a framework for policy choices which 
will sustain our nation's economic prosperity.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the committee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I do appreciate what the Blue Dogs are attempting to do. But I would 
remind Members that they are working off a 5-year plan. Frankly, in 
many respects I think we should be working off a 5-year plan. I think 
that is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we are working off a 10-
year plan; and it makes it very difficult for us to really do a 
comparison.
  I do want to talk about a couple of things because I think they need 
to be addressed, because one of the things we have heard last night and 
we have heard in some of the debate so far

[[Page 4801]]

today and I suspect we will hear again and that is that we are being 
reckless somehow that we cannot afford this large tax cut, that the 
budget numbers do not work.
  When we had the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in 
front of the Committee on the Budget, he made a point that actually 
what we are using for projections in terms of revenue to the Federal 
Government over the next 10 years are very conservative. As a matter of 
fact, he told us that if revenue growth to the Federal Government 
simply averages what it has averaged for the last 40 years, we will not 
have a $5.5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, we will have a 
$7.5 trillion budget. In fact, this is in response to clarify what he 
told us, I asked him this question: So if revenue growth just equals 
the 40-year average, we will actually have revenues in excess of $2 
trillion more than we are currently using in our budget projections; is 
that correct? And the answer from Mr. Daniels was, yes, sir, that is 
correct.
  So the numbers we are working off of here today are incredibly 
conservative, and they also assume that we will probably have sometime 
in the next 10 years an economic slowdown, at least one.
  But I want to come back to another point that we have heard a lot 
about today and probably will hear more about and that is that somehow 
this budget is being unfair to farmers.

                              {time}  1300

  I really think that is unfair to us, because I want to show the 
Members, for their benefit, when we passed the farm bill that we are 
currently operating under, we were saying that by the year 2002, the 
amount that would be spent on the baseline for the commodity programs 
would be somewhere between $5 billion and $7.5 billion.
  Actually, we are going to spend a whole lot more than that. What we 
see here in this blue line is a declining baseline for the commodity 
programs. The green represents the marketing loan benefits which have 
been created because of a weak farm economy. The red bar shows how much 
is available or has been available in terms of emergency payments.
  I represent farm country, and I do not care whether Members come from 
farm country or not, this Congress Republicans or Democrats from either 
side are simply not going to stand idly by and allow us to lose a 
generation of young farmers. That is not going to happen.
  Here is what we have agreed to do with agriculture this year. First 
of all, we have given them, I think, a very generous baseline of $19.1 
billion. In addition to that, there will be available marketing loan 
payments as well.
  But let me just show the Members what we do when we add this final 
bar. We have also told the agriculture community that we will make 
available up to $8 billion in emergency payments this year. When we add 
it all together, to say that we are being less than fair to agriculture 
is less than generous.
  In fact, agriculture is the only area where we are literally giving 
them three bites at the apple. We are giving them a generous baseline. 
We are saying if they have a bill by July 11, we will increase that. 
Finally, we are making available up to $8 billion in emergency 
payments. I think that is fair, I think it is reasonable, and I think 
it is responsible.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would respond to the gentleman by saying the Blue Dog budget 
guarantees the numbers. The budget that is before us in the House today 
is very speculative, and depending on contingency funds that may or may 
not be there. These charts are irrelevant if the money is not there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog Democrats want the biggest tax 
cut we can afford, and we want it as soon as we can get it. American 
families need immediate tax cuts to put money into their pockets. They 
deserve tax cuts that fit within a responsible budget and that are 
paired with aggressive repayment of the national debt.
  When shaping our tax cuts, we should be generous with the real 
surpluses that we have today, just as we should be cautious with the 
uncertain surplus projections that we only hope will occur 5 and 10 
years from now.
  The Blue Dog budget offers immediate tax relief. For every dollar in 
tax cuts in the Republican plan, the Blue Dog budget gives us $4. That 
is four times the tax relief in our plan than in the Republican plan.
  The Blue Dog budget fits significant tax relief into a budget that 
will not send us back into deficit spending or raid Social Security or 
Medicare. Our budget pays down the $5.7 trillion national debt faster 
than any budget on the floor today.
  We do more to be sure our children will not be left with a massive 
Federal debt. We do more to ensure that we do not continue to waste $1 
billion a day in just interest payments on our debt. We do more to 
prepare for the looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare that 
arises with the retirement of the baby-boom generation when the short-
term surpluses in Social Security and Medicare of today turn into the 
long-term deficits of tomorrow.
  We urge Members to seriously consider the Blue Dog plan. It will 
return us to a course of fiscal responsibility, restore credibility in 
our financial markets, and do the right thing for the American people 
and for our children.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the Blue Dogs for 
offering this substitute. It really enhances the debate. All of the 
substitutes have done that.
  I do believe there are a number of fatal flaws in the Blue Dog 
substitute. One of the flaws that catches our attention like a mosquito 
biting our neck in the Ozark Hills is that the Blue Dog budget reduces 
the amount of money going to the taxpayers and increases the amount of 
money going to the government. That is the bottom line that is the 
difference that stands out more than anything else in the distinctions 
between the budgets.
  The Blue Dog budget grows government at 5.4 percent. The budget 
coming out of the committee grows it at a 4 percent rate. The 5.4 
percent growth of government is a greater increase than those on Social 
Security receive; it is more than workers receive on average across the 
country. It grows government too much. So the choice is, we do not have 
to grow government that much, we can give more of it back to the 
taxpayer.
  One of the gentlemen from my district told me that he does not need 
the government doing more for him, he needs the government taking less 
out of his paycheck. That is what the plan is in the budget that is 
presented.
  The budget presented by the committee eliminates $2.3 trillion in 
public debt by 2011, the right amount; $64 billion in tax relief next 
year, and much of that will be accelerated with provisions for it to be 
accelerated; a 4.6 increase in defense spending; over a 7 percent 
increase in our Nation's veterans; an 11 percent increase in education; 
and it fully funds the Violence Against Women Act.
  I think those are the right priorities for America. I believe they 
are the right priorities for my district, certainly because we increase 
spending only 4 percent across the board. There are areas that are not 
growing as much. The Department of Justice is one of those.
  We have to make a balance. We have to present the right decision and 
the right priorities. I think the Committee on the Budget's proposal 
hits that right balance and sets the right priorities. I ask Members to 
support the committee's plan.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would correct the record, Mr. Chairman. I know the gentleman did 
not intend to misspeak, but the Blue Dog budget provides for a 5.4 
percent increase in the first year, an average of 3.7 percent over the 
5 years.

[[Page 4802]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas for yielding time to me, and thank him also for his leadership in 
this matter and all of the hard work that he has put into the budgets 
over the years.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no greater need in America that is unfulfilled 
than prescription drugs for our seniors. The Blue Dog budget provides 
$92 billion over 5 years for real, defined, voluntary prescription drug 
benefits for Medicare. The Republican budget, however, over 10 years 
provides $153 billion for an undefined prescription drug plan that is 
no more than pie in the sky, and they will take that money out of the 
Medicare Trust Fund to do it. This is not keeping the Medicare Trust 
Fund in a lockbox, as everyone loves to talk about. It is robbing Peter 
to pay Paul.
  The Blue Dog budget also provides for more money for our hospitals, 
who continue to struggle. We get letters and calls every day about the 
difficult time our hospitals are having, particularly in rural areas.
  So we have dealt honestly and fairly with these issues. We deal with 
health care for our seniors in an appropriate way in this budget. I am 
very proud to support the Blue Dog budget, and encourage my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to do so.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a member of the Committee.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, as we look at the budget that we have 
passed out of the Committee on the Budget, I think it is a very 
balanced budget. It is not a perfect budget. I do not think there is a 
perfect budget that comes out of this body. There is always room for 
improvement or tweaking here and there.
  One of the first things that I think is most important out of this 
budget is we find that it does give a tax refund. It understands that 
principle that it is not the government's money, it is the people's 
money.
  I asked some of the Blue Dogs, where were they 2 years ago when we 
wanted to pass a tax bill, that we would have given tax money back to 
citizens? Where were they when we tried to override that veto? We would 
have been able to give that money. It would have been in the economy 
now, and possibly would have really ameliorated some of the decline we 
have seen in the economy thus far if they would have acted then.
  I say that the tax relief they are talking about, they are about 2 
years late. We have a tax relief plan that takes only 25 percent of the 
surplus and refunds that to the taxpayers. We also provide 
substantially for education, not just throwing money at education, but 
reforming the way education is done so we can leave no child behind, 
and make sure that we give every child in this country an opportunity 
to learn and take away that barrier from economic prosperity.
  It modernizes Medicare and sets aside money. We can throw more money 
at prescription drugs or whatever, but we certainly budget a good 
amount for prescription drugs. Not only that, but we have some 
flexibility to modernize Medicare to meet the modern needs of health 
care, which include disease prevention and chronic disease management, 
which is not part of the Medicare system now. It needs updating. 
Medicare spending will double over the next 10 years. If we do not 
reform the system, we are not really going to be able to provide the 
health care we need.
  Our budget addresses the uninsured, and provides several programs to 
make sure we can cover the uninsured.
  This increases the funding for community health centers to make sure 
those folks who fall through the cracks can get the help they need. It 
allows families people who are disabled or have disabled members to buy 
into Medicaid. It allows increased funding for NIH and research.
  I encourage Members to vote for the committee's budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond by 
saying the Blue Dogs were in exactly the same place 2 years ago that we 
are today; that is, we should fix Social Security and Medicare first, 
pay down the debt, and we should not obligate 100 percent of the 
projected surpluses on a yet-projected surplus into a tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas, for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, farmers in southern Indiana are not getting much for 
their corn and soybeans. It is not going to get any better any time 
soon. Southern Indiana farmers are the same as the farmers and ranchers 
across this Nation. They are experiencing tough times. Their only 
certainty is more uncertainty about the future.
  Over the last 3 years, Congress has had to give farmers nearly $25 
billion in ad hoc emergency assistance. Without these emergency 
payments, they would not be in business today. American farmers produce 
the world's finest food. Stop and think about where we would be if we 
did not have family farmers working hard to give us a safe, secure, and 
abundant food supply.
  It is time for Congress to be honest. Our farmers and ranchers should 
not have to depend on a wink and a nod, and then hope their income 
support payments appear in a supplemental bill. Instead, they should 
know what to expect now, this month, as they prepare for planting.
  Various farm organizations have testified before the Committee on 
Agriculture. They have told us Congress needs to increase the 
agricultural baseline by as much as $12 billion a year in the next farm 
bill. The majority's budget does not guarantee needed funding for 
agriculture. Instead, if agriculture is increased at all, it will have 
to compete with defense and other priorities for a limited amount of 
time in a so-called contingency fund.
  Congress cannot do anything about uncertain weather conditions, but 
the Blue Dog budget does take some of the uncertainty out of farming. 
The Blue Dog budget follows the lead of farm groups and increases the 
mandatory spending baseline for agriculture by a total of $57.1 billion 
over 5 years. That is $57.1 billion more than the majority's budget. 
The Blue Dogs are responsible about budgeting, and they are realistic 
about the needs of America's farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody within the sound of our voices here knows 
that we cannot have it all. We cannot have it both ways.
  The Blue Dog budget basically says what we ought to do as a Nation is 
pay our debts, meet our needs in defense and other areas that have been 
talked about this morning, and then give the money back to the people.
  The Republican outlook is to give the money back over a 5- or 6-year 
phased-in tax cut based on 10-year numbers, the uncertainty of which is 
known to all of us in a very, very vivid and real way.
  Our budget is a movie; the Republican budget is a preview of coming 
attractions. We have a real budget. If Members want to talk about tax 
cuts, we do four times this year the amount of tax cuts that the 
Republican budget does. If we want to talk about meeting our needs in 
defense, this year we provide $7 billion in emergency supplemental to 
fully fund a pay raise, to fully fund housing allowances, to 
immediately address the crisis we all know we have about spare parts 
and maintenance.
  We provide $45 billion more over the CBO baseline in the next 5 years 
for defense, $26 billion more than the Republican plan does; we fund 
the Murtha pay increase proposal; in short, all of the things that some 
of the folks over there talked about with regard to defense we actually 
do. We do not say, ``Wait around a while and we will get to them when 
we can, but, first of all, we have to shove this money out of here, 
because if we do not, we are liable to spend it.''

[[Page 4803]]

  If Members look at our budget, it is truly a budget that we recommend 
to people.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage all of my defense-oriented 
colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this budget. The Blue 
Dog budget would provide an additional $48 billion over the President's 
request for the Department of Defense.
  Just 1 year ago right now General Hugh Shelton appeared before the 
Committee on Armed Services and said that there was a $100 billion 
shortfall in defense spending.

                              {time}  1315

  It has been echoed by the gentleman from California, (Mr. Hunter), my 
colleague, they need the money. We really do not need a study to tell 
us that our planes are old; that there are over 900 30-year-old Huey 
helicopters in the Army's fleet today; that the fleet has shrunk by 74 
ships since my Republicans colleagues have taken over control of the 
House and the Senate.
  We also do something we have never done as a Nation, and that is we 
have heard much about protecting Medicare and Social Security trust 
funds, we have not heard one word about protecting the military retiree 
trust funds.
  Right now our Nation owes our military retiree trust fund $163 
billion. The Blue Dog budget for the first time ever will protect those 
funds in a lockbox, much like Medicare and Social Security, so that 
those people who did so much for us will have their retirement check 
there for them when it comes due, rather than being a burden on future 
generations.
  We have been pulling money out of the Department of Defense budget, 
but they have been spending it elsewhere. They have not been putting it 
aside for retirement pay. We protect those funds.
  Lastly, as far as veterans' benefits, it is very sad to say, but 
statistically accurate that 1,300 World War II veterans are dying every 
day. We all know that about 90 percent of the health care costs for all 
of us will occur in the last 6 weeks of our lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to say that those last sixes are coming 
for many of our World War II veterans. We would provide the funds to 
take care of our veterans with dignity in the last weeks of their 
lives, $2.1 billion more than my Republican colleagues and spend $10 
billion more on the Montgomery GI bill benefit over the next 5 years 
than the Republican proposal.
  I urge those of my colleagues who care about veterans, who care about 
defense, to support the Blue Dog budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) is ready to close?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Yes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, if I were a constituent sitting back home in West Texas 
watching this budget debate, I would be mighty confused by all the 
assertions and counterassertions which have already been made.
  Each of the budgets offered obviously has merits and political 
benefits, but the bottom line is how those strengths compare to the 
weaknesses? What was left out?
  It has been interesting to hear our budget criticized on defense when 
we provide more funds for defense.
  It has been interesting to hear speaker after speaker say our budget 
was weak on education when we provide more for education.
  It has been interesting to see how our budget is weak on agriculture, 
when we budget for agricultural matters, not depend on a contingency 
fund.
  The weakness of the Republican budget which I find the most troubling 
is that the promises do not match honest numbers.
  First, the oft-repeated myth that we are precariously close to 
retiring too much debt is laughable. Trust me, Congress will find a way 
to swerve if we find ourselves on the brink of that precipice.
  Secondly, as the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, I 
find it frightening that we are asked to bet the ranch on a contingency 
fund which has been promised not only to us, but to defense, 
prescription drugs, business groups wanting additional tax cuts, and I 
would point out the majority has already spent, spent the $500 billion 
contingency fund on additional tax cuts with the rhetoric and the votes 
that they are forcing on this House.
  The contingency fund is gone. That already overstretched contingency 
fund will not even be around if the projected surpluses fail to 
materialize its promise.
  As a real-life farmer, I know that agriculture always entails some 
degree of risk, but given the economic depression we have been through 
lately, I find no security and an oversubscribed, undefined contingency 
fund.
  Likewise, seniors are being asked to literally bet their farm when it 
comes to Social Security and Medicare. The alleged protection for those 
two programs disappears with just the slightest change in economic 
growth because the tax cuts already will have consumed any cushion 
those programs might need.
  The promise of Medicare reform will be achieved only through deficit 
spending. Additional cuts on already stressed hospitals and nursing 
homes are significantly reduced by program solvency under the scenario 
created by the majority budget. It will be impossible to match my 
friend's rhetoric on Social Security modernization. Since their budget 
fails to set aside any on-budget surpluses to finance the transition 
reform to Social Security, and that is one of my most disappointing 
aspects of the Republican budget.
  In contrast, the Blue Dog budget does not make promises it cannot 
keep or rely on numbers that are unrealistic or downright deceptive. We 
know that even 5-year projections much less 10-year projections are no 
reason to bet the farm.
  We know that Americans have a variety of priorities which all must be 
balanced. We know that they want tax cuts, but not at the expense of 
their children and grandchildren.
  We know that our veterans deserve fulfillment of the promises made to 
them. Seniors need health care and retirement security. Children need a 
good education.
  I hope Members and constituents alike will look beyond the gloss of 
how a budget is advertised and consider what and who gets left behind.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Blue Dog 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond very 
briefly to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend from Texas, there is no one in 
this House that has put together more budgets than the gentleman from 
Texas. I respect the quality of his work and I respect his concerns 
about the priorities we have laid out.
  His budget is my second favorite. However, I support the committee 
mark and the Committee on the Budget, and I appreciate the tenor and 
the quality of the debate today with regard to the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the vice chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to distill the 
facts, to clarify, to try to cut through some of this fog, as the 
Members from the minority have suggested, and I just want to review 
where we really are in this budget debate and talk about this 
alternative and where it falls short.
  The Republican budget proposal pays down as much debt as we can over 
the next 10 years. I am not arguing that it pays down too much. I do 
not think we should spend too much time to talk

[[Page 4804]]

about whether we should pay down $2.4 trillion or $2.5 trillion.
  The fact is, we have paid down $600 billion in debt. We will keep 
paying down debt, and this sets aside funds to do it throughout the 10 
years of this budget proposal.
  Of course, we have tax relief. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Fletcher) pointed out, we give 25 percent to 28 percent of the surplus 
back to the taxpayers. I will talk more about that in just a moment.
  We strengthen funding for education and for national defense. Of 
course, we set aside funds for Social Security and Medicare. The 
suggestion was that creating reserve accounts for Medicare or reserve 
accounts for Social Security was somehow part of a conspiracy or it was 
risky.
  I think that is ridiculous. We have never created a reserve account 
like this in the history of our government. I think it makes common 
sense. Any one that does a budget at home understands that simple fact.
  Is the difference between these two budgets about agriculture? I do 
not think so. We could take a guess at a funding level for agriculture, 
but I do not think that is good policy.
  We allow the budget chair to come back and make amends and address 
agricultural issues as they come out of committee.
  Is this about defense spending? I do not think so. We make sure that 
once we have a review from Secretary Rumsfeld we can deal with those 
needs in an immediate way and treat the men and women in our Armed 
Services with the equipment and the resources they need.
  What is the difference and the distinction really about? It is about 
taxes. Clearly and simple, it is about taxes. We put roughly 28 percent 
of the surpluses back in the pockets of working men and women across 
the country. We cut taxes for everyone that pay income taxes.
  Twenty-eight percent of the surpluses, does this alternative give 28 
percent of the surplus back? No. Does it give back 25 percent? No. Does 
it give back 15 percent of the surplus? No. How about 10 percent? It 
does not even do that. It gives back less than 10 percent of the 
surplus to the men and women who are being overcharged today.
  Why? What is the excuse? I could not tell you exactly what the excuse 
is. But the minority and, in particular, those that crafted this budget 
today have found every reason under the sun to oppose budget 
resolutions that contain tax relief in them.
  First, they said you cannot cut taxes. We have not balanced the 
budget; that was just 4 years ago when I was first elected to Congress. 
We balanced the budget, and we did it while cutting taxes.
  Then they said we cannot support the tax cut in your budget 
resolution, because we have not set aside every penny of Social 
Security. Three years ago, we did just that. Then they suggested you 
have to set aside Medicare. We did that. Now, they are saying we have 
to pay down every penny of the debt. What is the excuse now?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this excuse for a budget 
alternative and support the Republican platform.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the budget resolution 
reported by the committee and to support the Blue Dog budget 
alternative.
  The Republican budget is completely inadequate. It is inadequate in 
its treatment of priorities that this House has time and time again 
said are important. It is inadequate in its treatment of our senior 
citizens. It is inadequate in its treatment of agriculture. It is 
inadequate in its treatment of defense. It is inadequate in its 
treatment of education. And it is inadequate in its treatment of the 
national debt.
  The Republican budget is an exercise in fuzzy math. They have based 
their numbers on 10-year projections. These types of projections have 
proven time and time again to be completely inaccurate. In fact, just 
yesterday, we learned that the Administration now plans to spread their 
tax cut over 11 years instead of 10 because of the uncertainty of the 
numbers. The Comptroller General has testified that ``no one should 
design tax or spending policies pegged to the precise numbers in any 
10-year forecast.'' We simply should not gamble our parents' and our 
children's futures on such uncertainty. The Blue Dog budget does not. 
The Blue Dog budget is a five year budget and is far more reliable than 
the 10-year Republican budget.
  The Social Security and Medicare surpluses are already committed to 
paying benefits we have promised our seniors. But the Republicans would 
raid those surpluses and shorten the solvency of both, thereby 
eventually requiring either severe benefit cuts or tax increases.
  Not only do they not provide any additional resources for Social 
Security reform beyond the funds already committed to Social Security, 
they would privatize Social Security and invest a portion of the trust 
fund in the stock market--something we should all question after the 
performance of the stock market in the last couple of weeks. In 
contrast, the Blue Dog budget allocates an additional $350 billion from 
the on-budget surplus that would be available to finance reforms to 
make the Social Security system financially sound for future 
generations without affecting current and near retirees.
  The Republican budget makes a mockery of the need to provide 
prescription drug coverage for our seniors. They actually propose to 
pay for prescription drugs out of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and 
take money away from hospitals and/or make the Medicare HI trust fund 
go broke sooner. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget saves 100% of the 
Medicare HI trust fund to provide benefits promised under current law. 
We set aside half of the surplus outside Social Security and Medicare 
for debt reduction, which will have the effect of protecting the 
Medicare trust fund from being raided even if the surplus projections 
deteriorate.
  The Republican budget would harm the hard-working farmers in my 
district. They would force important agriculture programs to compete 
with defense, prescription drugs, and other priorities for limited 
funds in the strategic reserve that could be wiped out if the tax cut 
exceeds $1.62 trillion or surplus projections deteriorate--either or 
both of which seem likely under current conditions. In contrast, the 
Blue Dog budget would provide $9 billion in assistance payments to 
farmers this fiscal year and increases the agriculture baseline by $12 
billion for each subsequent year. These funds would be available to 
improve farm income, conservation, export, rural development, and 
research programs as recommended by the farm and commodity 
organizations.
  The Republican budget provides less than half of the defense funding 
the Blue Dog budget would provide. The Republicans have chosen to play 
a dangerous game with our national defense by providing minimal funding 
for defense programs in this budget and waiting to make the tough 
decisions. When they get ready to decide defense spending priorities, 
those priorities will have to compete with agriculture, prescription 
drugs, and other priorities for limited funds in the ``strategic 
reserve.'' Never mind that this reserve could be wiped out if the tax 
cut exceeds $1.62 trillion or surplus projections deteriorate--both of 
which are strong possibilities.
  The Republican budget does nothing to meet the President's stated 
goal of leaving no child behind. It barely increases education funding 
above inflation! It would not continue to progress we have made on 
smaller class sizes. It would not provide adequate funding to restore 
dilapidated schools and build new schools. It would not address many of 
the education priorities that we have identified in recent years. In 
contrast, the Blue Dog budget would allow for an increase in the 
maximum Pell Grant award and provide funding to help schools meet the 
increased accountability of education reform, comply with IDEA, and 
meet other local needs.
  Furthermore, the Blue Dog budget provides funding specifically for 
the Hunger Relief Act, a program to increase nutritional assistance to 
low-income working families with children. Studies have shown that 
children who come to school hungry don't learn at their full capacity. 
By providing nutritional assistance, we help children to learn.
  Finally, the Republican budget shows that they are not serious about 
debt reduction. They would leave too much debt for our children to pay 
off. They do not allocate one dime of the on-budget surplus outside of 
Social Security and Medicare to debt reduction in the first five years. 
That means that all of their debt reduction would occur in years 6-10--
the time when the surplus projections are most unreliable. In contrast, 
the Blue Dog budget devotes half of the on-budget surplus outside of 
Social Security and Medicare--$370 billion over the next five years--to 
reducing the publicly held debt. We would reduce the publicly held debt 
by more than half over the next five

[[Page 4805]]

years--from a projected $3.148 trillion at the end of FY 2001 to $1.57 
trillion at the end of FY 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, the priorities reflected in the Republican budget 
simply are not the priorities of the American people. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Blue Dog budget and rejecting 
the Republican budget.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blue Dog budget 
which balances fiscal responsibility with the need to adequately fund 
programs addressing our national priorities and needs. The Blue Dog 
budget is a responsible plan that balances the budget, retires public 
debt, and provides modest tax cuts without tapping into the Social 
Security trust fund. Unlike the Republican plan, it does not foolishly 
drive our budget back into the red with massive and unnecessary tax 
cuts for the wealthy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased the Blue Dog budget provides 
needed funding to expand the Montgomery G.I. Bill in accordance with 
H.R. 320, the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvements Act which I, along with 
my colleague Lane Evans, introduced earlier this year. It also provides 
funds to pay for a substantial military pay raise and improve the 
veterans' and military retirees' health care system.
  The Armed Forces face serious recruiting problems. In order to meet 
our defense needs, the Armed Forces must have the tools it needs to 
draw men and women into uniform. The Montgomery G.I. Bill has proven to 
be the military's most valuable recruiting tool. Unfortunately, the 
combination of a substantially devalued G.I Bill and expanded federal 
financial assistance to college-bound students without military service 
has crippled the G.I. Bill's effectiveness.
  Recent recruiting gimmicks such as psychedelic humvees, Spike Lee 
advertisements, drag racers, or desperate cash giveaways are not the 
answer to these problems. Nor is conscription. Congress would best help 
our Armed Forces by improving the G.I. Bill. Providing access to higher 
education in exchange for national service is the right thing to do. A 
strong G.I. Bill helps veterans and their families, aids our national 
defense, and strengthens the economy.
  The Montgomery GI Bill Expansion Act (H.R. 320) will ensure that our 
All-Volunteer Armed Forces has the ability to attract recruits, and, at 
the same time, provide veterans with the skills they need to better our 
economy and their lives. The Blue Dog budget wisely provides funding to 
expand the G.I. Bill in line with H.R. 320 and will restore the MGIB's 
value both as a meaningful readjustment benefit and an effective 
recruiting incentive.
  Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget is good for America's veterans and 
soldiers and is a solid blueprint for our nation's future. Unlike the 
Republican budget that would foolishly squander the surplus, the 
responsible Blue Dog budget pays down the national debt and provides 
sensible tax relief. It will put the nation on a course to cut the 
publicly held debt in half by 2006 with a strong, immediate commitment 
to debt reduction rather than return us to deficit spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for 
veterans, soldiers and our nation's future. Vote for the Blue Dog 
budget.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2002 and in favor of the 
Substitute offered by Mr. Stenholm on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition.
  I support the Blue Dog Budget because it is based on real, not 
projected, surpluses and presents a balanced, honest view to meeting 
our many budget concerns. The Blue Dog Budget builds on the fiscal 
progress we have made in the past few years, but provides needed tax 
relief and priority funding for education, health, and agriculture.
  I will not support the Republican Resolution simply because it is not 
credible. The majority's plan is built on thin air. It promises 
everything: large tax cuts, debt pay down, protection of Social 
Security and Medicare, and continued spending. But, the catch is it is 
based on surpluses that do not and may not ever exist. It relies on 10 
year budget projections that even the new Secretary of the Treasury 
says are unreliable. If the economy slows, as it is already doing, this 
budget will force us to borrow from Social Security, cut spending and 
stop paying down national debt.
  In contrast the Blue Dog Budget Resolution operates on a more 
conservative five year cycle and preserves the balanced budget while 
paying down the debt, providing for meaningful tax relief, and honestly 
meeting our spending priorities.
  The Blue Dog Budget does not squander the progress we have made 
paying down the debt. In fact, it provides $375 billion more debt 
reduction than the Republican plan.
  The Blue Dog Budget provides immediate and fair tax relief. In fact, 
it allows for $23 billion in immediate tax relief for 2001, four times 
the amount of the majority's budget.
  The Blue Dog Budget does not drastically cut critical spending or use 
gimmicks and emergency funding to balance the budget. In fact, the Blue 
Dog budget establishes realistic discretionary spending caps which will 
restrain spending but also provide room to fund new initiatives without 
relying on unspecified or unrealistic spending. It also does not rely 
on an overly-committed contingency fund to address necessary 
agriculture and defense needs.
  In short, the Blue Dog Budget is honest where the majority proposal 
is not. The Blue Dog Budget is credible, where the Republican plan is 
not. Most importantly, the Blue Dog budget is responsible and the other 
plan is not.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, as Ranking Member of the House 
Conservation Subcommittee, I cannot remain silent in the face of the 
inadequacy of the funding for agriculture in the budget presented by 
the majority.
  Conservation programs are already facing a shortfall in funding, 
while the precious lands which are our original heritage, are ravaged 
by erosion, fire, pestilence, and many other dangers.
  The Conservation Reserve Program needs to grow, and the Wetlands 
Reserve Program is deeply underfunded by the sum of $569 million. The 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program needs to be nearly doubled in 
acreage, and the essential Farmland Protection Program needs to more 
than double.
  These programs allow our farmers to participate in restoring our 
great nation's resources to a healthy state while keeping the farmers 
solvent. Conservation is a win/win matter, and the majority budget 
fails to meet the needs of the American people and our lands. I 
strongly support the agriculture provisions of the Blue Dogs budget and 
call upon all members who want to preserve and restore the health of 
our landmass to support them.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 221, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 67]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark

[[Page 4806]]


     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Lampson
     Mink
     Rothman
     Shaw
     Sisisky

                              {time}  1347

  Messrs. CALLAHAN, LEWIS of California, OTTER, TOOMEY, COOKSEY, BRYANT 
and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, BROWN of Ohio, CONYERS, BLAGOJEVICH, 
CUMMINGS, DUNCAN, MOLLOHAN, WAMP and Ms. WOOLSEY and Ms. McKINNEY 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 65, 66 and 67 I was absent 
due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 65 and ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 66 and 67.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part B of House Report 107-30.


   Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Flake:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2002.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2003 through 2011 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,537,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,601,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,658,100,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,726,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,802,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,851,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,908,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,988,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,066,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,147,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,225,900,000,000
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $93,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $102,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $124,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $138,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $147,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $188,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $227,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $254,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $294,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $342,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $393,000,000,000
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,554,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,597,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,642,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,701,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,777,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,823,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,884,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,963,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,038,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,120,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,208,500,000,000
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,502,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,564,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,612,100,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,672,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,750,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,791,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,851,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,934,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,010,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,094,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,176,500,000,000
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $34,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,100,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $46,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $53,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $52,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $59,900,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $57,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $54,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $55,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $52,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $49,400,000,000
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,656,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,641,900,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,692,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,736,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $5,793,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,889,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $6,395,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $6,985,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $7,629,900,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $8,687,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $9,543,400,000,000

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2011 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $369,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $374,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $381,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $401,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $412,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $404,700,000,000.

[[Page 4807]]

       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $435,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $428,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $435,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $428,400,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,200,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,800,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2001:

[[Page 4808]]

       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,400,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $173,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $187,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $341,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,800,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $283,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $347,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $343,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $374,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $404,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $435,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $431,700,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $312,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $328,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $339,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $348,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,400,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650)
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,700,000,000
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,700,000,000.

[[Page 4809]]

       (B) Outlays, $33,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $278,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, 260,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $243,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $233,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,500,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,300,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissiosn by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     for Tax Relief.--The House Committee on Ways and Means 
     shall--
       (1) report to the House a reconciliation bill--
       (A) not later than May 2, 2001;
       (B) not later than May 23, 2001; and
       (C) not later than June 20, 2001; and
       (2) submit to the Committee on the Budget recommendations 
     pursuant to section (c)(2)(F)(ii) not later than September 
     11, 2001; that consists of changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues 
     by not more than $93,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $102,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $124,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, $138,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $147,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $188,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $2,302,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (b) Submissiosn by House Committees on Energy and Commerce 
     and Ways and Means for Medicare Reform and Prescription 
     Drugs.--(1) Not later than July 24, 2001, the House 
     Committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: 
     $0 for the period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     the period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (c) Other Submissions by House Committees.--(1) Not later 
     than September 11, 2001, the House Committees named in 
     paragraph (2) shall submit their recommendations to the House 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as 
     follows: $0 for fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 
     for fiscal year 2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal 
     year 2005, $0 for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (B) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 for fiscal year 
     2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal year 2005, $0 
     for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of fiscal year 
     2001 through 2011.
       (C) The House Committee on Financial Services shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce revenues, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $139,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $101,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $92,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004, $96,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $101,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $1,112,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     year 2001 through 2011.
       (D) The House Committee on Government Reform shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 for fiscal year 
     2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal year 2005, $0 
     for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of fiscal year 
     2001 through 2011.
       (E) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $264,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $479,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $761,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004, $816,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $885,000,000 
     for fiscal year

[[Page 4810]]

     2006, and $7,087,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2001 
     through 2011.
       (F)(i) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 for fiscal year 
     2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal year 2005, $0 
     for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of fiscal year 
     2001 through 2011.
       (ii) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the total level of revenues as specified in subsection (a).
       (d) Special Rules.--In the House, if any bill reported 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (c)(2)(F)(ii), 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, has 
     refundable tax provisions that increase outlays, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may increase the amount of new 
     budget authority provided by such provisions (and outlays 
     following therefrom) allocated to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and adjust the revenue levels set forth in such 
     subsection accordingly such that the increase in outlays and 
     reduction in revenue resulting from such bill does not exceed 
     the amounts specified in subsection (a) or subsection 
     (c)(2)(F)(ii), as applicable.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Adjustments for Emergencies.--In the House, after the 
     reporting of a bill or joint resolution by the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority and outlays under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for fiscal year 2002 by the 
     amount provided by that measure for an emergency that the 
     chairman so determines and certifies. Adjustments to such 
     allocation made under this subsection may be made only for 
     amounts for emergencies in excess of $1,923,000,000 in new 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2002 and the total of any 
     such adjustments for such fiscal year shall not exceed 
     $5,600,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) The term `emergency' means a situation (other than a 
     threat to national security) that--
       (A) requires new budget authority (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) to prevent the imminent loss of life or property 
     or in response to the loss of life or property; and
       (B) is unanticipated.
       (2) The term `unanticipated' means that the underlying 
     situation is--
       (A) sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not 
     building up over time;
       (B) urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need 
     requiring immediate action;
       (C) unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated as 
     an emerging need; and
       (D) temporary, which means not of a permanent duration.
       (c) Development of Guidelines.--As soon as practicable, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall, 
     after consulting with the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House, publish in the Congressional 
     Record guidelines for application of the definition of 
     emergency set forth in subsection (b).
       (d) Committee Explanation of Emergency Legislation.--
     Whenever the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     (including a committee of conference) reports any bill or 
     joint resolution that provides new budget authority for any 
     emergency, the report accompanying that bill or joint 
     resolution (or the joint explanatory statement of managers in 
     the case of a conference report on any such bill or joint 
     resolution) shall explain the reasons such amount designated 
     under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1974 falls within the 
     definition of emergency set forth in subsection (b) pursuant 
     to the guidelines published under subsection (c).
       (e) CBO Report on the Budget.--The Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall include in each report 
     submitted under section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 the average annual enacted levels of 
     discretionary budget authority and the resulting outlays for 
     emergencies for the 5 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year 
     of the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       (f) Section 314(b)(1) Adjustment.--Section 314(b)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall not apply in the 
     House--
       (1) for fiscal year 2001; or
       (2) for fiscal year 2002 or any subsequent fiscal year, 
     except for emergencies affecting national security.

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY.

       Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto 
     is offered (in the House), or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted that enhances retirement security through 
     structural programmatic reform and the creation of personal 
     retirement accounts, provided that such accounts are funded 
     from the taxes currently collected for the purpose of the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Program, the Chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may--
       (1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of 
     new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) for that purpose;
       (2) reduce the revenue aggregates by the amount of the 
     revenue loss resulting from that measure for that purpose; 
     and
       (3) make all other appropriate and conforming adjustments.

     SEC. 7. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE REFORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH 
                   SECTION 4(B).

       Whenever the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and 
     Commerce report a bill in compliance with Section 4(b) of 
     this Concurrent Resolution that achieves long-term Medicare 
     reform and provides for an expanded prescription drug 
     benefit, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may--
       (1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of 
     new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) for that purpose provided that:
       a. for the period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011 the 
     increase in new budget authority is $0; and
       b. the increase for any one fiscal year does not exceed the 
     amount of surplus credited in that fiscal year to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
       (2) make all other appropriate conforming adjustments.

     SEC. 8. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING FROM 
                   REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING 
                   REVENUES.

       (a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion or conference report, including measures 
     filed in compliance with Section 4 of this Concurrent 
     Resolution, that propose to change Federal revenues the 
     impact of such measure on Federal revenues shall be 
     calculated by the Joint Committee on Taxation in a manner 
     that takes into account:
       (1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on:
       i. Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for 
     the Gross Domestic Product;
       ii. total Domestic Employment;
       iii. Gross Private Domestic Investment;
       iv. General Price Index;
       v. Interest Rates;
       vi. Other economic variables; and
       (2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in 
     economic variables analyzed under subpart (1) of this 
     paragraph.
       (b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order 
     to conform this Concurrent Resolution with the determinations 
     made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to paragraph 
     (a) of this Section.

     SEC. 9. PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMPLIANCE WITH 
                   SECTION 4(A) OF THIS CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.

       When reporting to the House reconciliation measures in 
     compliance with Section 4(a) of this Concurrent Resolution, 
     the Ways and Means Committee shall not report legislation, 
     which:
       (1) proposes to provide a graduated or phased-in reduction 
     over time in--
       (a) Individual income tax rates;
       (b) Corporate tax rates; or
       (c) The rate of taxes collected on the proceeds from 
     investments, including taxes collected on capital gains; or
       (2) conditions any changes in tax law upon the achievement 
     of some level of:
       (a) Federal Revenue,
       (b) Federal Surplus, or
       (c) Level of Public Debt.

     SEC. 10. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS AND DEBT 
                   REDUCTION.

       If the report provided pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the budget and economic 
     outlook: update (for fiscal years 2002 through 2011), 
     estimates an on-budget surplus for any of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2011 that exceeds the estimated on-budget surplus set 
     forth in the Congressional Budget Office's January 2001 
     budget and economic outlook for such fiscal year, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House may, in 
     an amount not to exceed the increase in such surplus for that 
     fiscal year--
       (1) reduce the recommended level of Federal revenues and 
     make other appropriate adjustments (including the 
     reconciliation instructions) for that fiscal year;
       (2) reduce the appropriate level of the public debt, 
     increase the amount of the surplus, and make other 
     appropriate adjustments for that fiscal year; or
       (3) any combination of paragraphs (1) and (2).

     SEC. 11. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments

[[Page 4811]]

     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of such Act to the Committee 
     on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary 
     administrative expenses of the Social Security 
     Administration.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying 
     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     estimates of the level of total new budget authority and 
     total outlays provided by a measure shall include any 
     discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security 
     Administration.

     SEC. 13. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       For purposes of title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, advance appropriations shall be scored as new budget 
     authority for the fiscal year in which the appropriations are 
     enacted, except that advance appropriations in excess of the 
     levels specified in the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers accompanying this resolution for programs, projects, 
     activities or accounts identified in such joint statement 
     shall continue to be scored as new budget authority in the 
     year in which they first become available for obligation.

     SEC. 14. ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B)(1) OF THE 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

       (a) Compliance.--When complying with Section 302(b)(1) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House shall consult with the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the other House to ensure that the 
     allocation of budget outlays and new budget authority among 
     each Committee's subcommittees are identical.
       (b) Report.--The Committee on Appropriations of each House 
     shall report to its House when it determines that the report 
     made by the Committee pursuant to Section 301(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the report made by the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the other House pursuant to 
     the same provision contain identical allocations of budget 
     outlays and new budget authority among each Committee's 
     subcommittees.
       (c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report providing 
     new discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2002 
     allocated to the Committee on Appropriations unless and until 
     the Committee on Appropriations of that House has made the 
     report required under paragraph (b) of this Section.

     SEC. 15. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   CLAUSE 2(A)(1) OF RULE XXI OF THE RULES OF THE 
                   HOUSE

       (a) Congress finds that:
       (1) Each year, the House Appropriations Committee provides 
     funding to hundreds of programs whose authorization has 
     expired or were never authorized by an Act of Congress.
       (2) For Fiscal Year 2002, there were over 200 programs 
     funded in 112 laws totaling over $112 billion whose 
     authorization had expired.
       (3) According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the 
     largest amount for a single program is for veterans medical 
     care, which was last authorized in 1998 and totals over $20.3 
     billion. Funding for the economic support and development 
     assistance programs was last authorized in 1987 by the 
     International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 
     1985 and totals just over $7.8 billion in 2001 and much of 
     the appropriation provided for the Department of Justice in 
     2001, which totals over $16.8 billion, is unauthorized.
       (4) Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     prohibits the funding of an appropriation, which has not been 
     authorized by law.
       (5) The House Rules Committee typically waives Rule XXI 
     when considering general appropriation bills.
       (6) The respective authorizing committees have not made 
     reauthorization of unauthorized programs a priority.
       (7) The lack of congressional oversight over the years, as 
     far back in 1979, has led to the deterioration of the power 
     of the respective authorizing Committees and thus the loss of 
     congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility, which is a 
     blow to the voters of America and their role in the process.
       (8) The lack of congressional oversight over the years has 
     led to the shift of power away from the Legislative Branch 
     toward the Executive Branch and unelected federal 
     bureaucrats.
       (b) It is the sense of the Congress that:
       (1) The House of Representatives and the Senate give 
     priority to the authorization of expired programs, with an 
     emphasis on federal programs which have been expired for more 
     than five years.
       (2) Congress should pass, and the President should sign 
     into law, legislation to amend the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 to require Congress to fund programs that are 
     currently unauthorized at 90 percent of prior fiscal year 
     levels.
       (3) Congress should pass, and the President should sign 
     into law, legislation to require the Congressional Budget 
     Office to prepare budget baselines based on the figures where 
     unauthorized programs are frozen and funded at 90 percent of 
     current levels.

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY 
                   AUDITS AND WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Each branch of government and every department and 
     agency has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that tax 
     dollars are spent in the most efficient and effective manner 
     possible and to eliminate mismanagement, waste, fraud, and 
     abuse.
       (2) A minimal measure of whether a department or agency is 
     upholding its fiduciary responsibility is its ability to pass 
     an audit.
       (3) The most recent audits for Fiscal Year 1999 revealed 
     that nine major agencies--the Departments of Agriculture, 
     Defense, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, 
     and Treasury and the Agency for International Development, 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and Office of Personnel 
     Management--could not provide clean financial statements.
       (4) Mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse cost American 
     taxpayers billions of dollars.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     no agency or department which has failed its most recent 
     audit should receive an increase in their budget over the 
     previous year, unless the availability of the increased funds 
     is contingent upon the completion of a clean audit.

     SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE USE OF FEDERAL SURPLUS 
                   FUNDS TO INVEST IN PRIVATE SECURITIES.

       It is the Sense of Congress that Congress should pass, and 
     the President should sign into law, legislation codifying a 
     general prohibition on the use of Federal surplus by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to make investments in securities 
     (within the meaning of the securities laws of the United 
     States) other than government securities.

     SEC. 18. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FULLY FUNDING SPECIAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) all children deserve a quality education, including 
     children with disabilities;
       (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     provides that the Federal, State and local governments are to 
     share in the expense of educating children with disabilities 
     and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of 
     the national average per pupil expenditure for children with 
     disabilities;
       (3) the high cost of educating children with disabilities 
     and the Federal Government's failure to fully meet its 
     obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act stretches limited State and local education funds, 
     creating difficulty in providing a quality education to all 
     students, including children with disabilities;
       (4) the current level of Federal funding to States and 
     localities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act is contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with 
     disabilities receive a quality education;
       (5) the Federal Government has failed to fully fund the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and appropriate 
     40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure per 
     child with a disability as required under the Act to assist 
     States and localities to educate children with disabilities;


       (A) New budget authority, $33,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,417,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,714,000,000.

[[Page 4785]]

       (B) Outlays, $35,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,841,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,819,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,825,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,745,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,601,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,796,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,183,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,967,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,233,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $110,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $110,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $125,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $134,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $148,706,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $156,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,127,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,085,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $212,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $227,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $226,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,281,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $321,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $346,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,436,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $371,993,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,675,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $339,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $352,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $378,665,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $378,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,469,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $430,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $430,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $460,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $492,688,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $492,601,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $319,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $332,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $348,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,130,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $350,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:

[[Page 4786]]

       (A) New budget authority, $371,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,313,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,446,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,496,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,388,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,615,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,036,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,637,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,538,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,543,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,347,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,665,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,284,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,278,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,568,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,048,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $251,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,958,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $194,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,136,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$665,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$44,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$44,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,988,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the 
     House a reconciliation bill not later than May 2, 2001, that 
     consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues by not more 
     than: $34,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $41,200,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2003, $46,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $49,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $62,600,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $737,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2002 through 2011.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FUND FOR ELECTION REFORM.

       In the House, whenever a bill is reported, or an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, to provide comprehensive election reform (that 
     includes provisions to provide matching grants to States and 
     localities to upgrade voting equipment with an 80/20 Federal/
     State-locality match), the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may, for any of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     increase any allocations and aggregates of new budget 
     authority (and outlays resulting therefrom) up to the amount 
     provided by that measure for that purpose (and make all other 
     appropriate adjustments). The total adjustments made under 
     this section for any fiscal year may not exceed $500,000,000.

[[Page 4787]]



     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS.

       In the House, whenever a bill is reported, or an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, to provide comprehensive medicare prescription 
     drug coverage for all beneficiaries with an 80/20 Federal/
     beneficiary match, and provisions to allow for reimportation 
     and bulk purchase discounts, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may, for any of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, 
     increase any allocations and aggregates of new budget 
     authority (and outlays resulting therefrom) up to the amount 
     provided by that measure for that purpose (and make all other 
     appropriate adjustments). The total adjustments made under 
     this section may not exceed $500,000,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  A budget is a plan. It shows what we stand for. It measures that 
commitment in dollars. The Progressive Caucus budget stands for 
building enough schools, hiring enough teachers to create the 18-
student classrooms ideal for learning, affordable prescription drugs 
for everyone, 100 percent government help to lower the price of 
prescription drugs, and an 80 percent direct assistance on Medicare, 
enough polling booths to accurately record the votes of every American, 
building affordable new housing, cutting wasteful spending in the 
Department of Defense.
  The Progressive Caucus budget will give every American a $300 
dividend as a fair share of the budget surplus. We have set aside one-
third of the budget surplus to give the American people their dividend.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look at the Progressive Caucus 
budget, take a measure of our commitment. You will see that the caucus 
leads in advancing education, affordable prescription drugs, accurate 
elections, affordable housing, and government efficiency, and we 
provide more tax relief for average Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate a vitally important 
point that the American people need to remember as they listen to this 
debate. The Republican budget pays off as much of the publicly held 
debt as can be paid without incurring a significant financial penalty. 
This is a logical point that I as a new Member of Congress was not 
aware of until as a member of the Committee on the Budget we listened 
to the testimony of the experts. I sought very carefully to find the 
truth of this matter and determined as logically and clearly as I could 
see that a bond can only be paid off within the time period specified 
in the life of the bond; and clearly, all of the Americans out there 
listening to me know that if you have a bond fund and you as a bond 
holder expect to be paid on a regular schedule, want to be paid off 
early, you are going to get a premium for being paid off early.
  The Republican budget, as confirmed by the testimony given to the 
Committee on the Budget, pays off as much publicly held debt as can be 
paid without incurring a penalty. The chart that we prepared shows what 
we are paying off. This is the amount of the national debt after a 10-
year period. Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is, everyone acknowledges, an 
objective, impartial observer, said in his testimony to the Committee 
on the Budget that we are paying off all of the Federal debt by the end 
of this decade. In fact, Chairman Greenspan points out that we need to 
think about what happens when we have eliminated all publicly held 
debt.
  The Progressive budget, the amendment before the House offered by the 
Democrats, seeks to pay off $747 billion more debt than can be paid off 
without incurring a penalty. If we adopt the amendment offered by the 
Democrats, the American taxpayers will incur a very significant 
financial penalty. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that 
the penalty that the American taxpayers will incur will exceed $100 
billion.
  Why should we incur this additional penalty? Why should we saddle the 
American taxpayer, who is already overtaxed, with an additional 
penalty?
  The Republican budget alternative I want to stress pays off every 
single penny of this debt that can be paid off, and I think it is also 
vitally important for the American public as they listen to this debate 
to think about the implications of paying off more publicly held debt. 
Once all of that debt is paid off, we reach a point, as Chairman 
Greenspan said in his testimony, where once all the debt is eliminated, 
what is the Treasury going to do with all of this additional money that 
is coming in that is above and beyond what is necessary to pay for 
government programs and since there is no more publicly held debt to 
pay off, what do we do with all of that extra cash?
  Chairman Greenspan said in his testimony he believes for long-term 
fiscal stability that it is far better for the Nation that the tax 
surpluses, and they are tax surpluses because we are being overtaxed, 
that the tax surpluses be lowered by tax reductions rather than by 
spending increases.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman from Texas 
that our budget would give $151 million to Texas for energy assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), one of the architects of this budget.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The question here is are we going to have a people's budget, a budget 
that addresses the real needs and priorities of average Americans; or 
are we going to have a special-interest budget that cuts the programs 
important to most Americans in their daily lives, such as education, 
Medicare and others, and returns to the days of huge deficits? If we 
care about education, school construction, smaller class size, Pell 
grants to access higher education; if we care about Head Start, if we 
care about a real Medicare prescription-drug benefit, not a subsidy to 
the pharmaceutical industry, they are doing just fine, thank you very 
much. If we care about election reform, if we care about real tax cuts 
targeted to average Americans and not to those at the very top who have 
done so well already, then the Progressive budget is a much and far 
better alternative than the Republican budget.

                              {time}  1130

  It pays down more debt more quickly, despite this new concern about 
the Republicans about not paying down the debt too fast. No, that is a 
sham.
  Then, if we are concerned about our veterans, we had better fund our 
veterans, particularly for the aging veterans population, World War II 
and Korea. If we care about our young men and women in the military, 
their quality of life, we will vote for this budget.
  Yes, if Members care about the continuing waste at the Pentagon, I 
hear again and again, do not throw money at problems, do not throw 
money at problems. The Pentagon has huge problems. They cannot keep 
track of the money they spend. They are still paying $400 for $40 
items. They have spent $50 billion on Star Wars, and they cannot hit 
anything. They have three new jet fighter programs in the works, two of 
which are over budget, behind schedule; a new helicopter that does not 
work, cannot meet its mission, way over budget.
  They have huge management problems at the Pentagon, and their answer 
is throw more money at them. If it were any other part of the Federal 
budget, if it is education or the concerns of average Americans, no, we 
cannot put more money there. Do not throw Federal money at it. But the 
Pentagon, yes, throw more money at it.
  This budget essentially does all the things the American people need 
most, and reforms the Pentagon and pays down the debt. This is the best 
alternative before the Congress today.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller), a member of the Committee.

[[Page 4788]]


  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, we 
talk about education. We in our budget have proposed an increase in 
education, yet the proposal we have before us today is more mandates 
for local school districts. It says, when you are through hiring 
100,000 teachers, we want you to hire another 100,000 counselors.
  Well, maybe schools do not want counselors; maybe they need 
facilities, maybe they need money for special education. Maybe they do 
need money for counselors, but if they do not, we should not mandate 
them.
  What we should do is tell education and the institutions associated 
with it that, here is the money; they know the needs of their children, 
they know the names of their children: Educate their children.
  We have many Members coming before the House as if poor people only 
come in one color. There are black, white, brown, and red poor people. 
I know when I was a young man, I was raised by a single mother with my 
grandparents. We were poor. I remember coming home from school one day 
driving in a bus in seventh grade, and having the two boys before me, 
when we were driving on my street, they said, ``Can you imagine anyone 
having to live on that street?'' I never knew until that day I was 
poor.
  When I decided to start a business, I had an old van that used more 
oil than gas. Every tool I had came in a cardboard box in the back. 
What did government do? Every time I tried to better myself, they took 
more of my money. All the Tax Code does today is build a wall between 
poor people and success and says, ``We are going to hold you down,'' 
because every time somebody works harder, every time they make more 
money, we take more money from them as government.
  We need to allow the working people of this Nation to keep their 
money, and people in Congress need to realize it is the money belonging 
to the people who earned it, it is not our money, because government 
does not earn any money.
  Some say it is too much of a tax cut, that we want to eliminate the 
tax cut, we want to use it for new programs that the government thinks 
are better programs. Then one will say, we need to pay down more debt.
  Our budget pays down every bit of the available debt that we have 
over a 10-year period. Members can go beyond that and say, we are going 
to pay our debt that is not due. First of all, we have to find somebody 
who wants to allow us to pay off debt that is not due. If we do find 
those people, I guarantee Members, we will pay a premium to pay off 
that debt.
  We need reasonable government, reasonable structure, as the private 
sector has. We pay our debts as they come due. We are saying we are 
going to do that, but we want to go farther. We want to tell the 
American people that they earned their money. We want them to succeed. 
We want to give them more than lip service.
  When we tell people they do not deserve a tax cut, we are giving them 
lip service when it comes to them being successful in life. Let us 
allow people to succeed. Let us allow people to be entrepreneurs if 
they want to, to take advantage of the capitalistic system we have out 
there, a free-market system. If people want to work, want to work 
harder, let them keep more of their money.
  Their budget does not do that, our budget does that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure my good friend, the gentleman 
from California, that California would get $306 million in energy 
assistance under our bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Solis), who is someone who fights for the economic rights of her 
people.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my full support for the Progressive 
Caucus budget resolution, which provides responsible and just resources 
for all Americans.
  Unlike the Republican-proposed budget, which would ravage any 
reliable social programs that serve our Nation's poor, hard-working 
Americans, the Progressive Caucus would offer a fair tax without 
sacrificing the welfare of any of our citizens.
  On the other hand, the Republican budget alternative would absolutely 
devastate the people in my district. They get no benefit from this 
budget. The majority of the people in my district make $31,000 a year. 
They get absolutely zero. The glass is empty. It is not even half full 
for them.
  I am asking Members to consider alternatives that we are putting 
forward in the Progressive Caucus budget which would add and actually 
double grants, Pell grants, for needy students who would have a first 
chance, many the first in their family, to go forward and get a good 
education. Let us not leave any child behind. Let us not leave any 
minority or low-income student behind. Let us give them that education.
  Let us also not rob those senior citizens that rely on MediCal and 
Social Security. There are thousands of senior citizens who need that 
support, many who have paid into the system. This is their money. They 
have worked many, many years here in our country to build this economy. 
Let us make sure that it goes back to their pockets, to those programs 
that they vitally need to survive.
  I would also ask that we consider looking at what is happening right 
now in America. What we are talking about is an energy crisis in 
California, and we are talking about that happening all over the 
country. We really need to focus in on how we are going to provide some 
relief.
  In California we know the experiment did not work. Let us not make 
that something that other States adopt as well. Let us move forward. 
Let us provide relief where it is needed. It is our money; send it back 
home. Vote for the Progressive Caucus budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the chairman on putting 
together a mighty fine budget. Having chaired the Committee on Ways and 
Means in South Carolina, I recognize the difficulty of trying to match 
all the needs and all the requirements that are out there in this 
Nation with the limited resources we have.
  But I applaud the gentleman and the other members of the Committee 
for standing firm that we would address the major issues that are 
facing this country, one being paying down the debt, and the other 
being returning some of the excess money back to those people that 
worked hard to make this great Nation strong, and giving some of that 
money back to them.
  Our goal was to save Social Security, we have done that; to repay the 
debt, and we have a program to do that; improving education and 
returning tax overcharges back to our citizens, and those are being 
accomplished in this budget. I applaud the chairman and the other 
members of the committee for making that happen.
  We all know that paying down the debt will mean better interest rates 
for all Americans. The Progressive Caucus budget calls for $745 billion 
more debt reduction than the committee's budget during the years 2002 
to 2011. To achieve this, however, the government will either pay a 
penalty premium to retire ``unredeemable'' debt, or will build up cash 
surpluses which would be invested in private equities, introducing 
government ownership of the private economy.
  We are making the strongest strides possible without unwise 
penalties. In 2002, we will eliminate some $213 billion in debt; in 5 
years we will be up to $1.2 trillion; and in 10 years, $2.34 trillion.
  In defense, we have made a decision that policy would drive the 
budget for defense, not dollars.
  Another great concern of mine surrounds the Armed Forces budget. 
While the committee budget recognizes both immediate and long-term 
defense needs, the Progressive Caucus budget cuts deeply in defense. It 
provides $753

[[Page 4789]]

billion less in budget authority and $698 billion less in outlays 
during the years 2002 to 2011 than does the committee budget.
  The quality of life for our Armed Forces personnel and their families 
is a priority in the House Republican budget, including increased pay, 
better housing, and $3.9 billion for the first year of expanded health 
benefits for over-65 military retirees.
  The progressive budget slashes funds for national defense. We cannot 
afford to neglect our Armed Forces any longer. I applaud the chairman 
for supporting the committee budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend from South Carolina should be delighted to 
know our budget includes an additional $45.5 million for energy 
assistance for the people of his great State.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis), a fighter for the people of Chicago.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the need for public housing, 
low- and moderate-income housing, housing for the homeless, housing for 
veterans, housing for people with AIDS, all of these needs are well 
defined and well documented, yet the Bush budget cuts $859 million from 
the public housing budget.
  We all know about the problems of drugs in public housing, yet the 
Bush budget takes $316 million from drug elimination grants. The Bush 
budget cuts $422 million from the Community Development Block Grants 
program, $200 million from home housing block grants, $640 million from 
Section 8. It is unbelievable.
  Mr. Chairman, these cuts can do nothing but leave pain, frustration, 
and blood. I hope that people will know how to bleed with compassion, 
because these cuts surely are not. When we cut, cut, cut, and cut, all 
that we get is blood, blood, blood, and blood. The blood of the 
American people will be on the heads of those who wielded the knife.
  On the other hand, the Progressive Caucus has a budget which invests 
$2 billion per year in affordable housing, gives increased funding for 
Section 8 by $575 million to provide 100,000 more vouchers; $500 
million more to address the backlog of public housing; a 50 percent 
increase for the Child Care Block Grant program, and a $200 million 
increase for homeless assistance grants.
  This is the kind of budget, Mr. Chairman, that we need. This is the 
kind of progressive budget that I would be pleased to vote for. So I 
urge support for the Progressive Caucus' budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Committee on the 
Budget's budget. This is a budget that balances very clearly the need 
to provide tax relief for working Americans, the need to save and 
protect Social Security, the need to pay down our Nation's debt, and, 
yes, the need to meet unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government.
  I would commend our chairman, who has led the way every single year 
that he has been on this Committee on the Budget, and now as chairman, 
in finding the necessary resources to significantly increase funding 
not only for education programs, but most specifically the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
  Every year that I have been in this Congress, as contrasted with the 
years prior to me being in Congress, funding for this critical program 
has increased. I am pleased to say that this year in this budget we 
have set aside $1.25 billion to increase the part B IDEA funding 
program. It was never done before, and it is testimony to this 
chairman's commitment to IDEA as a program.
  I will yield to the chairman for a couple of clarifications on this 
ground-breaking accomplishment. The fact is that the reserve fund 
allocation of $1.250 billion is intended solely for the part B IDEA 
grants to States, not just IDEA-related funding generally.
  Now, the report specifies that the IDEA reserve fund is for part B, 
but the resolution does not. I was wondering if the chairman would 
respond to that briefly.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, number one.
  Number two, we anticipate that the Committee on Appropriations will 
provide and other committees will provide the continued flexibility so 
that States and local school districts can meet the challenges of IDEA.
  While the gentleman gave me some of the credit for that, and I 
appreciate that because it is a labor of love for me, there has been no 
one in this Congress who has held the banner any higher than the 
gentleman from New Hampshire.
  I want to show Members what the gentleman has accomplished. This is 
the gentleman's work, I say to the gentleman from New Hampshire, since 
he has been here in Congress, these kinds of increases for special 
education. We are going to build on this average annual increase of 23 
percent for special education.
  While we celebrate that in this speech here today, we are not where 
we want to be yet. It is a labor of love for us. It is a labor of 
intellectual honesty, as well, of unfunded mandates. We are going to 
keep that fight going, but we have accomplished quite a bit in this 
budget. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to emphasize, 
carrying on the point of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), that 
this is not necessarily instructions to the Committee on Appropriations 
to cap the fund at this amount. They are more than welcome to increase 
it above that. We certainly encourage them to increase the part B 
funding above that $1.25 or 1 and a quarter billion dollars, if they 
choose to do so.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. It is a commitment of that $1.25 billion, yes, number 
one, but, more importantly, as the gentleman knows, the House should 
work, under the circumstances will, to increase that as much as 
possible to meet its commitment to special education.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass), my good friend, he will be glad to know this 
budget does not leave the people of New Hampshire out in the cold. We 
have $53 million for energy assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner), who is a champion of veterans rights.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as the ranking member of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, in support of the 
Progressive Caucus budget, and to say that the Republican budget on the 
floor does not meet the needs of our veterans.
  The budget this year not only provides merely for an inflationary 
increase for our health care for our veterans, but in the 2nd and the 
3rd years of this budget, it actually is a decrease for our veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) can explain 
why our veterans in the years 2002 and 2003 of the budget resolution 
are cut from in the budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. We will get back to the gentleman.
  When we have a veterans community that is waiting up to 2 years for 
health appointments, when we have 500,000 claims backlogged at this 
moment, claims for adjudication of benefits that are mounting at 
$10,000 a week, this budget that the Progressive Caucus has

[[Page 4790]]

meets those needs, whereas the budget resolution of the Republicans 
does not.
  Our budget is supported by those who made up the independent budget, 
a coalition of veterans groups who said that the President's budget is 
short and the budget was short by up to $2 billion.
  This is what we need for our veterans. We need to make sure that 
their health care is provided for in a timely basis; that their claims 
are adjudicated in a timely fashion.
  We have a GI bill today, Mr. Chairman, that pays merely $500 a month 
to go to school. You cannot go to college with that kind of stipend. 
The Progressive Caucus budget actually begins to fund the Montgomery GI 
bill so we have a benefit that means something for our veterans.
  It is a decade since the Persian Gulf War. We do not know what caused 
that illness, and we have no treatment for it. The budget of the 
majority has no funds for research into the Persian Gulf War illness. I 
can go on and on.
  I say to the majority, my colleagues do not have a surplus unless we 
paid the bills. We have not paid our bills to our Nation's veterans. We 
have not lived up to our commitment. Vote for the Progressive Caucus 
budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer the 
question of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The Progressive Caucus say they spend more on veterans. Well, that is 
interesting. I appreciate that the Progressive Caucus may spend more, 
but evidently it is spent in the wrong places, because it is the 
Republican budget that has been applauded and endorsed by the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the American Legion, the AMVETS, the 
Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and 
the VFW.
  So I guess the gentleman can make his claims, but the veterans are on 
the side of the budget that we have here as the base bill today.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I asked the gentleman to yield. The gentleman did not 
yield.
  Mr. FILNER. The gentleman did not answer my question.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I certainly would be willing to do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds and say I am very 
happy to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), but I 
would appreciate the same courtesy allowed to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Crenshaw), my friend and member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things wrong with this 
Progressive budget, but probably the most important thing that is wrong 
with it is the way it slashes defense spending.
  I happen to believe that the number one responsibility of the Federal 
Government is to protect American lives, and the only way you keep 
America safe is you keep America strong. This budget moves in the wrong 
direction.
  In the last 8 years, we watched our military get hollowed out, 
reduced by 40 percent; and, yet, deployment has increased almost 400 
percent. We sent our troops gallivanting all over the world; and, 
today, the young men and women in uniform are worried about the 
direction that we are going to take.
  I would say this budget as it is slashes defense spending. It does 
not recognize the world as it is today. The Cold War is over, yes, but 
we still face nuclear proliferation, non-State terrorists groups, world 
criminal elements with tentacles all over the world, and I think we 
have to recognize that.
  We have to make America strong again, and that is what our budget 
does. It increases defense spending almost 5 percent. It adds $5.6 
billion to begin to increase the pay of our military, give them better 
housing, give them health care benefits. Already, you can see the 
morale is boosted among our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget spends $2.6 billion on research and 
development. It is a down payment for what we need to spend in the 
future. The President believes, and I believe, that we ought to have a 
top-to-bottom review, so that our defense strategy will drive our 
defense spending and not the other way around.
  It is a time of transition, a time of testing, and we do not want to 
go out and spend money on technology that might not work or be 
available.
  And once this top-to-bottom review is finished, once our President 
and our military leaders know the direction we want to take and have a 
clear vision, I am confident he will come back to this Congress, ask 
for our help, and we will give him the necessary resources.
  Let us not go backwards and continue to hollow our military; let us 
move forward and make America strong again.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Crenshaw), my very good friend, would be delighted to know there is $91 
million for energy assistance in our budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I would like the gentlewoman to know how much 
we appreciate her leadership on housing issues.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we speak, one part of the Progressive Caucus budget 
has already become well known in the country; that is, our American 
people's dividend which, as it appears, may well be introduced in the 
Senate. We proposed $300 per family member. The Senate looks like it is 
going to promote $300 per worker. I would just as soon declare victory 
if Senators did, because it would return us to the proud tradition of 
progressive taxation long associated with the Federal Tax Code.
  This is allegedly a quick fix. It certainly is, because that is all 
this economy needs now. Witness the Consumer Confidence Index that came 
out yesterday, which was way up above expectations. If we need more, we 
can revisit the tax cut later.
  One part of the Progressive budget that I would like to focus on is 
the forgotten stepchild of the Federal budget, that is, affordable 
housing. We have experienced the biggest housing boom of the century, 
and the worst housing bust for affordable housing since the Great 
Depression.
  As the economy has spun up, housing costs have spun out of control. 
There is zero, amazingly zero, for affordable housing in the majority's 
budget. The Progressive Caucus budget would give $2 billion. Amazingly, 
the majority actually cuts public housing repairs by $1 billion. We 
would increase it $500 million, because at the very least, we ought to 
save what pitiful housing stock we already have invested in.
  There is more than enough tax cut to pay for help for affordable 
housing for working people. We would only make a start with our budget. 
Surely, a start is what working people are entitled to.
  The Progressive Caucus budget focuses on the documented priorities of 
the American people: Affordable housing, prescription drugs, money for 
school construction and funds to reduce class size and electoral 
reform, finally.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address 
this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things I am reminded of as a freshman in 
this body is how diverse our land really is and how diverse the 
viewpoints are that come to Congress and stakeout their positions. The 
Progressive Caucus has laid out an interesting blueprint for the future 
of this country.
  It has gutted defense allocations. It says to those young soldiers 
and sailors who are out there keeping the peace, defending the freedoms 
that we take for granted each and every day, it says to them that you 
are not our highest priority; that national defense is not our highest 
priority.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that if that is progress, then I would 
rather stay put. I submit that that is regressive. We are going in the 
wrong direction.

[[Page 4791]]

  Progress would be to look those soldiers and sailors in the eye and 
say we are behind you 100 percent. America supports the efforts and the 
dedication and the commitment that you display each and every day and 
the Congress will back up your sacrifice in a very meaningful and real 
way.
  The Progressive Caucus budget does not address principle-based tax 
relief, the principle that it is wrong to tax people after they have 
died. It is wrong to treat people differently in the Tax Code because 
they choose to get married.
  It does not address those bedrock foundation principles that 
government should not be involved in allocating how people run their 
lives based on the Tax Code. When it comes to education, it does not 
address the situation with individuals with disabilities, a very 
important issue that we have set aside, a tremendous trust fund in the 
Committee on the Budget presentation of the budget to address those 
needs.
  It adds Federal mandates to those local school teachers, the local 
principals and counselors from California to Florida, from Maine to 
Texas who are trying day in and day out to treat the young people with 
respect, who inculcate in them the lessons of life instead of freeing 
them up to do what they do best. It adds another Federal mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the Federal Department of DOE has 
never graduated a single student. They have never had the first parent-
teacher conference, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge 
this body to reject the regressive caucus position on the budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), 
I am sure, would be pleased to know that our budget provides $51 
million for child care.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), who is a strong defender of the rights of workers.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the majority party here, the Republicans, 
are seeking to sell their budget principally by advancing a huge tax 
reduction, and they claim to justify that huge tax reduction by saying 
that it is the people's money and they want to give that money back to 
the people.
  First of all, that assertion is simply false. The biggest bulk of the 
tax cut goes to a tiny fraction of the American people, the wealthiest 
people in the country get the most reduction. If you are a millionaire, 
you will receive a reduction of about $50,000 when their budget and 
their tax cut is fully implemented.
  The rest of the people in the country get very little and most of 
them get nothing.
  If we were really interested in putting the people's money back in 
the pockets, in the hands of people so they could go to a 7-Eleven and 
make the purchase that was talked about a few moments ago, we would 
adopt the Progressive budget; that puts more money into the hands of 
more people sooner than the Republican tax cut does.
  Yes, it is the people's money, but it is also the people's Social 
Security. The Republican budget cuts Social Security. It is also the 
people's Medicare. The Republican budget cuts Medicare. Their budget 
takes fully $1 trillion out of Social Security and Medicare in a bogus 
attempt to fund a prescription drug program, by which they subsidize 
the insurance companies and would provide very little in the way of 
prescription drugs to the people who really need them.
  If we are interested in doing something for health care, adopt the 
Progressive budget. If we are interested in putting money in the hands 
of the people who can use it and would spend it, adopt the Progressive 
budget. If you are interested in doing something about education 
improving the quality of education for all the people of this country, 
adopt the Progressive budget, therein lies the solution to much of our 
economic problems not in the Republican budget.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Show me where it shows Medicare or a Social Security cut in here. 
Show me a Medicare cut in here. Come over here and show me. It is not 
in our budget. My colleagues know it is not. Let us not use war of 
words like that. Show me the cut. We have a difference of opinion on 
how to get there, but do not tell me.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to come over here and 
show me the cut.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Come here and show me the cut.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? If the gentleman 
will yield and give me an opportunity, I would be happy to show it to 
him.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the committee 
budget. It is a good budget. It meets our priorities. I am interested 
to hear my friends from the Progressive Caucus. They represent the 
liberal wing of their party, and I will be speaking for the 
conservative wing when we have the Republican Study Committee budget 
coming up.
  But I heard the tax cut attacked in this committee budget, that it 
was giving the money away to the wealthiest taxpayers. It does no such 
thing except it does give the money back to the people who paid the 
taxes. Thank heavens we do not live in a socialist republic yet, 
although perhaps if my friends in the Progressive Caucus have their 
way, we may get that. But thankfully, we still believe in equality 
under the law, and we do not believe it is just to take from one to 
give to another. So this is simply giving the money back to the people 
who pay the tax.
  On the question of taxes, Mr. Chairman, I note that our budget here 
lets taxpayers keep substantially more of their own earnings, $1.6 
billion over 10 years versus the less than $700 million under the 
Progressive budget.
  Every American who pays income taxes receives tax relief under the 
House Republican budget. Only a select few get tax relief under the 
Progressive Caucus plan.
  The other thing I would like to focus on in my remaining time is the 
question of defense. While the committee budget recognizes both the 
immediate and long-term defense needs, the Progressive budget cuts 
defense deeply. It provides $753 billion less in budget authority than 
does ours.
  Now, we all know the quality of life for armed forces personnel.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
misstatement of fact?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I do not have the time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will not yield for a 
misstatement of fact?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the quality of life for armed forces 
personnel and their families is a priority in the House Republican 
budget. We need to do something for our men and women in the Armed 
Forces, and this does it.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the courtesy of all Members on both 
sides of the aisle to only speak to the Chair when under recognition. 
Members apparently have great passions and great interests on all sides 
of this issue, but the Chair would ask that Members respect the rules 
of the House.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Budget Proposal 
submitted by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
  This budget delivers what the Republican budget promises--substantial 
and equal tax relief for all Americans.
  Over ten years, this budget would provide the American People's 
Dividend--$300 annually to every man, woman, and child, as long as the 
budget surplus exists.
  Many people may think that $300 is not a lot of money. But for a 
working family of four

[[Page 4792]]

with two children, the Progressive Caucus budget represents an extra 
$1,200 that could be applied toward basic needs like school shoes, 
winter coats, and groceries.
  On the other hand, the Republicans have proposed giving 42 percent of 
the tax benefits to the wealthiest 1% of the population--essentially, a 
new luxury automobile. The bottom 95 percent would receive less than 
half of the benefit.
  The Progressive Caucus has focused upon spreading relief around 
equally, to help people to deal with the skyrocketing costs of housing, 
medicine, college education and other elements that we consider part of 
the American dream. The American people are fair people. The 
Progressive Caucus budget is a fair budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
would be pleased to learn that, in his State, which had a 40 percent 
increase in utility rates yesterday, there is a $306 million amount for 
energy assistance under this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think most people in this country know what is going 
on today. At a time when the wealthiest 1 percent of the population own 
more wealth than the bottom 95 percent, at a time when CEOs of major 
corporations now earn 500 times more than their workers, at a time when 
the wealthiest people in large corporations flood the United States 
Congress with all kinds of money, Mr. Chairman, this is payback time. 
That is what is going on.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the previous speaker, 
made a funny remark. He said the Progressive Caucus is only providing 
tax relief to, I believe he said, the select few. Do my colleagues know 
who the select few is? It is the middle class and the working class of 
this country, the vast majority.
  Yes, we plead guilty. We are not providing 43 percent of the tax 
breaks to the richest 1 percent. We are apologetic about that, but we 
think the middle class, the working class, the people who are working 
50 and 60 hours a week, who are making $30,000, $40,000 a year, need 
the help and not the millionaires and the billionaires.
  The issue that I want to focus on and urge people to vote for the 
Progressive Caucus budget on is prescription drugs. The Progressive 
Caucus says it is absurd that, at a time when the pharmaceutical 
industry is enjoying record-breaking profits, that the American people 
have to pay by far the highest prices in the industrialized world for 
prescription drugs.
  We say that every American senior citizen is entitled to prescription 
drugs because they are a citizen in this country and because they are 
on Medicare, and no senior should pay more than 20 percent out-of-
pocket for their prescription drugs.
  We do this in a number of ways, but one of them is by doing away with 
the loopholes in last year's reimportation bill. We say that, if people 
in Europe can pay 30 or 40 or 50 percent for the same exact 
prescription drug that our people are paying for, then prescription 
drug distributors and pharmacists should be able to bring that drug 
into this country and sell it to the American people for the same 
price.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
that he has 45 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close 
the debate.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), a champion of women and children's issues.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how Congress chooses to spend our Federal 
funds says a great deal about who we are as leaders, who we are as 
people, and who we are as a Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the President may say that he supports improving 
education, but the Republican budget fails to reflect on that priority. 
It fails to reflect what he said during the campaign, that he wants to 
leave no child behind.
  In order to truly support children, we must invest in education at 
every level. The progressive budget does just that by increasing 
funding to hire new teachers, by improving teacher compensation, by 
supporting school renovation, and by helping schools to invest in 
technology.
  Rather than cutting millions of dollars from Head Start, as the 
Republican budget does, the Progressive Caucus budget fully funds Head 
Start. It adds $11.5 billion to the Head Start program. This way, we 
will leave no child behind.
  Like my Progressive Caucus colleagues, I also believe that one of our 
national priorities in order to invest in our children must be to 
greatly increase the role of renewable energy sources, energy 
efficiency, and conservation measures. In that way, we will be able to 
meet our future energy needs. In that way, we can invest in our 
environment and at the same time invest in our children and in our 
Nation's future.
  Lastly, the Republican budget increases military spending while 
making deep cuts in children's programs. This sends a message loud and 
clear to our children about what we value in this Nation. It tells them 
that we value weapons more than we value them. I believe that our 
Nation's strength is in our children. Our children are our national 
security, and we must support them.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens), a person who in this House really works very hard 
for school construction.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for bringing a budget to the floor which represents 
reality. It is very close to the reality experienced by the American 
people.
  In the area of education, it is proposing to expend about $110 
billion over the next 5 years. That is closer to what is really needed. 
Among those needs that will be addressed is the need for school 
construction, modernization, and renovation.
  I want to bring my colleagues' attention to the fact that President 
Bush has taken a step backwards with respect to school construction and 
renovations. We appropriated $1.2 billion last year. Now the President 
refuses to expend that funding on school repairs and renovations, and 
he has nothing in the ongoing budget to continue any school repairs and 
renovations.
  We made a major breakthrough, and now this President who proposes to 
leave no child behind is going to leave no child behind with arsenic in 
the water, with more carbon dioxide in the air, and unsafe schools that 
do not encourage learning, unsafe buildings.
  So we would like to stress the fact that we have made a breakthrough. 
This budget continues that.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit a letter that was sent to President Bush 
on February 6, 2001, by 141 Members of the House asking him to 
appropriate the money that was put in the budget last year.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Hilliard).
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the dangers to our 
great Nation, not from outside enemies, but from those within. These 
enemies are ignorance, poverty, crime, diseases, the destruction of our 
countryside, and most importantly, corporate greed.
  I believe that the most powerful Nation in the world, this country, 
can cope militarily with the weaponry it has.
  Rather than lining the pockets of the rich with a huge, unfair tax 
cut, and pumping our Nation's resources into the pockets of military 
contractors, we need to repair and build new schools and fund a 
complete medical system for everyone.
  Mr. Chairman, the Progressive budget protects all the American 
people, and the majority budget is a danger to the health and welfare 
of the American people.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.

[[Page 4793]]

  Mr. Chairman, our budget gives money to the troops for housing, for 
wage increases. Our budget takes money away from weapons systems which 
do not work. There has been 7.6 trillion in accounting entries in the 
Pentagon; and of that, 2.3 trillion were not supported by enough 
evidence to determine their validity.
  The Department of Defense stores nearly 30 billion worth of spare 
parts it does not need, according to the GAO. The GAO also reports that 
the Navy recently wrote off as lost over $3 billion worth of intransit 
inventory, and the Air Force is missing over 2.3 billion in stock.
  Today's defense budget is 80 percent of the amount allocated during 
the height of the Cold War and is 15 percent higher than in real terms 
than when Mr. Rumsfeld left the Pentagon in the 1970s.
  We need to pay attention to housing, to education, to opportunities 
for all Americans and adopt this progressive budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to close the debate on behalf of the Progressive 
Caucus.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, everything in the majority's budget revolves around a 
$2.6 trillion tax cut of which 43 percent will go to the people in the 
top 1 percent, people who average over $912,000 a year.
  In order to do that, they are going to cut education, Head Start. 
They are going to jeopardize Medicare, Social Security. They are going 
to pay down the debt more slowly than the Progressive alternative.
  We have offered a responsible alternative based in reality. We are 
not going to spend the money before it comes in. One-third for debt 
reduction, one-third for the priorities of the American people, and 
one-third for targeted tax cuts. Yes, targeted tax cuts toward middle-
income families who are struggling to make ends meet, not the people at 
$920,000 a year. I have not noticed that they are having such a hard 
time.
  It is time that the Federal Government began to pay attention to the 
needs of average Americans in this country, not just the special 
interests and the wealthy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, since no one has shown me the Medicare or 
Social Security cuts in my budget, I yield the balance of our time to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget, and I 
really question the competence of those who wrote it. This budget pays 
massive prepayment penalties on the U.S. debt to wealthy bondholders. 
If one wants to extract hard-working taxpayers' money and give it to 
rich people, then vote for the Progressive budget because we would pay 
those penalties to wealthy Americans.
  I would say for all of those who have looked at the charts of either 
side showing steep cuts in the Medicare fiscal viability as the baby 
boom generation retires, adding money to Medicare without Medicare 
reform is like arguing about whether we can afford dessert in the 
cafeteria of the Titanic.
  Our budget lays the groundwork for bipartisan reform on Medicare, 
ensuring that Medicare will survive into the future as the baby boomers 
retire. This budget includes a prescription-drug benefit. This budget 
operates under the key principle that Medicare should offer health care 
coverage as good as the one offered Congressmen.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Progressive Caucus 
Budget.
  This budget reflects the real priorities of the American people, not 
big business, wealthy campaign donors, or big oil companies. Working 
families want us to improve education, health care, and the economy.
  We respond by spending $110 billion on education--for more teachers, 
school renovation, and school counselors. We double Head Start and 
triple funding for new schools.
  The Progressive Caucus Budget offers the only substantial Medicare 
prescription drug program--one that includes an 80/20 federal/
beneficiary cost sharing. Our plan would help millions of Americans 
struggling to pay the high costs of prescription drugs.
  Our budget is also designed to stimulate the economy. We provide for 
a $900 billion tax cut, by providing $300 annually to every man, woman, 
and child in America. Our plan would actually provide more tax relief 
to more people than the Administration plan. In fact, 80% of the 
American people would get more money from the Progressive Caucus tax 
cut plan.
  Our tax cuts are enough to boost consumer confidence and keep the 
economy growing, but not so large and so unfair as to force harsh 
budget cuts or create new deficits. It is time to leave the Reagan/Bush 
deficit legacy behind once and for all.
  We also stimulate the economy with funds for new housing construction 
and badly needed energy assistance. We increase LIHEAP by 400 percent 
and weatherization programs by 650 percent. We cut nuclear power 
research and instead direct those funds to clean alternative energy 
research on wind and solar power development. Lowering energy costs, 
stimulating the economy, and creating a cleaner environment for our 
children and grandchildren.
  This plan may sound radical to some in Congress and especially those 
conservatives in the Administration, but to the American people its not 
radical, its common sense. Why not spend the surplus on education, 
health care, and the economy? Why not? Because President Bush wants to 
give wealthy individuals $46,000 dollars each instead. What a shame!
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the great Republican hero Ronald Reagan 
once said, ``Trust, but verify.'' That is wonderful advice coming from 
the icon of the Republican revolution. So, I decided to verify Bush's 
new budget.
  Of course, a major portion of Bush's proposal will include a $1.6 
trillion dollar tax cut. Now we all know that the American people need 
and deserve a tax break. But it turns out that 50% of the tax relief is 
going to the richest 5% of the population. The very wealthy can expect 
to get back $46,000, while low income families will get zero.
  Meanwhile, President Bush and the richest Cabinet in the history of 
this country are pushing for Estate Tax Relief. This will provide a tax 
kickback of over $100 million to President Bush and his cabinet.
  Bush's first budget cuts Head Start, Child Care, and Public Housing 
repairs.
  At least now we have verified who is paying for the kickbacks to 
Bush's rich friends. The nation's children and the poor.
  It was once said that the true measure of a society is in how it 
treats its least fortunate. That is why we must support the Progressive 
Caucus Budget. In my home state of Georgia, the budget increase for 
Head Start would serve over 20,000 children. The brave Americans who 
served our country would see big increases in Veterans Medical care and 
construction programs. Low-income families would benefit from increases 
in Section 8 vouchers and the Public Housing Capital Fund.
  We will pay for the Progressive Caucus budget by eliminating wasteful 
programs and corporate welfare, such as the tax deductibility of 
Tobacco advertising. We cut back on Star Wars, so that we can pay our 
military personnel what they deserve rather than increasing profits of 
defense contractors.
  The Progressive Caucus budget takes care of our nation's children, 
seniors, veterans, military personnel, and middle and low income 
families.
  Upon verification, the Bush plan will fill the coffers of big 
business at the expense of the hard working men and women of this 
country who created the prosperity that led to our budget surplus. Mr. 
Chairman, I challenge my colleagues to do what they know is right for 
their constituents, and support the Progressive budget.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Progressive Caucus's alternative budget resolution and in strong 
opposition to the Republican budget. It is clear which budget truly 
benefits the American people.
  Let me give you just a few examples of why we should support the 
Progressive Caucus budget.
  First, the Progressive Caucus budget places a priority on affordable 
housing, which is not only important in the Bay Area, including my 
congressional district, but also in many other parts of this country. 
Families are finding the American dream of homeownership harder and 
harder to attain and the Progressive Caucus budget takes low- and 
moderate-income Americans one step closer to realizing that dream. We 
include $2 billion for affordable housing construction. The Republican 
budget does not include one penny for this purpose. And in order to 
ensure that low-income families don't have to live in squalor in public 
housing, our budget includes a $500 million increase for public housing 
repairs while the Republican budget actually cuts this program by $1 
billion! That is outrageous.

[[Page 4794]]

  Second, my home state of California is facing an energy crisis. Just 
yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission voted in favor of 
a rate increase for consumers, raising the rates by as much as 46 
percent. I order to try to help Californians and others around the 
country who need help paying their increased energy bills, the 
Progressive Caucus budget would provide a $6.7 billion increase for 
LIHEAP, a low-income energy assistance program. This 400 percent 
increase will make it easier for many more Californians to pay their 
energy bills during this crisis. The Republican budget freezes LIHEAP 
funds next year and does not provide any funding at all in the LIHEAP 
emergency account. Clearly what is happening in California is an 
emergency and will spread throughout the Western states and the nation. 
We must have these funds to help the people in our state.
  Finally, on a subject that is dear to me and many others in 
Congress--election reform--the Progressive Caucus provides $2.5 billion 
to ensure that what happened in Florida last year does not happen 
again. This funding for election reform would assist states and 
localities in upgrading election procedures and voting technologies. 
Far too many people in our country were disenfranchised by what 
happened in the 2000 election and we must do everything in our power to 
ensure that we never have another Florida. I think it is disgraceful 
that the Republican budget does not provide any funding for these 
essential reforms.
  The Progressive Caucus budget also includes large increases in 
education, health care, veterans' programs and true tax cuts that 
benefit all Americans and not just primarily the very rich, all while 
preserving Social Security and Medicare. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for a budget that cuts taxes, provides for debt relief, and allows for 
needed spending programs. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Progressive Caucus budget.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Progressive 
Caucus Alternative Budget. Already this Congress, our colleagues on the 
other side, have shown that they simply do not share the priorities of 
America's hard working families. They wish to gamble our savings and 
the surplus we have worked so hard to create, on a risky tax cut that 
benefits the wealthiest 1 percent of America. To pay for their tax cut, 
our colleagues have targeted for budget cuts important domestic 
programs such as child care, low income housing, and much needed 
environmental protections.
  The Progressive Caucus Budget provides for programs that are 
important to all of America's families: new school construction, one 
hundred thousand new teachers, one hundred thousand new school 
counselors, a Medicare prescription drug program, and affordable 
housing so that every family may achieve the American dream of owning 
their own home. It addresses our energy concerns and the debt we owe to 
our veterans. It provides for our priorities of strengthening and 
extending Social Security and Medicare. It also provides $2.5 billion 
for upgrading election procedures and voting technology.
  In doing so, the Progressive Caucus Budget addresses one of the most 
important issues to come out of the past election, assuring the 
American people that their elections are fair, free, and that everyone 
has the opportunity and ability to cast their vote. None of the other 
budgets we will consider today set aside any funding to address this 
issue, so critical to the integrity of our democracy. Antiquated voting 
technology in primarily minority communities casts a pall over our 
elections this past November. We must do everything in our power, to 
prove to ourselves and the world, that America is the cradle and the 
bastion of democracy. It is our duty as Members to foster and sustain 
America's faith in the very essence of democracy, the act of casting a 
vote. It is one of my highest priorities, to insure the integrity of 
the democratic process and I applaud the Progressive Caucus for making 
it their priority as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79, 
noes 343, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 66]

                                AYES--79

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 4795]]



                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Boucher
     DeLay
     Lampson
     Meek (FL)
     Mink
     Rothman
     Shaw
     Sisisky

                                  1236

  Messrs. GOODLATTE, DIAZ-BALART, NORWOOD, RAMSTAD, GARY MILLER of 
California, LIPINSKI and SAWYER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 66 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part B of House Report 107-30.


 Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Stenholm:
       Strike all after resolving clause and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2002.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,606,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,680,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,754,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,832,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,916,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,996,700,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $23,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $22,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $27,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $31,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $33,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $43,338,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,535,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,588,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,641,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,700,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,759,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,798,000,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,481,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,550,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,617,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,674,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,738,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,784,000,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $90,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $84,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $100,950,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $113,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $121,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $150,750,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,637,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,585,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,542,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,401,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $5,385,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,288,300,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2011 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $301,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $329,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $329,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $357,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $335,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,300,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,770,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$160,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,650,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,730,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,530,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,780,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,510,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2001:

[[Page 4796]]

       (A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,600,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,330,000,00.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,800,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $175,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $211,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,300,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $231,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $327,800,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $305,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,100,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,820,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,690,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $154,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,400,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,600,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,170,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,890,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$57,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$62,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,590,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissions by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     for Tax Relief.--The House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Budget recommendations 
     pursuant to section

[[Page 4797]]

     (c)(2)(D)(ii) not later than July 24, 2001, that consists of 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the total level of revenues by not more than: $23,230,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2001, $22,440,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $27,631,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $31,109,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $33,332,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $43,338,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (b) Submissions by House Committees on Energy and Commerce 
     and Ways and Means for Medicare Reform and Prescription 
     Drugs.--(1) Not later than July 24, 2001, the House 
     Committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: 
     $0 for fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $14,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $22,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $26,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $31,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (c) Other Submissions by House Committees.--(1) Not later 
     than September 11, 2001, the House Committees named in 
     paragraph (2) shall submit their recommendations to the House 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Agriculture shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: 
     $7,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $10,265,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, $10,675,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     $10,619,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $10,022,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, and $9,848,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (B) The House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as 
     follows: $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $5,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2004, $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (C) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $1,166,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $1,361,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $1,481,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $1,636,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (D) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $1,872,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $1,951,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $2,057,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $2,165,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $2,379,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (d) __.--After recieving the recommendations reported 
     pursuant to subsections (a), (b) and (c), the House Committee 
     on the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such reccomendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (e) Special Rules.--In the House, if any bill reported 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (c)(2)(D)(ii), 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, has 
     refundable tax provisions that increase outlays, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may increase the amount of new 
     budget authority provided by such provisions (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) allocated to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and adjust the revenue levels set forth in such 
     subsection accordingly such that the increase in outlays and 
     reduction in revenue resulting from such bill does not exceed 
     the amounts specified in subsection (a) or subsection 
     (c)(2)(D)(ii), as applicable.
       (f) In carrying out reconciliation instructions under this 
     section respecting any changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction to increase outlays or reduce revenues, the 
     applicable House committees shall only recommend changes that 
     will be fully phased-in by the close of fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FOR DEBT REDUCTION AND STRENGTHENING SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any reported 
     bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, that would cause a surplus for any 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2006 to be less than the sum of 
     the level set forth in subsection (b) and the level of the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund set forth in section 6, 
     except as provided for in subsection (c).
       (b) Debt Reduction Reserve.--
       (1) The sums referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       (A) Fiscal year 2002: $48,650,000,000.
       (B) Fiscal year 2003: $61,950,000,000.
       (C) Fiscal year 2004: $72,750,000,000.
       (D) Fiscal year 2005: $81,500,000,000.
       (E) Fiscal year 2006: $106,750,000,000.
       (2) The funds in the debt reduction reserve shall be used 
     exclusively for buying back publicly held debt, except as 
     provided for in subsection (c).
       (c) Exception for Legislation Strengthening Social Security 
     or Medicare Solvency.--
       (1) Subsections (a) shall not apply to social security 
     reform legislation or medicare reform legislation.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, social security reform 
     legislation refers to legislation that the chief actuary of 
     the Social Security Administration certifies extends the 
     solvency of the Federal Old Age and Surivors Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust fund, taken together, 
     for 75 years.
       (3) For purposes of this subsection, Medicare reform 
     legislation refers to legislation that the chief actuary of 
     the Health Care Financing Administration certifies extends 
     the solvency of the Federal beyond 2050.

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT OF MEDICARE LEVELS.

       (a) It shall not be in order in the House or Senate to 
     consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that would cause a decrease in surpluses or 
     an increase in deficits of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund in any year relative to the levels set forth in 
     subsection (b). This paragraph shall not apply to amounts to 
     be expended from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for 
     purposes relating to programs within part A of Medicare as 
     provided in law on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
       (b) The amounts referred to in subsection (a) are as 
     follows:
       (1) Fiscal year 2002: $36,000,000,000.
       (2) Fiscal year 2003: $39,000,000,000.
       (3) Fiscal year 2004: $41,000,000,000.
       (4) Fiscal year 2005: $40,000,000,000.
       (5) Fiscal year 2006: $44,000,000,000.

     SEC. 7. USE OF CBO ESTIMATES IN ENFORCEMENT OF RESOLUTION.

       For purposes of enforcing the budgetary aggregates and 
     allocations under this resolution, the chairman of the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall, in advising the presiding 
     officer on the cost of any piece of legislation, rely 
     exclusively on estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget 
     Office or the Joint Tax Committee, in a form certified by 
     that agency to be consistent with its own economic and 
     technical estimates, unless in each case he first receives 
     the approval of the Committee on the Budget by recorded vote 
     to use a different estimate.

     SEC. 8. TAX CUTS AND NEW SPENDING CONTINGENT ON DEBT 
                   REDUCTION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, it 
     shall not be in order to consider a reconciliation bill 
     pursuant to section 4 of this resolution or any legislation 
     reducing revenues for the period of fiscal years 2002 to 2006 
     or increasing outlays for mandatory spending programs unless 
     there is a certification by Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office that the House has approved legislation which--
       (1) ensures that a sufficient portion of the on-budget 
     surplus is reserved for debt retirement to put the government 
     on a path to reduce the publicly held debt below 
     $1,700,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2006 under 
     current economic and technical projections; and
       (2) legislation has been enacted which establishes points 
     of order or other protections to ensure that funds reserved 
     for debt retirement may not be used for any other purpose, 
     except for adjustments to reflect economic and technical 
     changes in budget projections.

     SEC. 9. ADJUSTMENT FOR REVISION OF BUDGET SURPLUSES.

       (a) Allocation of Increased Surplus Projections.--If the 
     Congressional Budget Office report referred to in subsection 
     (b) projects an increase in the surplus for fiscal year 2000, 
     fiscal year 2001, and the period of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2006 over the corresponding levels set forth in its economic 
     and budget forecast for 2001 submitted pursuant to section 
     202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall 
     make the adjustments as provided in subsection (c).
       (b) Congressional Budget Office Updated Budget Forecast for 
     Fiscal Year 2002.--The report referred to in subsection (a) 
     is the Congressional Budget Office updated budget forecast 
     for fiscal year 2002.
       (c) Adjustments.--If the Committee on Ways and Means 
     reports any reconciliation legislation or other legislation 
     reducing revenues exceeding the revenue aggregates in section 
     2(1)(B), reduce the revenue aggregates in section 2(1)(A) and 
     increase the amounts the revenues can be reduced by in 
     section 2(1)(B) by an amount not to exceed one-quarter of the 
     increased surplus. If the Committees on Agriculture, 
     Appropriations, Commerce, National Security, or Ways and 
     Means report legislation increasing spending above the 
     allocation for that committee, increase the allocation for 
     that committee and the aggregates set forth in sections 2(2) 
     and 2(3) by an amount not to exceed one-quarter of the 
     increased surplus.
       (d) Application.--Any adjustments made pursuant to 
     subsection (c) for any measure shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.

     SEC. 10. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to section 10, 11, or 12 for any 
     measure shall--

[[Page 4798]]

       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     as applicable; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RETIREMENT TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Congress has made commitments to balance the 
     Federal budget without including the surpluses of trust funds 
     dedicated to particular purposes, such as the Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund, and the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
       (2) the assets of the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund are used to finance the military retirement 
     and survivor benefit programs of the Department of Defense;
       (3) the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund is 
     facing a long-term unfunded actuarial liability which will 
     require all of the fund's current surplus to pay the 
     retirement and survivor benefits promised to current and 
     future members of the Armed Forces; and
       (4) the assets in the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund are included in the calculation of the 
     Federal budget surplus and account for approximately 
     $100,000,000,000 of the estimated Federal budget surplus 
     during the next 10 years.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that any portion of the Federal budget 
     surplus attributable to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund should be used exclusively for the financing 
     of the military retirement and survivor benefit programs of 
     the Department of Defense, and not for the financing of tax 
     policy changes, new Federal spending, or any other purpose.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SURPLUS PROJECTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) disagreements on objective budget surplus figures, in 
     the annual budget and appropriations process, have led to 
     repetitive and time-consuming budget votes, decreasing the 
     time available for consideration and oversight of federal 
     programs, undermining legislation to provide responsible tax 
     relief, and delaying enactment of legislation necessary to 
     fund the Government;
       (2) Congress and the Administration want to work together 
     to do everything possible to maintain a strong and growing 
     economy;
       (3) an agreement on baseline estimates will prevent us from 
     undermining the fiscal discipline that has contributed to our 
     economic strength and allow Congress and the Administration 
     to address their collective priorities in a responsible, 
     bipartisan manner:
       (3) a bipartisan majority of the Members of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate have voted to protect the 
     social security and medicare trust funds;
       (4) empirical evidence and the Congressional Budget Office 
     agree that changes in economic conditions make projections 
     based on ten-year forecasts highly uncertain;
       (5) the caps on discretionary spending are set to expire at 
     the end of fiscal year 2002 and no formal rules will be in 
     place to contain the growth in discretionary spending;
       (6) baseline estimates typically overstate the size of 
     available surpluses by not assuming costs of extending or 
     changing policies that affect revenues, such as expiring tax 
     provisions and the cost of indexing the alternative minimum 
     tax (AMT) to protect middle-class families from the AMT; and
       (7) current baseline estimates do not recognize underlying 
     demographic pressures that will incur future obligations that 
     may threaten projected surpluses outside the ten-year budget 
     window.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     future budget resolutions, as well as all tax and spending 
     legislation, should maintain our commitment to fiscal 
     responsibility by using agreed-upon surplus, tax, and 
     spending figures derived from the following principles:
       (1) The size of the available surplus should exclude social 
     security and medicare trust funds.
       (2) The uncertainty of long-term economic forecasts should 
     be recognized.
       (3) Realistic assumptions for the growth in discretionary 
     spending should be accounted for.
       (4) The projected surplus should be adjusted to recognize 
     that scoring conventions do not incorporate the costs of 
     policies that Congress historically reauthorizes.
       (5) There should be a recognition that the Federal 
     Government will incur sizable, future obligations due to 
     demographic pressures set to occur upon the retirement of our 
     baby-boom generation.

     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that legislation should be 
     enact legislation enforcing this resolution by--
       (1) establishing a plan to retire half of the publicly held 
     debt by the end of fiscal year 2006;
       (2) setting discretionary spending limits for budget 
     authority and outlays at the levels set forth in this 
     resolution for each of the next five years;
       (3) extending the pay as you go rules set forth in Section 
     252 of the BBEDCA for the next ten years; and
       (4) establishing modified line item veto authority 
     requiring Congressinal votes on rescissions submitted by the 
     President and reducing the discretionary spending limits to 
     reflect savings from any rescissions enacted into law.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON THE UNCERTAINTY OF BUDGET 
                   FORECASTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not produced 
     ten year forecasts frequently enough to produce meaningful 
     averages of its ten-year projection errors;
       (2) 71 percent of the projected surplus outside of Social 
     Security and Medicare occurs in the second half of the ten-
     year projection, the period more subject to error;
       (3) based on its own record, CBO concludes that the 
     estimated surpluses could be off in one direction or the 
     other, on average, by about $52 billion in 2001, $120 billion 
     in 2002, and $412 billion in 2006.
       (4) if this uncertainty continues to grow in years six 
     through ten at the same rate it has proven to grow in years 
     one through five, CBO's expected surplus in 2011, excluding 
     Social Security and Medicare, would be expressed as $524 
     billion, plus or minus $800 billion; and
       (5) recognizing these uncertainties, the Chairman of the 
     Federal Reserve Board has warned that ``we need to resist 
     those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of 
     the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their 
     wake'', while the Comptroller General testified that ``no one 
     should design tax or spending policies pegged to the precise 
     numbers in any 10-year forecast'';
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) this resolution recognizes the uncertainty of 10-year 
     budget projections; and
       (2) a reserve fund, consisting of non-Social Security, non-
     Medicare surpluses should be created to ensure that the 
     Social Security and Medicare trust funds are protected in the 
     event surplus projections do not materialize; and (3) surplus 
     funds materializing from this reserve in calendar years six 
     through ten should be dedicated to new revenue reducing 
     initiatives.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago I read a quote from a gentleman across 
the aisle who wondered why some of us got so exercised about having a 
budget put in place first. He said everyone knows the budget does not 
really mean anything because Congress will do whatever we want later on 
anyway.
  The Blue Dogs rise today to insist that the budget should mean 
something. It should provide the blueprint which carries enough 
integrity, realism and authority to force us to pound out our 
priorities and keep us in line through the subsequent appropriation and 
reconciliation steps. That is why the Blue Dogs put together a plan we 
can live with for the next 5 years. It prioritizes removing the 
taxpayers' debt off our children's shoulders. It maximizes the tax cuts 
we can afford while remaining fiscally conservative. It reflects the 
fact that taxpayers do want some of their dollars invested in things 
like Social Security, Medicare, veterans, education, prescription 
drugs, and agriculture.
  Today, we offer an honest, balanced plan that we can live with, both 
practically and politically. Even more importantly, it is a budget our 
constituents can live with. We ask support for the Blue Dog budget 
alternative.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, all parents want their children to succeed. 
In today's America, success often requires a college education. It is a 
way out of

[[Page 4799]]

poverty for many. Yet, for many families, particularly middle-class 
families, a college education is out of their reach. With rising 
tuition costs, rising room and board, the dream of a college education 
is simply that for too many people, a dream; a dream deferred for too 
many children of middle-class parents.
  However, if we pass the budget resolution offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), we can help make the dream of college education 
a reality for more of America's children.
  This budget provides significant educational help for families. Not 
only does it accommodate a significant increase in Pell grant programs, 
not only does it allow a 10-fold increase in annual contributions 
families can make to their educational IRAs, but, and this is why I 
rise, it provides for a full tax exemption for prepaid tuition savings 
plans.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Alabama State Board of Education, I 
was there when in 1989 we established our prepaid college tuition plan. 
Today, virtually all States have a prepaid tuition plan, or college 
savings plan. Those plans are working. Millions of middle-class 
American families are paying into those plans. They offer the only 
affordable option for many families to send their children to college. 
Yet our current tax law punishes those families for doing what is 
right.
  It punishes them for planning ahead and saving for their children's 
college education. The IRS taxes them when the student enrolls in 
college and begins to draw on that investment. Surely, all of us can 
agree that no tax makes less sense than one that hurts middle-class 
students trying to earn a college degree. No tax makes less sense than 
this tax on families that save for their children's college education.
  I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the budget 
resolution that he has offered for it goes a long way. It makes these 
plans tax exempt. It makes college more affordable. That helps more 
American children succeed.
  So I rise in strong support and offer one more reason to support the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore), the co-chair of the Blue Dog Budget Task Force.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the last 
statement made by the gentleman and basically point out and commend 
them to read the Blue Dog budget, because it does more for education 
than the majority's proposal.
  I want to talk for just a couple of minutes about 10-year budgets 
versus 5-year budgets. Just yesterday we filed a bill that would 
restore truth and integrity in budgeting called the Transparenting 
Budgeting Act of 2001. The first 10-year projection was made by CBO 
back in 1992 when they predicted a deficit for next year, 2002, of $407 
billion. In January of this year, the CBO projected a fiscal year 
surplus of $313 billion. There was only a swing of $700 billion, three-
quarters of a trillion dollars, in those projections.
  I think that illustrates what we are trying to say here, and that is 
we need to be realistic. We need to be responsible and fiscally 
conservative in our projections upon which these budgets are based, on 
which these tax cuts come.
  We have placed, Mr. Chairman, a $5.7 trillion mortgage on the future 
of our children and grandchildren, and now we are talking about tax 
cuts. All of us on both sides of the aisle are for tax cuts, but 
responsible tax cuts that we can afford. I suggest that if we do what 
we are talking about on this side, and that is look at 5-year 
projections as opposed to these 10-year projections, we are going to be 
on much steadier ground when it comes to enacting new tax cuts.
  I would ask the people on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look 
at the Blue Dog budget. I think it is fiscally responsible. It is 
conservative and it recognizes the income that we are going to have in 
terms of revenues in the next few years, not 10 years but the next 5 
years. I think if we do that we will have a much sounder basis for 
enacting tax cuts in the rest of our budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a friend and colleague from the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just say God bless our 
President, George W. Bush. Finally, we have a President who wants to 
limit government bureaucracy so the people can have more. Compared with 
the Blue Dog budget, the Republican budget sets in place common sense 
priorities that are good for America and simple to understand.
  First, the Republican plan gives the people some of their money back 
because the tax surplus is really theirs; not ours.

                              {time}  1245

  Second, the Republican proposal pays down the public debt by $2 
trillion, and it protects defense.
  Third, our plan protects Social Security and Medicare by locking away 
every penny of the trust fund surplus.
  Fourth, it stops Federal spending at 4 percent. That means to us in 
America that the era of tax increases and runaway government spending 
has ended. It means that Washington bureaucrats better run for cover, 
because this President, for the first time in 8 years, is going to put 
people first, not a bloated Federal Government.
  Furthermore, the people of America should know this: President Bush 
is going to be granting every American a pardon from high taxes because 
he will sign, not veto, elimination of the marriage penalty and the 
death tax.
  The Republican budget is responsible, fair, and above all, good for 
our economy. It is not a Blue Dog budget; it is an American budget that 
we need to vote for, the Republican budget. Vote for a strong America. 
Vote for freedom. Vote for the Republican budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscally 
responsible Blue Dog budget. From what I am hearing so far, I think we 
need to encourage everyone in this body to read this budget and pay 
attention to what it actually does, because it cuts through the 
rhetoric and it takes a fiscally responsible approach to what we ought 
to be doing here today.
  We agree we want to cut taxes, and we agree we want to have debt 
reduction. This budget commits four times the amount of tax relief in 
the first year, compared to the Republican budget. But beyond that, 
this budget represents the voice of fiscal responsibility. The Blue 
Dogs believe in paying down debt. In fact, this budget, over the first 
5 years, pays down $400 million of additional debt compared to the 
Republican plan.
  This is the real deal. This makes a down payment on our future. We 
need to take a look at our children and not place the burden of that 
debt that we ran up over the last 20 years on them.
  My concern is that we are all talking about a surplus here when, in 
fact, the proper term is a projected surplus; and if the projected 
surplus does not actually occur and if we come in underneath that, our 
tax cuts and our spending are going to move forward and debt reduction 
is going to fall off the table. It is going to be the odd man out. This 
budget says, let us be aggressive; let us pay down our debt first.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage everyone to support the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, it is my desire to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Iowa on an important science investment called the 
Spallation Neutron Source, which represents a $1.4 billion investment. 
It is under construction in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in my district; but 
the benefits will be generational. It is a physical science investment, 
but we are going to have life science and physical science benefits 
come out of this most important science initiative. It crosses over 
from the previous administration to this administration. We are in our 
second year of funding. This current year

[[Page 4800]]

is $278 million. The President is asking for a large number for the 
coming year. It is very important generationally. I think that we 
accede science and basic research investment for future generations for 
benefits that we really do not even fully realize at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the science community supports this initiative. It is a 
consortium of five different laboratories all across our country. It 
has been the subject of many technical reviews over the last couple of 
years. The science community really scrubbed this project clean before 
they fully supported it, and they do fully support it.
  So my question is, Mr. Chairman, as we are considering the budget 
resolution, there is a 5.7 percent increase in Function 250, General 
Science, Space and Technology, where the SNS will be funded. Is it the 
committee chairman's expectation to see the SNS continue on track and 
on budget with this increase in Function 250?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's belief that the 
President will continue his commitment for full funding, and there is 
room within this budget function to accommodate that request.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the leadership team for allowing us to have 
this debate on the Blue Dog budget.
  We have had many discussions with leaders here in Washington, 
including the President and the Vice President; and often the comment 
comes up, Mr. Chairman, that if we leave the money in Washington, they 
will just spend it. I think many of us in this country understand why 
some of us are leery of that and some of us have that feeling.
  So what we have suggested, Mr. Chairman, to the President and to 
others is that we will work with our colleagues to put reasonable 
spending caps in place. This budget, Mr. Chairman, provides for an 
average of 3.5 percent spending growth, discretionary spending growth, 
3.5 percent. That is very, very reasonable.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues strongly, all of 
the Members of this body, to look at this budget and the way it treats 
spending restraints.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, defense does need to be rebuilt. In the wake of the 
outgoing administration, the CBO estimates that we are spending $30 
billion just on equipment, that is on replacing the tanks, trucks, 
planes, ships. The army tells us we are $3.5 billion short on what they 
call critical ammunition supplies. The CBO estimates that we have 
underfunded training by about $5 billion; this is all per year. We are 
not giving our pilots enough time to train. We have a people-pay gap of 
about 10 percent. That means a difference between people wearing the 
uniform and people in the private sector.
  If we add all of those costs up, just people, equipment, training, 
ammunition, we come up with a shortfall with respect to the baseline 
that we have been spending over the last several years of about $310 
billion. Now $320 billion was the last Clinton estimate; we come up 
with a shortfall of about $50 billion. I agree with that. I think it is 
at least $50 billion short.
  Now, against that background we have a new administration coming in. 
They got into the saddle late because of the late election. When we 
would call up Assistant Secretaries and Secretaries, they were just 
then getting into their positions in the Pentagon, and the President 
told us he wants to do a review before he comes up with his budget on 
defense. Now, that leaves us in a difficult position. But their 
decision has been to get the review first and then come with the 
numbers, and the Committee on the Budget has made an allowance for that 
by accessing the strategic reserve under which this administration can 
come in with a new request in a couple of months and increase the top 
line for national security.
  Everybody realizes we are going to have to increase it. I want to 
salute the conservative Democrats for having more dollars for defense; 
I want to salute the Republican Study Committee who put in an 
additional $25 billion per year, which is a big step toward closing 
this gap. But the Committee on the Budget chairman and other Members of 
the House have been working with the administration. Our chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Stump), has been working, and they said help is on the way. We can 
expect that they are going to come in and increase the top line on 
defense.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, we have to rely on people. I will rely on 
Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Don Rumsfeld to bring that help in a 
couple of months. I, therefore, strongly support the Committee on the 
Budget's product.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I say to the last speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), my friend, that if he wants to fund defense plus-ups, as I do, 
he has a better chance of doing that if we enact the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blue Dog budget and 
urge bipartisan support for the most fiscally responsible plan we will 
consider in this House.
  Many of us are veterans of the hard budget votes of the early and 
mid-1990s, votes like the 1993 Clinton budget, Penny-Kasich, a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, a constitutional 
amendment for limiting tax increases, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. 
These hard votes helped produce the first budget surpluses in a 
generation and restored economic vitality to our Nation. Let us not 
squander our good fortunes.
  The Blue Dog budget is a responsible and balanced plan. It pays down 
the national debt, the best tax cut for all Americans.
  It protects Social Security and Medicare by enacting a strong lock 
box, and providing a cushion to ensure that missed estimates of the 
strength of the economy, projected surpluses, or the cost of tax cuts 
do not result in renewed deficit spending or borrowing from the Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses.
  The Blue Dog budget maps out a higher level of defense spending. It 
funds improvements in education and respects the sacrifice of our 
veterans, and it funds plus-ups in agriculture, a key component of 
California's economy.
  Unlike the GOP budget, the Blue Dog budget proposes a responsible 
approach to cutting taxes. It shapes what tax cuts we can afford, not 
the other way around.
  I enthusiastically support the Blue Dog budget. It is responsible, 
fair, balanced, and honest. It is a framework for policy choices which 
will sustain our nation's economic prosperity.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the committee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I do appreciate what the Blue Dogs are attempting to do. But I would 
remind Members that they are working off a 5-year plan. Frankly, in 
many respects I think we should be working off a 5-year plan. I think 
that is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we are working off a 10-
year plan; and it makes it very difficult for us to really do a 
comparison.
  I do want to talk about a couple of things because I think they need 
to be addressed, because one of the things we have heard last night and 
we have heard in some of the debate so far

[[Page 4801]]

today and I suspect we will hear again and that is that we are being 
reckless somehow that we cannot afford this large tax cut, that the 
budget numbers do not work.
  When we had the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in 
front of the Committee on the Budget, he made a point that actually 
what we are using for projections in terms of revenue to the Federal 
Government over the next 10 years are very conservative. As a matter of 
fact, he told us that if revenue growth to the Federal Government 
simply averages what it has averaged for the last 40 years, we will not 
have a $5.5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, we will have a 
$7.5 trillion budget. In fact, this is in response to clarify what he 
told us, I asked him this question: So if revenue growth just equals 
the 40-year average, we will actually have revenues in excess of $2 
trillion more than we are currently using in our budget projections; is 
that correct? And the answer from Mr. Daniels was, yes, sir, that is 
correct.
  So the numbers we are working off of here today are incredibly 
conservative, and they also assume that we will probably have sometime 
in the next 10 years an economic slowdown, at least one.
  But I want to come back to another point that we have heard a lot 
about today and probably will hear more about and that is that somehow 
this budget is being unfair to farmers.

                              {time}  1300

  I really think that is unfair to us, because I want to show the 
Members, for their benefit, when we passed the farm bill that we are 
currently operating under, we were saying that by the year 2002, the 
amount that would be spent on the baseline for the commodity programs 
would be somewhere between $5 billion and $7.5 billion.
  Actually, we are going to spend a whole lot more than that. What we 
see here in this blue line is a declining baseline for the commodity 
programs. The green represents the marketing loan benefits which have 
been created because of a weak farm economy. The red bar shows how much 
is available or has been available in terms of emergency payments.
  I represent farm country, and I do not care whether Members come from 
farm country or not, this Congress Republicans or Democrats from either 
side are simply not going to stand idly by and allow us to lose a 
generation of young farmers. That is not going to happen.
  Here is what we have agreed to do with agriculture this year. First 
of all, we have given them, I think, a very generous baseline of $19.1 
billion. In addition to that, there will be available marketing loan 
payments as well.
  But let me just show the Members what we do when we add this final 
bar. We have also told the agriculture community that we will make 
available up to $8 billion in emergency payments this year. When we add 
it all together, to say that we are being less than fair to agriculture 
is less than generous.
  In fact, agriculture is the only area where we are literally giving 
them three bites at the apple. We are giving them a generous baseline. 
We are saying if they have a bill by July 11, we will increase that. 
Finally, we are making available up to $8 billion in emergency 
payments. I think that is fair, I think it is reasonable, and I think 
it is responsible.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would respond to the gentleman by saying the Blue Dog budget 
guarantees the numbers. The budget that is before us in the House today 
is very speculative, and depending on contingency funds that may or may 
not be there. These charts are irrelevant if the money is not there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog Democrats want the biggest tax 
cut we can afford, and we want it as soon as we can get it. American 
families need immediate tax cuts to put money into their pockets. They 
deserve tax cuts that fit within a responsible budget and that are 
paired with aggressive repayment of the national debt.
  When shaping our tax cuts, we should be generous with the real 
surpluses that we have today, just as we should be cautious with the 
uncertain surplus projections that we only hope will occur 5 and 10 
years from now.
  The Blue Dog budget offers immediate tax relief. For every dollar in 
tax cuts in the Republican plan, the Blue Dog budget gives us $4. That 
is four times the tax relief in our plan than in the Republican plan.
  The Blue Dog budget fits significant tax relief into a budget that 
will not send us back into deficit spending or raid Social Security or 
Medicare. Our budget pays down the $5.7 trillion national debt faster 
than any budget on the floor today.
  We do more to be sure our children will not be left with a massive 
Federal debt. We do more to ensure that we do not continue to waste $1 
billion a day in just interest payments on our debt. We do more to 
prepare for the looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare that 
arises with the retirement of the baby-boom generation when the short-
term surpluses in Social Security and Medicare of today turn into the 
long-term deficits of tomorrow.
  We urge Members to seriously consider the Blue Dog plan. It will 
return us to a course of fiscal responsibility, restore credibility in 
our financial markets, and do the right thing for the American people 
and for our children.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the Blue Dogs for 
offering this substitute. It really enhances the debate. All of the 
substitutes have done that.
  I do believe there are a number of fatal flaws in the Blue Dog 
substitute. One of the flaws that catches our attention like a mosquito 
biting our neck in the Ozark Hills is that the Blue Dog budget reduces 
the amount of money going to the taxpayers and increases the amount of 
money going to the government. That is the bottom line that is the 
difference that stands out more than anything else in the distinctions 
between the budgets.
  The Blue Dog budget grows government at 5.4 percent. The budget 
coming out of the committee grows it at a 4 percent rate. The 5.4 
percent growth of government is a greater increase than those on Social 
Security receive; it is more than workers receive on average across the 
country. It grows government too much. So the choice is, we do not have 
to grow government that much, we can give more of it back to the 
taxpayer.
  One of the gentlemen from my district told me that he does not need 
the government doing more for him, he needs the government taking less 
out of his paycheck. That is what the plan is in the budget that is 
presented.
  The budget presented by the committee eliminates $2.3 trillion in 
public debt by 2011, the right amount; $64 billion in tax relief next 
year, and much of that will be accelerated with provisions for it to be 
accelerated; a 4.6 increase in defense spending; over a 7 percent 
increase in our Nation's veterans; an 11 percent increase in education; 
and it fully funds the Violence Against Women Act.
  I think those are the right priorities for America. I believe they 
are the right priorities for my district, certainly because we increase 
spending only 4 percent across the board. There are areas that are not 
growing as much. The Department of Justice is one of those.
  We have to make a balance. We have to present the right decision and 
the right priorities. I think the Committee on the Budget's proposal 
hits that right balance and sets the right priorities. I ask Members to 
support the committee's plan.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would correct the record, Mr. Chairman. I know the gentleman did 
not intend to misspeak, but the Blue Dog budget provides for a 5.4 
percent increase in the first year, an average of 3.7 percent over the 
5 years.

[[Page 4802]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas for yielding time to me, and thank him also for his leadership in 
this matter and all of the hard work that he has put into the budgets 
over the years.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no greater need in America that is unfulfilled 
than prescription drugs for our seniors. The Blue Dog budget provides 
$92 billion over 5 years for real, defined, voluntary prescription drug 
benefits for Medicare. The Republican budget, however, over 10 years 
provides $153 billion for an undefined prescription drug plan that is 
no more than pie in the sky, and they will take that money out of the 
Medicare Trust Fund to do it. This is not keeping the Medicare Trust 
Fund in a lockbox, as everyone loves to talk about. It is robbing Peter 
to pay Paul.
  The Blue Dog budget also provides for more money for our hospitals, 
who continue to struggle. We get letters and calls every day about the 
difficult time our hospitals are having, particularly in rural areas.
  So we have dealt honestly and fairly with these issues. We deal with 
health care for our seniors in an appropriate way in this budget. I am 
very proud to support the Blue Dog budget, and encourage my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to do so.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a member of the Committee.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, as we look at the budget that we have 
passed out of the Committee on the Budget, I think it is a very 
balanced budget. It is not a perfect budget. I do not think there is a 
perfect budget that comes out of this body. There is always room for 
improvement or tweaking here and there.
  One of the first things that I think is most important out of this 
budget is we find that it does give a tax refund. It understands that 
principle that it is not the government's money, it is the people's 
money.
  I asked some of the Blue Dogs, where were they 2 years ago when we 
wanted to pass a tax bill, that we would have given tax money back to 
citizens? Where were they when we tried to override that veto? We would 
have been able to give that money. It would have been in the economy 
now, and possibly would have really ameliorated some of the decline we 
have seen in the economy thus far if they would have acted then.
  I say that the tax relief they are talking about, they are about 2 
years late. We have a tax relief plan that takes only 25 percent of the 
surplus and refunds that to the taxpayers. We also provide 
substantially for education, not just throwing money at education, but 
reforming the way education is done so we can leave no child behind, 
and make sure that we give every child in this country an opportunity 
to learn and take away that barrier from economic prosperity.
  It modernizes Medicare and sets aside money. We can throw more money 
at prescription drugs or whatever, but we certainly budget a good 
amount for prescription drugs. Not only that, but we have some 
flexibility to modernize Medicare to meet the modern needs of health 
care, which include disease prevention and chronic disease management, 
which is not part of the Medicare system now. It needs updating. 
Medicare spending will double over the next 10 years. If we do not 
reform the system, we are not really going to be able to provide the 
health care we need.
  Our budget addresses the uninsured, and provides several programs to 
make sure we can cover the uninsured.
  This increases the funding for community health centers to make sure 
those folks who fall through the cracks can get the help they need. It 
allows families people who are disabled or have disabled members to buy 
into Medicaid. It allows increased funding for NIH and research.
  I encourage Members to vote for the committee's budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond by 
saying the Blue Dogs were in exactly the same place 2 years ago that we 
are today; that is, we should fix Social Security and Medicare first, 
pay down the debt, and we should not obligate 100 percent of the 
projected surpluses on a yet-projected surplus into a tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas, for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, farmers in southern Indiana are not getting much for 
their corn and soybeans. It is not going to get any better any time 
soon. Southern Indiana farmers are the same as the farmers and ranchers 
across this Nation. They are experiencing tough times. Their only 
certainty is more uncertainty about the future.
  Over the last 3 years, Congress has had to give farmers nearly $25 
billion in ad hoc emergency assistance. Without these emergency 
payments, they would not be in business today. American farmers produce 
the world's finest food. Stop and think about where we would be if we 
did not have family farmers working hard to give us a safe, secure, and 
abundant food supply.
  It is time for Congress to be honest. Our farmers and ranchers should 
not have to depend on a wink and a nod, and then hope their income 
support payments appear in a supplemental bill. Instead, they should 
know what to expect now, this month, as they prepare for planting.
  Various farm organizations have testified before the Committee on 
Agriculture. They have told us Congress needs to increase the 
agricultural baseline by as much as $12 billion a year in the next farm 
bill. The majority's budget does not guarantee needed funding for 
agriculture. Instead, if agriculture is increased at all, it will have 
to compete with defense and other priorities for a limited amount of 
time in a so-called contingency fund.
  Congress cannot do anything about uncertain weather conditions, but 
the Blue Dog budget does take some of the uncertainty out of farming. 
The Blue Dog budget follows the lead of farm groups and increases the 
mandatory spending baseline for agriculture by a total of $57.1 billion 
over 5 years. That is $57.1 billion more than the majority's budget. 
The Blue Dogs are responsible about budgeting, and they are realistic 
about the needs of America's farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody within the sound of our voices here knows 
that we cannot have it all. We cannot have it both ways.
  The Blue Dog budget basically says what we ought to do as a Nation is 
pay our debts, meet our needs in defense and other areas that have been 
talked about this morning, and then give the money back to the people.
  The Republican outlook is to give the money back over a 5- or 6-year 
phased-in tax cut based on 10-year numbers, the uncertainty of which is 
known to all of us in a very, very vivid and real way.
  Our budget is a movie; the Republican budget is a preview of coming 
attractions. We have a real budget. If Members want to talk about tax 
cuts, we do four times this year the amount of tax cuts that the 
Republican budget does. If we want to talk about meeting our needs in 
defense, this year we provide $7 billion in emergency supplemental to 
fully fund a pay raise, to fully fund housing allowances, to 
immediately address the crisis we all know we have about spare parts 
and maintenance.
  We provide $45 billion more over the CBO baseline in the next 5 years 
for defense, $26 billion more than the Republican plan does; we fund 
the Murtha pay increase proposal; in short, all of the things that some 
of the folks over there talked about with regard to defense we actually 
do. We do not say, ``Wait around a while and we will get to them when 
we can, but, first of all, we have to shove this money out of here, 
because if we do not, we are liable to spend it.''

[[Page 4803]]

  If Members look at our budget, it is truly a budget that we recommend 
to people.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage all of my defense-oriented 
colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support this budget. The Blue 
Dog budget would provide an additional $48 billion over the President's 
request for the Department of Defense.
  Just 1 year ago right now General Hugh Shelton appeared before the 
Committee on Armed Services and said that there was a $100 billion 
shortfall in defense spending.

                              {time}  1315

  It has been echoed by the gentleman from California, (Mr. Hunter), my 
colleague, they need the money. We really do not need a study to tell 
us that our planes are old; that there are over 900 30-year-old Huey 
helicopters in the Army's fleet today; that the fleet has shrunk by 74 
ships since my Republicans colleagues have taken over control of the 
House and the Senate.
  We also do something we have never done as a Nation, and that is we 
have heard much about protecting Medicare and Social Security trust 
funds, we have not heard one word about protecting the military retiree 
trust funds.
  Right now our Nation owes our military retiree trust fund $163 
billion. The Blue Dog budget for the first time ever will protect those 
funds in a lockbox, much like Medicare and Social Security, so that 
those people who did so much for us will have their retirement check 
there for them when it comes due, rather than being a burden on future 
generations.
  We have been pulling money out of the Department of Defense budget, 
but they have been spending it elsewhere. They have not been putting it 
aside for retirement pay. We protect those funds.
  Lastly, as far as veterans' benefits, it is very sad to say, but 
statistically accurate that 1,300 World War II veterans are dying every 
day. We all know that about 90 percent of the health care costs for all 
of us will occur in the last 6 weeks of our lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to say that those last sixes are coming 
for many of our World War II veterans. We would provide the funds to 
take care of our veterans with dignity in the last weeks of their 
lives, $2.1 billion more than my Republican colleagues and spend $10 
billion more on the Montgomery GI bill benefit over the next 5 years 
than the Republican proposal.
  I urge those of my colleagues who care about veterans, who care about 
defense, to support the Blue Dog budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) is ready to close?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Yes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, if I were a constituent sitting back home in West Texas 
watching this budget debate, I would be mighty confused by all the 
assertions and counterassertions which have already been made.
  Each of the budgets offered obviously has merits and political 
benefits, but the bottom line is how those strengths compare to the 
weaknesses? What was left out?
  It has been interesting to hear our budget criticized on defense when 
we provide more funds for defense.
  It has been interesting to hear speaker after speaker say our budget 
was weak on education when we provide more for education.
  It has been interesting to see how our budget is weak on agriculture, 
when we budget for agricultural matters, not depend on a contingency 
fund.
  The weakness of the Republican budget which I find the most troubling 
is that the promises do not match honest numbers.
  First, the oft-repeated myth that we are precariously close to 
retiring too much debt is laughable. Trust me, Congress will find a way 
to swerve if we find ourselves on the brink of that precipice.
  Secondly, as the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, I 
find it frightening that we are asked to bet the ranch on a contingency 
fund which has been promised not only to us, but to defense, 
prescription drugs, business groups wanting additional tax cuts, and I 
would point out the majority has already spent, spent the $500 billion 
contingency fund on additional tax cuts with the rhetoric and the votes 
that they are forcing on this House.
  The contingency fund is gone. That already overstretched contingency 
fund will not even be around if the projected surpluses fail to 
materialize its promise.
  As a real-life farmer, I know that agriculture always entails some 
degree of risk, but given the economic depression we have been through 
lately, I find no security and an oversubscribed, undefined contingency 
fund.
  Likewise, seniors are being asked to literally bet their farm when it 
comes to Social Security and Medicare. The alleged protection for those 
two programs disappears with just the slightest change in economic 
growth because the tax cuts already will have consumed any cushion 
those programs might need.
  The promise of Medicare reform will be achieved only through deficit 
spending. Additional cuts on already stressed hospitals and nursing 
homes are significantly reduced by program solvency under the scenario 
created by the majority budget. It will be impossible to match my 
friend's rhetoric on Social Security modernization. Since their budget 
fails to set aside any on-budget surpluses to finance the transition 
reform to Social Security, and that is one of my most disappointing 
aspects of the Republican budget.
  In contrast, the Blue Dog budget does not make promises it cannot 
keep or rely on numbers that are unrealistic or downright deceptive. We 
know that even 5-year projections much less 10-year projections are no 
reason to bet the farm.
  We know that Americans have a variety of priorities which all must be 
balanced. We know that they want tax cuts, but not at the expense of 
their children and grandchildren.
  We know that our veterans deserve fulfillment of the promises made to 
them. Seniors need health care and retirement security. Children need a 
good education.
  I hope Members and constituents alike will look beyond the gloss of 
how a budget is advertised and consider what and who gets left behind.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Blue Dog 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond very 
briefly to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend from Texas, there is no one in 
this House that has put together more budgets than the gentleman from 
Texas. I respect the quality of his work and I respect his concerns 
about the priorities we have laid out.
  His budget is my second favorite. However, I support the committee 
mark and the Committee on the Budget, and I appreciate the tenor and 
the quality of the debate today with regard to the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the vice chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to distill the 
facts, to clarify, to try to cut through some of this fog, as the 
Members from the minority have suggested, and I just want to review 
where we really are in this budget debate and talk about this 
alternative and where it falls short.
  The Republican budget proposal pays down as much debt as we can over 
the next 10 years. I am not arguing that it pays down too much. I do 
not think we should spend too much time to talk

[[Page 4804]]

about whether we should pay down $2.4 trillion or $2.5 trillion.
  The fact is, we have paid down $600 billion in debt. We will keep 
paying down debt, and this sets aside funds to do it throughout the 10 
years of this budget proposal.
  Of course, we have tax relief. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Fletcher) pointed out, we give 25 percent to 28 percent of the surplus 
back to the taxpayers. I will talk more about that in just a moment.
  We strengthen funding for education and for national defense. Of 
course, we set aside funds for Social Security and Medicare. The 
suggestion was that creating reserve accounts for Medicare or reserve 
accounts for Social Security was somehow part of a conspiracy or it was 
risky.
  I think that is ridiculous. We have never created a reserve account 
like this in the history of our government. I think it makes common 
sense. Any one that does a budget at home understands that simple fact.
  Is the difference between these two budgets about agriculture? I do 
not think so. We could take a guess at a funding level for agriculture, 
but I do not think that is good policy.
  We allow the budget chair to come back and make amends and address 
agricultural issues as they come out of committee.
  Is this about defense spending? I do not think so. We make sure that 
once we have a review from Secretary Rumsfeld we can deal with those 
needs in an immediate way and treat the men and women in our Armed 
Services with the equipment and the resources they need.
  What is the difference and the distinction really about? It is about 
taxes. Clearly and simple, it is about taxes. We put roughly 28 percent 
of the surpluses back in the pockets of working men and women across 
the country. We cut taxes for everyone that pay income taxes.
  Twenty-eight percent of the surpluses, does this alternative give 28 
percent of the surplus back? No. Does it give back 25 percent? No. Does 
it give back 15 percent of the surplus? No. How about 10 percent? It 
does not even do that. It gives back less than 10 percent of the 
surplus to the men and women who are being overcharged today.
  Why? What is the excuse? I could not tell you exactly what the excuse 
is. But the minority and, in particular, those that crafted this budget 
today have found every reason under the sun to oppose budget 
resolutions that contain tax relief in them.
  First, they said you cannot cut taxes. We have not balanced the 
budget; that was just 4 years ago when I was first elected to Congress. 
We balanced the budget, and we did it while cutting taxes.
  Then they said we cannot support the tax cut in your budget 
resolution, because we have not set aside every penny of Social 
Security. Three years ago, we did just that. Then they suggested you 
have to set aside Medicare. We did that. Now, they are saying we have 
to pay down every penny of the debt. What is the excuse now?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this excuse for a budget 
alternative and support the Republican platform.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the budget resolution 
reported by the committee and to support the Blue Dog budget 
alternative.
  The Republican budget is completely inadequate. It is inadequate in 
its treatment of priorities that this House has time and time again 
said are important. It is inadequate in its treatment of our senior 
citizens. It is inadequate in its treatment of agriculture. It is 
inadequate in its treatment of defense. It is inadequate in its 
treatment of education. And it is inadequate in its treatment of the 
national debt.
  The Republican budget is an exercise in fuzzy math. They have based 
their numbers on 10-year projections. These types of projections have 
proven time and time again to be completely inaccurate. In fact, just 
yesterday, we learned that the Administration now plans to spread their 
tax cut over 11 years instead of 10 because of the uncertainty of the 
numbers. The Comptroller General has testified that ``no one should 
design tax or spending policies pegged to the precise numbers in any 
10-year forecast.'' We simply should not gamble our parents' and our 
children's futures on such uncertainty. The Blue Dog budget does not. 
The Blue Dog budget is a five year budget and is far more reliable than 
the 10-year Republican budget.
  The Social Security and Medicare surpluses are already committed to 
paying benefits we have promised our seniors. But the Republicans would 
raid those surpluses and shorten the solvency of both, thereby 
eventually requiring either severe benefit cuts or tax increases.
  Not only do they not provide any additional resources for Social 
Security reform beyond the funds already committed to Social Security, 
they would privatize Social Security and invest a portion of the trust 
fund in the stock market--something we should all question after the 
performance of the stock market in the last couple of weeks. In 
contrast, the Blue Dog budget allocates an additional $350 billion from 
the on-budget surplus that would be available to finance reforms to 
make the Social Security system financially sound for future 
generations without affecting current and near retirees.
  The Republican budget makes a mockery of the need to provide 
prescription drug coverage for our seniors. They actually propose to 
pay for prescription drugs out of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and 
take money away from hospitals and/or make the Medicare HI trust fund 
go broke sooner. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget saves 100% of the 
Medicare HI trust fund to provide benefits promised under current law. 
We set aside half of the surplus outside Social Security and Medicare 
for debt reduction, which will have the effect of protecting the 
Medicare trust fund from being raided even if the surplus projections 
deteriorate.
  The Republican budget would harm the hard-working farmers in my 
district. They would force important agriculture programs to compete 
with defense, prescription drugs, and other priorities for limited 
funds in the strategic reserve that could be wiped out if the tax cut 
exceeds $1.62 trillion or surplus projections deteriorate--either or 
both of which seem likely under current conditions. In contrast, the 
Blue Dog budget would provide $9 billion in assistance payments to 
farmers this fiscal year and increases the agriculture baseline by $12 
billion for each subsequent year. These funds would be available to 
improve farm income, conservation, export, rural development, and 
research programs as recommended by the farm and commodity 
organizations.
  The Republican budget provides less than half of the defense funding 
the Blue Dog budget would provide. The Republicans have chosen to play 
a dangerous game with our national defense by providing minimal funding 
for defense programs in this budget and waiting to make the tough 
decisions. When they get ready to decide defense spending priorities, 
those priorities will have to compete with agriculture, prescription 
drugs, and other priorities for limited funds in the ``strategic 
reserve.'' Never mind that this reserve could be wiped out if the tax 
cut exceeds $1.62 trillion or surplus projections deteriorate--both of 
which are strong possibilities.
  The Republican budget does nothing to meet the President's stated 
goal of leaving no child behind. It barely increases education funding 
above inflation! It would not continue to progress we have made on 
smaller class sizes. It would not provide adequate funding to restore 
dilapidated schools and build new schools. It would not address many of 
the education priorities that we have identified in recent years. In 
contrast, the Blue Dog budget would allow for an increase in the 
maximum Pell Grant award and provide funding to help schools meet the 
increased accountability of education reform, comply with IDEA, and 
meet other local needs.
  Furthermore, the Blue Dog budget provides funding specifically for 
the Hunger Relief Act, a program to increase nutritional assistance to 
low-income working families with children. Studies have shown that 
children who come to school hungry don't learn at their full capacity. 
By providing nutritional assistance, we help children to learn.
  Finally, the Republican budget shows that they are not serious about 
debt reduction. They would leave too much debt for our children to pay 
off. They do not allocate one dime of the on-budget surplus outside of 
Social Security and Medicare to debt reduction in the first five years. 
That means that all of their debt reduction would occur in years 6-10--
the time when the surplus projections are most unreliable. In contrast, 
the Blue Dog budget devotes half of the on-budget surplus outside of 
Social Security and Medicare--$370 billion over the next five years--to 
reducing the publicly held debt. We would reduce the publicly held debt 
by more than half over the next five

[[Page 4805]]

years--from a projected $3.148 trillion at the end of FY 2001 to $1.57 
trillion at the end of FY 2006.
  Mr. Chairman, the priorities reflected in the Republican budget 
simply are not the priorities of the American people. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Blue Dog budget and rejecting 
the Republican budget.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blue Dog budget 
which balances fiscal responsibility with the need to adequately fund 
programs addressing our national priorities and needs. The Blue Dog 
budget is a responsible plan that balances the budget, retires public 
debt, and provides modest tax cuts without tapping into the Social 
Security trust fund. Unlike the Republican plan, it does not foolishly 
drive our budget back into the red with massive and unnecessary tax 
cuts for the wealthy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased the Blue Dog budget provides 
needed funding to expand the Montgomery G.I. Bill in accordance with 
H.R. 320, the Montgomery G.I. Bill Improvements Act which I, along with 
my colleague Lane Evans, introduced earlier this year. It also provides 
funds to pay for a substantial military pay raise and improve the 
veterans' and military retirees' health care system.
  The Armed Forces face serious recruiting problems. In order to meet 
our defense needs, the Armed Forces must have the tools it needs to 
draw men and women into uniform. The Montgomery G.I. Bill has proven to 
be the military's most valuable recruiting tool. Unfortunately, the 
combination of a substantially devalued G.I Bill and expanded federal 
financial assistance to college-bound students without military service 
has crippled the G.I. Bill's effectiveness.
  Recent recruiting gimmicks such as psychedelic humvees, Spike Lee 
advertisements, drag racers, or desperate cash giveaways are not the 
answer to these problems. Nor is conscription. Congress would best help 
our Armed Forces by improving the G.I. Bill. Providing access to higher 
education in exchange for national service is the right thing to do. A 
strong G.I. Bill helps veterans and their families, aids our national 
defense, and strengthens the economy.
  The Montgomery GI Bill Expansion Act (H.R. 320) will ensure that our 
All-Volunteer Armed Forces has the ability to attract recruits, and, at 
the same time, provide veterans with the skills they need to better our 
economy and their lives. The Blue Dog budget wisely provides funding to 
expand the G.I. Bill in line with H.R. 320 and will restore the MGIB's 
value both as a meaningful readjustment benefit and an effective 
recruiting incentive.
  Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget is good for America's veterans and 
soldiers and is a solid blueprint for our nation's future. Unlike the 
Republican budget that would foolishly squander the surplus, the 
responsible Blue Dog budget pays down the national debt and provides 
sensible tax relief. It will put the nation on a course to cut the 
publicly held debt in half by 2006 with a strong, immediate commitment 
to debt reduction rather than return us to deficit spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for 
veterans, soldiers and our nation's future. Vote for the Blue Dog 
budget.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2002 and in favor of the 
Substitute offered by Mr. Stenholm on behalf of the Blue Dog Coalition.
  I support the Blue Dog Budget because it is based on real, not 
projected, surpluses and presents a balanced, honest view to meeting 
our many budget concerns. The Blue Dog Budget builds on the fiscal 
progress we have made in the past few years, but provides needed tax 
relief and priority funding for education, health, and agriculture.
  I will not support the Republican Resolution simply because it is not 
credible. The majority's plan is built on thin air. It promises 
everything: large tax cuts, debt pay down, protection of Social 
Security and Medicare, and continued spending. But, the catch is it is 
based on surpluses that do not and may not ever exist. It relies on 10 
year budget projections that even the new Secretary of the Treasury 
says are unreliable. If the economy slows, as it is already doing, this 
budget will force us to borrow from Social Security, cut spending and 
stop paying down national debt.
  In contrast the Blue Dog Budget Resolution operates on a more 
conservative five year cycle and preserves the balanced budget while 
paying down the debt, providing for meaningful tax relief, and honestly 
meeting our spending priorities.
  The Blue Dog Budget does not squander the progress we have made 
paying down the debt. In fact, it provides $375 billion more debt 
reduction than the Republican plan.
  The Blue Dog Budget provides immediate and fair tax relief. In fact, 
it allows for $23 billion in immediate tax relief for 2001, four times 
the amount of the majority's budget.
  The Blue Dog Budget does not drastically cut critical spending or use 
gimmicks and emergency funding to balance the budget. In fact, the Blue 
Dog budget establishes realistic discretionary spending caps which will 
restrain spending but also provide room to fund new initiatives without 
relying on unspecified or unrealistic spending. It also does not rely 
on an overly-committed contingency fund to address necessary 
agriculture and defense needs.
  In short, the Blue Dog Budget is honest where the majority proposal 
is not. The Blue Dog Budget is credible, where the Republican plan is 
not. Most importantly, the Blue Dog budget is responsible and the other 
plan is not.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, as Ranking Member of the House 
Conservation Subcommittee, I cannot remain silent in the face of the 
inadequacy of the funding for agriculture in the budget presented by 
the majority.
  Conservation programs are already facing a shortfall in funding, 
while the precious lands which are our original heritage, are ravaged 
by erosion, fire, pestilence, and many other dangers.
  The Conservation Reserve Program needs to grow, and the Wetlands 
Reserve Program is deeply underfunded by the sum of $569 million. The 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program needs to be nearly doubled in 
acreage, and the essential Farmland Protection Program needs to more 
than double.
  These programs allow our farmers to participate in restoring our 
great nation's resources to a healthy state while keeping the farmers 
solvent. Conservation is a win/win matter, and the majority budget 
fails to meet the needs of the American people and our lands. I 
strongly support the agriculture provisions of the Blue Dogs budget and 
call upon all members who want to preserve and restore the health of 
our landmass to support them.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 221, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 67]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark

[[Page 4806]]


     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Lampson
     Mink
     Rothman
     Shaw
     Sisisky

                              {time}  1347

  Messrs. CALLAHAN, LEWIS of California, OTTER, TOOMEY, COOKSEY, BRYANT 
and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, BROWN of Ohio, CONYERS, BLAGOJEVICH, 
CUMMINGS, DUNCAN, MOLLOHAN, WAMP and Ms. WOOLSEY and Ms. McKINNEY 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 65, 66 and 67 I was absent 
due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 65 and ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 66 and 67.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part B of House Report 107-30.


   Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Flake:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2002.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 is hereby revised and replaced 
     and that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2002 and that the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal years 2003 through 2011 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,537,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,601,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,658,100,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,726,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,802,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,851,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,908,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,988,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,066,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,147,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,225,900,000,000
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $93,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $102,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $124,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $138,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $147,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $188,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $227,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $254,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $294,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $342,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $393,000,000,000
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,554,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,597,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,642,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,701,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,777,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,823,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,884,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,963,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,038,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,120,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,208,500,000,000
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,502,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,564,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,612,100,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,672,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,750,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,791,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,851,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,934,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,010,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,094,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,176,500,000,000
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $34,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,100,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $46,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $53,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $52,800,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $59,900,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $57,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $54,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $55,700,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $52,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $49,400,000,000
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2001: $5,656,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2002: $5,641,900,000,000
       Fiscal year 2003: $5,692,400,000,000
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,736,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2005: $5,793,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,889,600,000,000
       Fiscal year 2007: $6,395,300,000,000
       Fiscal year 2008: $6,985,500,000,000
       Fiscal year 2009: $7,629,900,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $8,687,200,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $9,543,400,000,000

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2011 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $369,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $374,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $381,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $401,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $412,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $404,700,000,000.

[[Page 4807]]

       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $435,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $428,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $435,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $428,400,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,200,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,800,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2001:

[[Page 4808]]

       (A) New budget authority, $11,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,400,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $173,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $187,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $222,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $295,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $341,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,800,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $214,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $283,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $279,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $347,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $343,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $374,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $404,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $435,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $431,700,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $275,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $298,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $306,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $312,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $328,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $339,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $348,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,400,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650)
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,700,000,000
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,700,000,000.

[[Page 4809]]

       (B) Outlays, $33,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $278,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $260,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, 260,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $243,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $233,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,500,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,300,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submissiosn by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     for Tax Relief.--The House Committee on Ways and Means 
     shall--
       (1) report to the House a reconciliation bill--
       (A) not later than May 2, 2001;
       (B) not later than May 23, 2001; and
       (C) not later than June 20, 2001; and
       (2) submit to the Committee on the Budget recommendations 
     pursuant to section (c)(2)(F)(ii) not later than September 
     11, 2001; that consists of changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues 
     by not more than $93,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $102,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $124,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, $138,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $147,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $188,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $2,302,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (b) Submissiosn by House Committees on Energy and Commerce 
     and Ways and Means for Medicare Reform and Prescription 
     Drugs.--(1) Not later than July 24, 2001, the House 
     Committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide 
     direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: 
     $0 for the period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     the period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (c) Other Submissions by House Committees.--(1) Not later 
     than September 11, 2001, the House Committees named in 
     paragraph (2) shall submit their recommendations to the House 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending sufficient to increase outlays, as 
     follows: $0 for fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 
     for fiscal year 2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal 
     year 2005, $0 for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2001 through 2011.
       (B) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 for fiscal year 
     2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal year 2005, $0 
     for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of fiscal year 
     2001 through 2011.
       (C) The House Committee on Financial Services shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce revenues, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $139,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $101,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $92,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004, $96,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $101,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $1,112,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     year 2001 through 2011.
       (D) The House Committee on Government Reform shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to reduce outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 for fiscal year 
     2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal year 2005, $0 
     for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of fiscal year 
     2001 through 2011.
       (E) The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $264,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $479,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $761,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004, $816,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $885,000,000 
     for fiscal year

[[Page 4810]]

     2006, and $7,087,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2001 
     through 2011.
       (F)(i) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending sufficient to increase outlays, as follows: $0 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $0 for fiscal year 2002, $0 for fiscal year 
     2003, $0 for fiscal year 2004, $0 for fiscal year 2005, $0 
     for fiscal year 2006, and $0 for the period of fiscal year 
     2001 through 2011.
       (ii) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the total level of revenues as specified in subsection (a).
       (d) Special Rules.--In the House, if any bill reported 
     pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (c)(2)(F)(ii), 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, has 
     refundable tax provisions that increase outlays, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may increase the amount of new 
     budget authority provided by such provisions (and outlays 
     following therefrom) allocated to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means and adjust the revenue levels set forth in such 
     subsection accordingly such that the increase in outlays and 
     reduction in revenue resulting from such bill does not exceed 
     the amounts specified in subsection (a) or subsection 
     (c)(2)(F)(ii), as applicable.

     SEC. 5. RESERVE FUND FOR EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Adjustments for Emergencies.--In the House, after the 
     reporting of a bill or joint resolution by the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority and outlays under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for fiscal year 2002 by the 
     amount provided by that measure for an emergency that the 
     chairman so determines and certifies. Adjustments to such 
     allocation made under this subsection may be made only for 
     amounts for emergencies in excess of $1,923,000,000 in new 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2002 and the total of any 
     such adjustments for such fiscal year shall not exceed 
     $5,600,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) The term `emergency' means a situation (other than a 
     threat to national security) that--
       (A) requires new budget authority (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) to prevent the imminent loss of life or property 
     or in response to the loss of life or property; and
       (B) is unanticipated.
       (2) The term `unanticipated' means that the underlying 
     situation is--
       (A) sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not 
     building up over time;
       (B) urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need 
     requiring immediate action;
       (C) unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated as 
     an emerging need; and
       (D) temporary, which means not of a permanent duration.
       (c) Development of Guidelines.--As soon as practicable, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall, 
     after consulting with the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House, publish in the Congressional 
     Record guidelines for application of the definition of 
     emergency set forth in subsection (b).
       (d) Committee Explanation of Emergency Legislation.--
     Whenever the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     (including a committee of conference) reports any bill or 
     joint resolution that provides new budget authority for any 
     emergency, the report accompanying that bill or joint 
     resolution (or the joint explanatory statement of managers in 
     the case of a conference report on any such bill or joint 
     resolution) shall explain the reasons such amount designated 
     under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1974 falls within the 
     definition of emergency set forth in subsection (b) pursuant 
     to the guidelines published under subsection (c).
       (e) CBO Report on the Budget.--The Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall include in each report 
     submitted under section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 the average annual enacted levels of 
     discretionary budget authority and the resulting outlays for 
     emergencies for the 5 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year 
     of the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       (f) Section 314(b)(1) Adjustment.--Section 314(b)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall not apply in the 
     House--
       (1) for fiscal year 2001; or
       (2) for fiscal year 2002 or any subsequent fiscal year, 
     except for emergencies affecting national security.

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY.

       Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto 
     is offered (in the House), or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted that enhances retirement security through 
     structural programmatic reform and the creation of personal 
     retirement accounts, provided that such accounts are funded 
     from the taxes currently collected for the purpose of the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Program, the Chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may--
       (1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of 
     new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) for that purpose;
       (2) reduce the revenue aggregates by the amount of the 
     revenue loss resulting from that measure for that purpose; 
     and
       (3) make all other appropriate and conforming adjustments.

     SEC. 7. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE REFORM AND COMPLIANCE WITH 
                   SECTION 4(B).

       Whenever the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and 
     Commerce report a bill in compliance with Section 4(b) of 
     this Concurrent Resolution that achieves long-term Medicare 
     reform and provides for an expanded prescription drug 
     benefit, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may--
       (1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of 
     new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) for that purpose provided that:
       a. for the period of fiscal year 2001 through 2011 the 
     increase in new budget authority is $0; and
       b. the increase for any one fiscal year does not exceed the 
     amount of surplus credited in that fiscal year to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
       (2) make all other appropriate conforming adjustments.

     SEC. 8. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING FROM 
                   REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING 
                   REVENUES.

       (a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion or conference report, including measures 
     filed in compliance with Section 4 of this Concurrent 
     Resolution, that propose to change Federal revenues the 
     impact of such measure on Federal revenues shall be 
     calculated by the Joint Committee on Taxation in a manner 
     that takes into account:
       (1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on:
       i. Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for 
     the Gross Domestic Product;
       ii. total Domestic Employment;
       iii. Gross Private Domestic Investment;
       iv. General Price Index;
       v. Interest Rates;
       vi. Other economic variables; and
       (2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in 
     economic variables analyzed under subpart (1) of this 
     paragraph.
       (b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order 
     to conform this Concurrent Resolution with the determinations 
     made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to paragraph 
     (a) of this Section.

     SEC. 9. PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMPLIANCE WITH 
                   SECTION 4(A) OF THIS CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.

       When reporting to the House reconciliation measures in 
     compliance with Section 4(a) of this Concurrent Resolution, 
     the Ways and Means Committee shall not report legislation, 
     which:
       (1) proposes to provide a graduated or phased-in reduction 
     over time in--
       (a) Individual income tax rates;
       (b) Corporate tax rates; or
       (c) The rate of taxes collected on the proceeds from 
     investments, including taxes collected on capital gains; or
       (2) conditions any changes in tax law upon the achievement 
     of some level of:
       (a) Federal Revenue,
       (b) Federal Surplus, or
       (c) Level of Public Debt.

     SEC. 10. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS AND DEBT 
                   REDUCTION.

       If the report provided pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the budget and economic 
     outlook: update (for fiscal years 2002 through 2011), 
     estimates an on-budget surplus for any of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2011 that exceeds the estimated on-budget surplus set 
     forth in the Congressional Budget Office's January 2001 
     budget and economic outlook for such fiscal year, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House may, in 
     an amount not to exceed the increase in such surplus for that 
     fiscal year--
       (1) reduce the recommended level of Federal revenues and 
     make other appropriate adjustments (including the 
     reconciliation instructions) for that fiscal year;
       (2) reduce the appropriate level of the public debt, 
     increase the amount of the surplus, and make other 
     appropriate adjustments for that fiscal year; or
       (3) any combination of paragraphs (1) and (2).

     SEC. 11. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments

[[Page 4811]]

     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) such chairman, as applicable, may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of such Act to the Committee 
     on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary 
     administrative expenses of the Social Security 
     Administration.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying 
     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     estimates of the level of total new budget authority and 
     total outlays provided by a measure shall include any 
     discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security 
     Administration.

     SEC. 13. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       For purposes of title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, advance appropriations shall be scored as new budget 
     authority for the fiscal year in which the appropriations are 
     enacted, except that advance appropriations in excess of the 
     levels specified in the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers accompanying this resolution for programs, projects, 
     activities or accounts identified in such joint statement 
     shall continue to be scored as new budget authority in the 
     year in which they first become available for obligation.

     SEC. 14. ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B)(1) OF THE 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

       (a) Compliance.--When complying with Section 302(b)(1) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House shall consult with the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the other House to ensure that the 
     allocation of budget outlays and new budget authority among 
     each Committee's subcommittees are identical.
       (b) Report.--The Committee on Appropriations of each House 
     shall report to its House when it determines that the report 
     made by the Committee pursuant to Section 301(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the report made by the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the other House pursuant to 
     the same provision contain identical allocations of budget 
     outlays and new budget authority among each Committee's 
     subcommittees.
       (c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report providing 
     new discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2002 
     allocated to the Committee on Appropriations unless and until 
     the Committee on Appropriations of that House has made the 
     report required under paragraph (b) of this Section.

     SEC. 15. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   CLAUSE 2(A)(1) OF RULE XXI OF THE RULES OF THE 
                   HOUSE

       (a) Congress finds that:
       (1) Each year, the House Appropriations Committee provides 
     funding to hundreds of programs whose authorization has 
     expired or were never authorized by an Act of Congress.
       (2) For Fiscal Year 2002, there were over 200 programs 
     funded in 112 laws totaling over $112 billion whose 
     authorization had expired.
       (3) According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the 
     largest amount for a single program is for veterans medical 
     care, which was last authorized in 1998 and totals over $20.3 
     billion. Funding for the economic support and development 
     assistance programs was last authorized in 1987 by the 
     International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 
     1985 and totals just over $7.8 billion in 2001 and much of 
     the appropriation provided for the Department of Justice in 
     2001, which totals over $16.8 billion, is unauthorized.
       (4) Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     prohibits the funding of an appropriation, which has not been 
     authorized by law.
       (5) The House Rules Committee typically waives Rule XXI 
     when considering general appropriation bills.
       (6) The respective authorizing committees have not made 
     reauthorization of unauthorized programs a priority.
       (7) The lack of congressional oversight over the years, as 
     far back in 1979, has led to the deterioration of the power 
     of the respective authorizing Committees and thus the loss of 
     congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility, which is a 
     blow to the voters of America and their role in the process.
       (8) The lack of congressional oversight over the years has 
     led to the shift of power away from the Legislative Branch 
     toward the Executive Branch and unelected federal 
     bureaucrats.
       (b) It is the sense of the Congress that:
       (1) The House of Representatives and the Senate give 
     priority to the authorization of expired programs, with an 
     emphasis on federal programs which have been expired for more 
     than five years.
       (2) Congress should pass, and the President should sign 
     into law, legislation to amend the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 to require Congress to fund programs that are 
     currently unauthorized at 90 percent of prior fiscal year 
     levels.
       (3) Congress should pass, and the President should sign 
     into law, legislation to require the Congressional Budget 
     Office to prepare budget baselines based on the figures where 
     unauthorized programs are frozen and funded at 90 percent of 
     current levels.

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY 
                   AUDITS AND WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Each branch of government and every department and 
     agency has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that tax 
     dollars are spent in the most efficient and effective manner 
     possible and to eliminate mismanagement, waste, fraud, and 
     abuse.
       (2) A minimal measure of whether a department or agency is 
     upholding its fiduciary responsibility is its ability to pass 
     an audit.
       (3) The most recent audits for Fiscal Year 1999 revealed 
     that nine major agencies--the Departments of Agriculture, 
     Defense, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, 
     and Treasury and the Agency for International Development, 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and Office of Personnel 
     Management--could not provide clean financial statements.
       (4) Mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse cost American 
     taxpayers billions of dollars.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     no agency or department which has failed its most recent 
     audit should receive an increase in their budget over the 
     previous year, unless the availability of the increased funds 
     is contingent upon the completion of a clean audit.

     SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE USE OF FEDERAL SURPLUS 
                   FUNDS TO INVEST IN PRIVATE SECURITIES.

       It is the Sense of Congress that Congress should pass, and 
     the President should sign into law, legislation codifying a 
     general prohibition on the use of Federal surplus by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to make investments in securities 
     (within the meaning of the securities laws of the United 
     States) other than government securities.

     SEC. 18. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FULLY FUNDING SPECIAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) all children deserve a quality education, including 
     children with disabilities;
       (2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     provides that the Federal, State and local governments are to 
     share in the expense of educating children with disabilities 
     and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of 
     the national average per pupil expenditure for children with 
     disabilities;
       (3) the high cost of educating children with disabilities 
     and the Federal Government's failure to fully meet its 
     obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act stretches limited State and local education funds, 
     creating difficulty in providing a quality education to all 
     students, including children with disabilities;
       (4) the current level of Federal funding to States and 
     localities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act is contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with 
     disabilities receive a quality education;
       (5) the Federal Government has failed to fully fund the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and appropriate 
     40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure per 
     child with a disability as required under the Act to assist 
     States and localities to educate children with disabilities;

       (6) the levels in function 500 (Education) for fiscal year 
     2002 assume sufficient discretionary budget authority to 
     accommodate fiscal year 2002 appropriations for IDEA at least 
     $10.6 billion above such funding levels 2000, thus, fully 
     funding the Federal Government's commitment to special 
     education;
       (7) the levels in function 500 (Education) to accommodate 
     the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for fully funding IDEA may 
     be reached by eliminating inefficient, ineffective and 
     unauthorized education programs.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress and the President should increase function 500 
     (Education) fiscal year 2002 funding for programs under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by at least $10.6 
     billion above fiscal year 2001 appropriated levels, thus 
     fully funding the Federal Government's commitment;
       (2) Congress and the President can accomplish the goal by 
     eliminating inefficient, ineffective and unauthorized 
     education programs.

     SEC. 19. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FISCAL YEAR 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   SPENDING.

       It is the sense of Congress that--

[[Page 4812]]

     to the extent that any additional funding is required in 
     Fiscal Year 2001 for the Department of Defense, for 
     assistance for producers of program crops and specialty 
     crops, and for other critical needs, such funding should be 
     offset through rescissions in other Federal programs.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an alternative budget on behalf 
of the Republican Study Committee. This is a budget based on the 
principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual 
responsibility. My colleagues will address various parts of the 
amendment. Let me just offer a few highlights.
  Mr. Chairman, on tax relief, our amendment embodies the Toomey bill 
which provides approximately $2.2 trillion in tax relief over 10 years. 
It offers $93 billion in immediate tax relief in 2001, and it 
stipulates that any summer bump-up in surplus estimates would go to tax 
relief and debt reduction. We also would beef up funding of defense to 
$350 billion in 2002, which is $25 billion over the Committee on the 
Budget. We also would provide for debt reduction. This dedicates the 
Social Security and Medicare surplus to public debt reduction, ensuring 
that the maximum level of debt reduction is achieved within 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment reins in spending. Over the past 3 years, 
we have had an average of 6 percent spending growth in discretionary 
spending. That is simply too high. If we are a party of limited 
government, we have to rein in spending. We would actually hold 
spending below the inflation rate. Ours would hold spending over 10 
years at 2.9 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, about 35 years ago Ronald Reagan stood and said it was 
a time for choosing. I believe it was the greatest speech ever 
delivered. He said, Now is the time we choose whether we believe in our 
own capacity for self-government, or whether we ``confess that a little 
intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us 
better than we can plan them ourselves.''
  Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would be in that far-distant capital, 
but I am here; and I do not pretend that I have any great knowledge. I 
have only been here a few short months, and I have not had any epiphany 
about how to spend people's money better than they can spend it 
themselves.
  This budget, better than any budget being offered on the floor, 
honors those principles, limited government, economic freedom and 
individual responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Luther).
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, we all know that the revenue forecast on 
which this budget resolution is based is simply not reliable. We simply 
should not risk the future of our country based on this kind of an 
unreliable forecast. Just 1 month ago in this Chamber, the President 
said that we need a contingency fund, a rainy day backup plan that will 
take effect if our economic forecasts do not turn out to be quite as 
sunny as we hope. But that rainy-day fund referred to by the President 
somehow got lost on the way through this Congress. The budget 
resolution before us leaves simply no way to adjust if our economy does 
not continue to perform as we hope.
  Mr. Chairman, let us all hope that we have sunshine in the future and 
not rain for this country. But to jeopardize and to risk our country's 
future and the future of our children and their children based on these 
revenue forecasts, without any way out, is simply no way to go. I urge 
opposition to this underlying budget resolution.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) for yielding me this time, and I want to congratulate the 
Republican Study Committee, the staff of the Republican Study 
Committee, and the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership in putting 
together an extremely responsible, progrowth, protaxpayer budget that 
is something that we all ought to be able to support.
  Let me step back and remind my colleagues. It was a little over a 
year ago, at the time he was candidate George Bush, that our now 
President proposed a tax relief plan of about $1.6 trillion, out of 
what was then expected to be about a $3 trillion surplus. Since then 
two big things have changed: The surpluses are obviously going to be 
much larger than that. The consensus estimate is now at least $5.5 
trillion in surpluses. The other thing that has changed is the economy 
has clearly weakened.
  We need to do more, we can do more, and the budget that we are 
talking about right now, the Republican Study Committee budget, 
accommodates a broader, faster, more helpful tax relief package. That 
is what we need to do.
  This budget is very responsible. In fact, it is a modest tax relief 
package. It is only 7 cents of every dollar that is scheduled to come 
to Washington. It is less than 40 percent of the combined surpluses. It 
is much smaller than the tax cuts of the 1980s. It is smaller even than 
the tax cuts that President John F. Kennedy put through in the early 
1960s.
  What we do is we take President Bush's plan and phase it in faster 
under the Republican Study Committee's budget. We cut marginal income 
tax rates retroactively to January 1 of this year. We take other 
elements, and we introduce them into this tax relief package, like 
allowing families to put more money into IRAs; like repealing the 1993 
tax increase on Social Security; like phasing out the alternative 
minimum tax and fully eliminating the marriage penalty. Those are 
things we need to do, and this budget would allow us to do that.
  Let me address the issue of the certainty of the surplus. This has 
come up many times, and we just heard the previous speaker mention 
this. Nobody knows for sure exactly how large a surplus can be, but the 
fact is these are extremely conservative estimates that have been used. 
The fact is that for the last 3 years every revision has been an upward 
revision. The fact is we are not helpless victims as to whether or not 
there is going to be a surplus. We know how to make sure we have the 
funds available. We are not helpless victims waiting to see whether 
there is a surplus, as though it were a storm rolling up the eastern 
seaboard.
  We know how to make sure this happens: Reduce excessive taxes so the 
economy can prosper, like it has done every time we have lowered taxes, 
and control spending. If we do that, there is more than enough money. 
And we can do that. This budget calls for that. It also provides the 
freedom and fairness that we as representatives of the working people 
of America ought to do.
  I want to congratulate all my colleagues on the Republican Study 
Committee that put this budget together, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this alternative budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York and South Carolina (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Democratic alternative and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 83.
  The Democratic budget provides a prudent framework for meeting the 
needs of the country and responds to the priorities set by the American 
people. It is risky at best to base a budget and massive tax cuts on a 
projected surplus and expected revenues. The Republican's budget 
amounts to double-dipping by appropriating the same funds in different 
places. The Democratic alternative responds to these issues that 
Americans have noted as most important.
  On education, the Democratic alternative provides $151 billion over 
the 10-year period; the Republican plan only $21.4 billion. The 
Democratic alternative seeks to provide a much-needed Medicare press 
drug benefit with realistic numbers and adequate levels of

[[Page 4813]]

funding. We do not try to trick the American people. We provide the 
full $330 billion necessary to carry this program.
  While Americans have signaled Congress that they want and deserve a 
tax cut, they have also asked for a reasonable and responsible and 
realistic and timely tax cut. The Democratic alternative provides that.
  The Republicans plan a massive and rapid $2 trillion tax cut, while 
wholly ignoring process and priorities and procedures. It is clear, Mr. 
Chairman, that the Republican tax cut is contrary to the American 
people.
  The Democratic alternative proposes a $730 billion tax cut, while 
still funding farm aid at $46 billion; the Republican budget provides 
nothing for America's farmers; the alternative provides $7 billion for 
Veteran Health care; the Republicans cut funds to our nation's veteran 
by $5.7 billion. The Republican plan proposes a massive and rapid $2 
trillion plus tax cuts while wholly ignoring process, priorities, and 
procedures.
  Mr. Chairman, it has become clear that the Republican budget is 
contrary to both the needs and the priorities of the American people. 
The Republican budget seeks to mortgage the Trust Fund; the needs of 
children and the gains of this period of prosperity for a rushed and 
ill-conceived tax cut.
  I urge my colleagues to support the democratic alternative and vote 
for a fair, prudent and realistic budget.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
State of Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are concerned about the job losses in 
America, if they, like me, are concerned about the thousands of layoffs 
that are occurring, if they are concerned about the high energy prices 
which are taking money right out of our economy, then they ought to 
vote for this budget, because this budget, in addition to protecting 
Medicare and Social Security, in addition to bringing back responsible 
spending, is the real progrowth, pro-job-creation tax bill budget 
resolution.
  This budget cuts taxes not next year, not in the year 2006, but it 
cuts taxes this year, and it does it in a way that is going to be good 
for our economy. It is the most progrowth tax bill we have on the floor 
today. It is the best answer toward getting jobs back on line in this 
economy. It is the best answer that we can send to our constituents.
  Help is on the way: More money is going back into the taxpayers' 
paychecks this year. We are serious about getting this economy back on 
its feet. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Republican Study Committee 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I will make a very quick point. For the past few days, we have been 
talking about education and budget and monies. The Democratic plan is a 
much better plan. We provide much more monies to support education.
  Just a while ago it was said that before we give more money, we 
should have accountability, and that that is why the Republican plan is 
providing less money than the Democratic Party. But I have to tell my 
colleagues one thing about accountability. Public Law 94-142, which is 
a special ed bill, has mandated our local school districts to provide 
special education. Now, we said that we would support it by 40 percent 
of the cost of special education, yet over the years we have not 
supported special education to the local public schools at 40 percent.

                              {time}  1400

  It is somewhere between 13 and 15 percent. If we were to support 
public education to 40 percent, say over the next 10 years, what that 
does, and we do not speak about this, we do not speak about its impact 
at the local level, it will release the local general fund monies that 
have been allocated for special ed; support that. We could free that 
money up, have the local school districts provide the education, 
further the education at the local level.
  We believe in local control. We believe in local direction of 
curriculum instruction, and yet we are not providing and not doing the 
very thing that we want everybody else to do, and that is to fulfill 
our promises.
  Accountability is a two-way street. We mandate. We should support it 
with our funds that we said we would, and that way the local districts 
will not be burdened with the mandates that we give them and therefore 
they can use more of the local monies for the local educational 
projects that they have for their own kids.
  We have to go all the way to support special ed at its full 40 
percent. Accountability, again, is a two-way street.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the Republican Study 
Committee budget actually prioritizes IDEA funding. I thank the 
gentleman for the opening here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the 
Republican Study Committee budget. This budget is good for the American 
people, and this budget helps to rebuild the military.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very unsafe world. I want to make reference 
to three news articles and read the titles. In February of this past 
year, 2000, ``China Warns U.S. of Missile Strike.'' The second article 
I want to make reference to, ``Russia Sends Cruise Missiles to China 
for New War Ships.'' Mr. Chairman, just today, ``Admiral Warns of 
Perilous Buildup of Chinese Missiles.''
  Mr. Chairman, this budget helps to rebuild the military.
  Let me further state that China has proposed a 17.7 percent increase 
in defense spending for this coming year. That is the largest increase 
in 20 years. In addition, when all the expenditures are added up, it is 
generally believed that China's defense spending is three or four times 
the official figure. China figures defense spending as a percentage of 
their total government expenditure is 8.29 percent in the year 2000.
  Let me talk a little bit about the American military and why this 
budget bill is so needed. Today, the U.S. spends less than 3 percent of 
its GDP on national security. We are near the lowest level of defense 
spending as a percentage of GDP since before the Korean War. We do not 
have the luxury of time, Mr. Chairman, to rebuild our Nation's 
military.
  Let me say, in closing, this is a great bill for many reasons, but 
one very important reason is to help rebuild the military of this 
country. It is time to rebuild our military for the good of the 
American people.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party has thrown a big good-
bye party for the surplus. First they brought out a pinata for all 
their wealthy friends and they let each one of them take a whack at it 
and out comes a huge tax cut with the wealthiest 1 percent getting an 
overwhelming 45 percent of the tax cut.
  The Republicans claim it only cost $1.6 trillion but we really know 
it is going to cost an extra trillion more. Good-bye surplus.
  Next, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans divert hundreds of billions of 
dollars from the Medicare and Social Security trust fund dollars from 
the lockbox and put it over into a sandbox for their friends to play 
with. That diversion will be a disaster for seniors. Seniors will get 
sandbagged by this budget because the Republican diversion will shave 9 
years off the Social Security trust fund and 5 years off the life of 
the Medicare Trust Fund. Good-bye, surplus.
  Plus, they are doing regulatory changes at the same time. EPA used to

[[Page 4814]]

stand for the Environmental Protection Agency. Now EPA stands for ``Eat 
Plenty of Arsenic.'' They cannot get enough of helping their friends.
  This is an absolute orgy that is going on, helping the wealthiest in 
America and the most powerful industries.
  Mr. Chairman, it is immoral to pass these huge tax cuts that explode 
in 2008 and 2009 and 2010, based upon dot com company projections of 
revenues.
  The American public knows that the NASDAQ collapsed. These same 
revenue estimates made by CBO are just as bogus, but in order to make 
sure that there is no money there for senior citizens, long-term care, 
building schools in this country a decade from now, they are committed 
to having these huge tax cuts that will bankrupt this country.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) that our tax cut is not $1.6 trillion. It is $2.2 trillion, if 
that makes him feel any better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, above the Speaker's rostrum is the 
national motto, ``In God We Trust,'' but I have always been taught that 
we need to do our part in order to have God do his.
  One of the things that we need to do is to cut the spending and cut 
the taxes. I am delighted to know that the Republican Study Committee 
budget provides for the largest tax cut, because it is critical. Look 
at what is happening in this country.
  U.S. News and World Report 2 weeks ago has on its cover the title, 
``Drowning in Debt.'' It was not talking about the U.S. Government. It 
was talking about families in this country, an unprecedented amount of 
debt.
  It baffles me to hear some of my Democrat colleagues get up and 
espouse how we better not give too big a tax cut.
  This is the people's own money. They are entitled to it. This gives 
us the greatest amount of tax relief, and we should all pull behind 
this and work hard to enact this substitute budget.
  This is a crisis. Every time I read about school shootings, it is not 
the phony solution of gun control that is the problem. The fact of the 
matter is, we have grown this government too big. We have too much 
regulation, and moms and dads have been forced out of the homes and 
away from being with the kids.
  Vote for this substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the budget that 
President Bush and his Republican colleagues have put together. It is a 
disgrace. Not only will it return the country to the era of big 
deficits and high interest rates, President Bush does not keep the 
promises he made to our country's students.
  Throughout his campaign then-Governor Bush promised American students 
he would increase funding to the Pell Grant program, and he said he 
would provide a maximum grant of $5,100. This would enable more 
students to obtain a college education. However, in the Bush budget the 
Republicans have laid out for us, the maximum Pell Grant will only be 
$3,900, an increase of only $150. Nearly $1,100 separate this budget 
from President Bush's campaign promise.
  In addition, Bush breaks his promise to provide funding so that 
students can have the facilities and equipment they need. Instead of 
slashing by two-thirds programs to purchase computers and Internet 
access for poor and underserved areas, we need to increase the funding 
for our schools.
  The Bush budget provides funding for charter schools to purchase 
buildings and materials at a time when our public schools are 
crumbling. Many schools do not have heating, air conditioning or 
plumbing that works properly.
  The Republicans claim the Department of Education's budget is 
increasing 11 percent. However, after accounting for the redirecting of 
funds already appropriated, President Bush's budget only increases 
funding by 5.7 percent. In just one example, Republicans eliminate the 
school renovation program but redirect $1.2 billion from last year's 
budget. I ask for a no vote on this budget. It does not keep the 
promise. He is indeed leaving children behind.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) for yielding and commend him for offering the Republican Study 
Committee budget alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this substitute budget 
because it is the best for our Armed Forces. While President Bush and 
Secretary Rumsfeld have every right to conduct a review, and I support 
the review, it is still the constitutional responsibility, the 
constitutional obligation of the Congress, to provide for our Armed 
Forces to meet our threats.
  The Republican Study Committee budget invests $350 billion, $25 
billion more than the committee's budget, to eliminate some serious 
readiness woes, such as, one, a combat readiness rate of 41 percent for 
Air Force aircraft stationed in the continental United States; an acute 
shortage of ammunition for our Army and Marine Corps, Navy and Coast 
Guard aircraft, as well as ships and cutters that are grounded for lack 
of funding.
  Remember, it was President Ronald Reagan who said, quote, ``I believe 
it is immoral to ask the sons and daughters of America to protect this 
land with second-rate equipment and bargain-basement weapons,'' end 
quote.
  It was immoral then. It is immoral today. It is immoral to continue 
to ask our men and women in uniform to do more and more with less, both 
in operations and maintenance and with their own compensation and 
benefits. This budget goes farther than any other budget alternative to 
do just that.
  For example, it seeks to close the pay gap for our men and women in 
uniform, almost 11 percent at this time. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, the annual amount required to cover the shortfall of 
modernization alone is $30 billion a year. According to CBO, the 
additional amount required to maintain OPTEMPO, operating tempos and 
current levels of readiness, is $5 billion short. Also, the amount to 
accelerate missile defense and enhance science- and technology-based 
programs is woefully inadequate.
  The Republican Study Committee budget goes a long way in meeting 
these obvious requirements and necessary requirements for our national 
defense.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, Republican budgets are a blueprint for 
disaster. To pay for President Bush's irresponsible and fuzzy math tax 
cut for the rich, the Republican budget ignores the needs and 
priorities of the American people who have sent us to Washington to 
fight for their interests. This Republican budget ignores people like 
73-year-old Olga Kipnis from my district. With the help of the Federal 
Government, Olga now lives in an apartment in a safe and quiet 
neighborhood but soon she may lose that apartment and be forced to move 
out of the neighborhood.
  Does the budget address our national affordable housing crisis? 
Hardly. This Republican budget resolution would guarantee millionaires 
a down payment for a summer home and seniors like Olga their eviction 
notice. And because of that tax cut, our national priorities will not 
be met.
  $800 billion is needed for a quality prescription drug benefit for 
seniors under Medicare. The Republican budget dedicates only a paltry 
amount for a meaningless benefit. The Democratic alternative budget 
will provide $151 billion for education needs like teacher recruitment 
and school construction. The Republican budget does not commit any 
money to school construction. The American public believes the Federal 
Government has a role to play to meet our Nation's education, public 
housing and health care needs and to

[[Page 4815]]

ensure the health of Medicare and Social Security. The Republican 
budget fails that role miserably.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a couple of points 
about this budget that I think are very important. One of them is that 
this budget provides immediate retroactive income tax relief for all 
taxpayers to the tune of $93 billion. That is immediate tax relief. It 
also phases out the alternative minimum tax, which affects a lot of 
people in our country.
  The third point that I wanted to make was it does repeal the capital 
gains tax, starts that repeal of capital gains. I think that is very 
important. These are all things that are going to do a tremendous 
amount to spur our economy, which we need right now.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity in America today 
to invest in America. Sadly, the budget before us and the underlying 
budget does not do that.
  The Democratic budget will do that. It will provide a tax cut with 
one-third of the budget surplus. It will also require one-third be 
spent for Social Security and Medicare. Why then are we now debating a 
budget that will put us back into deficit that took us 18 years to get 
out of under the former Republican administration? This budget gives no 
taxes, no relief, for over one-third of the families in this country 
with children. Over one-third of the families with children get nothing 
under this budget proposal.
  On the other hand, the Democratic proposal gets at least $130 million 
more into education. We have heard a lot today, America, but the facts 
are clear, the Republican budget will take us back into deficit. The 
Republican budget will take us back into deficit. The Democratic 
budget, on the other hand, will invest in America, your children and 
our families. Vote for the Democratic budget.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Particularly, I thank him for bringing this budget to the floor, 
because in this budget we will have room to do two things: first, meet 
the President's objectives and more on controlling the growth in 
spending. This budget allows for growth in spending, but it does not 
grow spending as fast as some of the other proposals we have seen on 
the floor. Second, it provides for across-the-board rate relief. Third, 
it provides, as nobody else is proposing to do here immediately, today, 
for a diminution, a reduction, in the rate of tax applied to savings 
and investment, the penalty tax on creating jobs, the penalty tax on 
new investment that we call capital gains.
  Throughout my service in Congress for 13 years, we have pretended 
that every time we raise the capital gains rate, we gain revenue for 
the Treasury, and every time we reduce the rate, we lose it. That is 
how we score revenue. But each time we have done this since 1978, we 
find that when we raise the rate of tax on capital gains, we lose money 
for the Treasury, and when we reduce the rate of tax on capital gains, 
we gain money.
  Cap gains revenues increased 385 percent in the 5 years after we 
reduced the rate from 28 to 20 percent in the Economic Recovery Tax 
Act. In 1986 when the Congress was chasing after scored revenue and 
jacked the rate of tax up again because that would be more responsible, 
that would avoid deficits, cap gains revenues fell by a third in the 
first year; and they stayed in the tank for 10 years, essentially, from 
1986 to 1996. Then, in the mid-1990s, in this Congress, President 
Clinton vetoed a cut in the capital gains tax rates because he wanted 
to be responsible, because keeping that rate high would somehow help. 
Nonetheless, in 1997, we enacted a rate cut from 28 percent to 20 
percent; and today, as we stand here, cap gains revenues to the 
Treasury are up over a third.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget will permit us to cut the cap gains rate 
and make money for the Treasury, as well as help the American people. I 
thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have to say, I am really amazed when I 
listen to my Republican colleagues. They acknowledge that the economy 
is getting weaker, they acknowledge we are having layoffs, but then 
they tell us we are going to have greater surpluses. It really does not 
make sense.
  They move on and say what we really need is a bloated tax cut for all 
Americans. It is not for all Americans, it is for the rich Americans, 
because the richest 1 percent get 43 percent of the tax benefit. Where 
is the fairness in that?
  Let us talk about education. The Democratic alternative gives us $150 
billion more for education. That means for teachers, smaller 
classrooms, more computers, more books, and school renovation. The 
Republican budget does not compare.
  Let us move on and talk about debt reduction. I have not heard them 
talk about debt reduction. The Democratic budget gives us $915 billion 
more in debt reduction, which means lower interest rates for all 
Americans.
  Finally, let us talk about law enforcement. The Democratic budget 
gives us $19 billion more for local law enforcement, more cops on the 
street; and that is a good thing. At the end of the day, the choice is 
very clear. The best budget for all Americans is the Democratic budget. 
I urge adoption of the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman from 
Maryland that this budget actually gives tax relief to anybody who pays 
income taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the alternative 
budget offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and supported 
by the members of the Republican Study Committee.
  Over the past 5 years, Congress has been, let us admit it, on a 
spending spree with the people's money. Last year's budget included an 
8.7 increase in nondefense discretionary spending, and it took Congress 
just 5 months to consume $20 billion of the $26 billion surplus for 
last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the budget presented by the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, is an 
excellent start. However, Congress has demonstrated that if there is 
money to be spent in Washington, indeed it will be spent.
  The Republican Study Commission reintroduces fiscal discipline to 
Washington, D.C. It recognizes that the surplus was created through the 
efforts of hard-working families of America by returning $2.2 trillion 
of the surplus to them. It does this by speeding marginal tax relief to 
working families, small businesses, and family farms, and by making tax 
cuts fully retroactive up and down the scale. At the same time, the RSC 
budget provides for our most important initiatives: IDEA funding, 
Medicare, Social Security, defense, and debt reduction.
  Our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have 
us believe that a tax cut and a fair and responsible budget is 
impossible. This premise is simply false. This budget has proven that 
we can help families with a tax cut and have a responsible and fair 
budget. The proof is in the numbers. Defense spending would increase to 
$350 billion, $25 billion more than the proposed budget. The RSC budget 
would require 100 percent of Social Security and Medicare surpluses, as 
well as other priorities be funded. It is a responsible budget, and it 
helps working families.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this alternative plan, which is actually worse

[[Page 4816]]

than the Bush budget and tax cut plan, and I do so for several reasons. 
First of all, the Bush plan fails to make important investments in 
education, health care, law enforcement, and the digital divide. As a 
matter of fact, the Bush budget plan puts tax cuts first and leaves 
large gaps and services for millions of people who need them. In 
reality, the Bush plan leaves 53 percent of black and Hispanic families 
behind, despite claims that the tax cut would go to all taxpayers.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 53 percent 
of black and Hispanic families with children will receive no tax 
reduction from the Bush plan, even though 75 percent of these families 
include someone who is working. The 6 million black and Hispanic 
families that will receive the benefit from the proposal include 6.1 
million black children and 6.5 million Hispanic children, or 55 percent 
of all black children and 56 percent of Hispanic children. Among non-
Hispanic blacks, 3 million families with children, 52.8 percent of all 
such families, would not benefit from the Bush tax plan. The figures 
are the same essentially for Hispanic children.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I say, cut us in or cut it out. This is not the 
plan; this is not the program; this is not for America.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment.
  One of the things that I find a little difficult, and perhaps some of 
my colleagues do as well, is to try to figure out how many zeroes go 
behind a trillion. We are starting to talk about quantities of money 
that are sometimes hard to put into perspective. My comments this 
afternoon try to do that, try to talk about what does it really mean in 
terms of a $2.2 trillion plan.
  When we take a look at the chart to my immediate left, what we see is 
that in spite of the comments of the Democrats, that the Kennedy plan 
of years ago was larger in terms of tax cuts than what is being 
proposed either by the President or by the plan that is before us 
today. We are looking at $2.2 trillion, and the Kennedy plan and the 
Reagan plans both were bigger. In fact, the Reagan tax cut was about 3 
times bigger than what we are considering here today.
  This, when we consider that the economy is already struggling and we 
have a tax surplus, when we put those facts together, what we are doing 
is proposing a very reasonable and a very temperate budget. It is still 
a balanced budget, we are still paying down the deficit, we are still 
keeping the Social Security and Medicare money where they belong; but 
what we are doing is we are providing that stimulus to the economy to 
protect jobs and to move the economy forward. This plan then, when we 
take a look at it in context, when we take a look at all of those 
zeroes behind a trillion, we can understand what it means. It is less 
than the Kennedy or the Reagan plan.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this budget is about making 
choices, and this Republican budget makes all the wrong choices for 
this country.
  Like monkey see, monkey do. We need to look at my home State of 
Florida to see the devastating effect that this budget will have on our 
country. When Jeb Bush took over as Governor of Florida, he inherited a 
surplus and a booming economy from a Democratic administration. Today, 
as he continues to push for more tax cuts for the wealthy Floridians, 
the surplus is gone. There is a $1 billion hole in Medicaid, and we 
cannot even afford books for our students.
  Also unfortunate for the citizens of Florida is that this budget does 
nothing to improve the voting system that kept thousands of our votes 
from counting.
  It is a choice. We can continue the prosperity we have worked so hard 
for; or we can go back to the huge debts, high interest rates, and 
skyrocketing unemployment that followed the Ronald Reagan tax cut. 
Remember, the deficit, the deficit, the deficit.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, national defense is in trouble. We need to 
spend an additional $30 billion a year on equipment; we need to spend 
an additional $6 billion to $10 billion on people to raise their pay up 
to a level commensurate with the private sector; we need to spend an 
additional $3 billion or $4 billion per year on ammunition, and an 
additional $5 million or so for training so that our pilots can get the 
requisite number of hours per month. We have a lot of holes in defense.
  This budget is one of the few budgets that recognizes the problem 
and, in fact, raises the defense spending to $350 billion, which is a 
$25 billion increase from the baseline that we have established over 
the last several years. It is excellent in that sense.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the administration, George Bush, 
Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, have promised that when they have finished 
their review, they are going to come in with a different defense 
number. I hope it is upward and I think it will be; and the reason I 
think it will be is because of the great analysis that has been done by 
the Republican Study Committee and the leaders who have put these 
numbers together, including the defense budget. Help is on the way, and 
my colleagues have helped to be leaders in that area.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, start by stating 
the fact that right now in Texas we are having a really serious problem 
with our budget, and our former Governor, now President, left us in 
shambles. We have a situation where we were supposed to have a major 
surplus and the fact is that we do not. We have teachers that do not 
have access to insurance because of the fact that we do not have 
sufficient resources. We have youngsters that are not being covered for 
medication because of the fact that we do not have enough money to make 
the match. We have families that are uninsured and kids that are 
uninsured because of the fact that we do not have sufficient resources 
to be able to get those Federal monies for the CHIPS program.
  Now, the President is trying to do the same thing on the Federal 
level. Without proposing the exact budget that we need in terms of 
making priorities that we need to consider such as education, which is 
critical, as we move into the global economy; our national defense 
where we know full well that we need 40,000 additional troops out 
there; the testimony from Gingrich that we talked about where we need 
the $60 billion to $80 billion right now as a supplemental.
  We are not talking about those items. What we are talking about is a 
tax cut that is irresponsible, not considering the fact that we have a 
situation before us that we are having a problem with our economy.

                              {time}  1430

  Even back home in Texas, they are not even willing to tell us now 
what the economy is going to look like, just like here, where any 
economist with any right sense would not be able to tell us what it is 
going to look like 5 or 6 years from now.
  So it makes sense for us to look at the Democratic alternative that 
considers taking care of Social Security, considers taking care of our 
senior citizens and Medicare, and considers assuring that we continue 
to expend our resources where they should be.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just reflect on what the overall 
effect on this budget does. It increases spending, but it does it 
responsibly, not massively, as the Democratic alternative would.
  It takes all the Social Security and surpluses and puts that aside. 
It retires all the available debt.
  Now, after we have increased spending, put all of the Social Security 
and

[[Page 4817]]

Medicare money aside, paid off all of the debt, how could we not 
provide tax relief with the money left over?
  I have heard my colleagues suggest that the tax package is unfair. 
Our tax package is the relief for everyone who pays income taxes. Now, 
does that go back to people in proportion to the taxes they pay? No, a 
more than proportionate share goes to the lowest-income workers. People 
making $35,000 a year, a family of four, would pay no taxes at all. 
There is no question this disproportionately benefits the people at the 
lower end of the income spectrum.
  Finally, the biggest and best reason we should be supporting the 
Republican Study Committee budget is the effect it will have on the 
economy, the ability it has to unleash economic growth and prosperity. 
That is what this is all about.
  The empirical evidence is overwhelming: Every time in American 
history everywhere around the world when societies lower the burden 
that government imposes on an economy, when societies lower the tax 
burden, the taxation and litigation and regulation, those kinds of 
burdens, the result is economic growth and prosperity. That means more 
jobs, higher wages, greater productivity, rising standards of living.
  That is what we are here for. That is what our obligation is as 
representatives in Congress, to provide that opportunity for the hard-
working men and women across America to enjoy their dreams, enjoy the 
fruits of their labor. That is what our budget does better than any 
other budget.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Republican Study Committee 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address again some of the 
misperceptions that I think surround the basic resolution today.
  I am particularly disturbed by assertions contained in letters of 
support from various agricultural groups. Ostensibly their support 
hinges on agriculture being guaranteed priority status out of the $517 
billion reserve fund.
  I have examined and continue to examine the legislative language that 
establishes this reserve, and nowhere do I find a priority given to 
agriculture. The resolution provides for a strategic reserve fund for 
agriculture, defense, and other appropriate legislation. While the 
legislation does include the reference to agriculture, it is treated 
the same way as all other legislation that spends money from the 
reserve.
  Indeed, the reference to ``other appropriate legislation'' includes 
any other spending increases that the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget wishes to accommodate, because he alone is given the ability to 
increase allocations in order to meet increased spending. The chairman 
may increase the allocation. He is not required to do so.
  In addition, the money guaranteed to agriculture in fiscal year 2001 
is provided under essentially the same terms. These are not priorities. 
This is merely the ability to compete for funding. This is no different 
from what occurs every year when we consider increased spending.
  It is rumored that many groups have been pointed towards this 
strategic reserve fund as the answer to their funding request. While 
$517 billion over 10 years appears to be an ample amount, in reality 
there is little room in some years to accommodate additional spending 
for agriculture.
  In fiscal year 2005 and 2006, for example, the general contingency 
fund has only $12 billion and $15 billion available. These amounts are 
barely sufficient to cover the agricultural request, not to mention the 
additional defense and other appropriate spending that the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget wishes to squeeze out of this account.
  In addition, increased defense expenditures, additional funding for 
prescription drug coverage, or additional tax provisions severely limit 
funding. Unfortunately, the only budget that would have addressed this, 
the Blue Dog budget, it lost. This budget does even less for 
agriculture.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Republican 
Study Committee and the staff for putting together this budget. We 
believe it is a great budget.
  First and foremost, as has been outlined, when President Bush 
outlined his economic plan during the campaign, times were different. 
The surplus was a lot smaller, and the economy was a lot more robust. 
We were doing a lot better.
  Times are certainly different now. The times call for a larger tax 
cut, and also, as President Bush has said, we need to move more money 
out of Washington.
  I would say to my colleagues across the Capitol in the Senate who are 
considering campaign finance reform and looking for ways to get more 
money out of politics, the best way to do that is to get more money out 
of Washington, because the reason there is so much money in politics is 
because there is so much money in Washington. The Tax Code is too 
complex and too tough to deal with.
  I would simply ask that this budget be favorably considered, our 
alternative budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman I would emphasize once again what I have 
said throughout: What we do today in deciding on this budget resolution 
may be little noted in all of the country, but it will be long 
remembered, because the consequences of this budget resolution will 
flow on for years to come.
  I have three basic problems with the resolution that the majority has 
brought to the floor, and the conservative alternative which is being 
presented now only worsens those problems.
  In the first place, in making so much room for tax cuts, their budget 
leaves very little room for anything else. Over the last 18 years, we 
have deferred and denied many needs and priorities of this country. 
Education is one.
  Now that we finally have a surplus, surely some part of it ought to 
be dedicated to those things that not only we want to do, but the 
American people clearly want us to do. Look at any poll, any opinion 
chart. Everybody ranks education as number one.
  Between us and them, the difference on education is like night and 
day. We provide $130 billion more than the base Republican budget 
resolution. I have not done the calculus on this resolution, but I am 
sure we provide substantially more than that for education.
  There is one other thing that makes me back off from the proposal 
they are making here today. That is that for years now we have been 
able to look into the future and see that Social Security and Medicare 
faced a shortfall. It is just over the horizon of this budget. The baby 
boomers begin to retire in the year 2008.
  We will not actually see the effects sometime after the time frame of 
the budget we have right here, but we know it is coming, and 77 million 
baby-boomers are marching to their retirement right now. They are not 
going anywhere else. They expect their benefits. We are not in a 
position to fully provide for them, at least in the third and fourth 
decades of this century.
  We have not been able in the past to do anything about it. We did not 
have the sort of surpluses that are now projected. But now that we have 
those surpluses, now that we have the opportunity, we have the 
obligation.
  I would fault this resolution and the base Republican resolution 
because both of them slough off that obligation, leave it to our 
children to pay for the baby boomers' retirement. I think that is not 
only a budgetary problem, I think it is a moral problem. That is why I 
opposed this resolution and the base Republican resolution as well.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Republican Study 
Committee budget alternative. The leadership budget puts

[[Page 4818]]

in place the framework for enacting the President's budget and tax cut 
plan. It is a good budget, not just for the taxpaying American, but for 
the parents and children of America's taxpayers. This budget will 
eliminate $2.3 trillion of the national debt by 2001, freeing our 
descendants from the crushing weight of debt. It gives tax relief to 
every taxpayer, and immediate tax cuts for the lowest bracket. It 
increases the educational IRA contribution limit from $500 to $5000, 
enabling families to save, not just for college, but for primary and 
secondary schools as well. Perhaps most importantly, this budget will 
eliminate the death tax. No longer will the grieving children of 
farmers and small businessmen have to sell their inheritance to pay off 
the taxman.
  The leadership budget is a good bill. But in the last few weeks we 
have begun to see signs that our prosperity may be in jeopardy. The 
strain of paying for a huge surplus is beginning to drag on our 
economy. That is why I am voting for the Republican Study Committee 
alternative budget. It does everything the leadership budget does, but 
adds larger and more immediate tax relief. Additional tax cuts are 
needed now to help our economy. Just as an ounce of prevention is worth 
a pound of cure, larger tax relief now will generate economic growth 
that will save us untold amounts later. The RSC alternative will give 
us $600 million more in tax relief over the next 10 years, from $1.6 
trillion in the leadership budget to $2.2 million.
  By making more of these tax cuts retroactive, it will help taxpayers 
now. Thousands of people in Idaho and around the nation are delaying 
home ownership, college educations and starting their own businesses 
because they don't know when they will see the money they sent to 
Washington. We need people working, not worrying. Sending the surplus 
home will release a flood of inward investment that will improve the 
life of every American.
  Passing the RSC budget alternative will have a tremendous impact on 
the financial markets and consumer confidence. It will declare to 
America and the world that the 107th Congress is serious about 
maintaining the economy. It will encourage investors and businessmen to 
bet on American prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
for the RSC budget and empowering the American economy. Send the 
surplus home, and vote for the Republican Study Committee alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81, 
noes 341, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 68]

                                AYES--81

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Everett
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kingston
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Otter
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Spence
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter

                               NOES--341

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Gordon
     Lampson
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Mink
     Rothman
     Sisisky
     Souder

                              {time}  1500

  Messrs. LEWIS of California, SHAYS, CUNNINGHAM, DUNCAN, BUYER and 
HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BACHUS, CULBERSON and EVERETT changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in part B of House Report 107-30.


  Amendment No. 4 In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part B amendment No. 4 in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

[[Page 4819]]



     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2002.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 through 
     2011 are hereby set forth.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,676,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,727,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,800,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,885,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,972,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,065,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,166,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,279,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,402,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,536,000,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: -$27,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: -$54,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: -$63,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$64,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$67,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$70,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$76,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$80,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$86,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$91,900,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,638,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,692,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,757,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,837,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,904,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,974,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,056,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,138,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,228,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,314,100,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,590,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,658,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,727,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,809,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,872,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,941,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,022,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,105,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,197,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,283,200,000,000.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $85,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $69,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $73,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $75,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $100,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $124,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $143,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $173,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $206,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $252,600,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2002: $2,969,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003: $2,732,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $2,477,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,197,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,873,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,504,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,095,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $639,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $528,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $418,000,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and budget outlays for fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011 for each major functional category 
     are:
       (1) National Defense (050): This function includes funding 
     for the Department of Defense, the nuclear-weapons-related 
     activities of the Department of Energy, and miscellaneous 
     national security activities in various other agencies such 
     as the Coast Guard and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
     The policy of this resolution is that there shall be budget 
     authority of $327,200,000,000 and outlays of $320,500,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $3,732,100,000,000 and outlays of $3,640,200,000,000 over 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This is greater than the 
     level of the Committee-passed resolution by $2.6 billion of 
     budget authority and $1.2 billion of outlays in fiscal year 
     2002, and $48.1 billion of budget authority and $28.9 billion 
     of outlays over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, better to 
     address priorities such as but not limited to: maintaining a 
     high level of military readiness; improving the quality of 
     life for military personnel and their families, specifically 
     including pay and housing, ensuring health care for active-
     duty members, their families, and all military retirees and 
     their families; transforming our military to meet post-Cold-
     War threats; and modernizing conventional forces required to 
     execute the national military strategy.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $320,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $325,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $334,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $349,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $368,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $366,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $409,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $402,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $412,500,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150): This function includes 
     virtually all United States international activities, such 
     as: operating United States embassies and consulates 
     throughout the world, military assistance to allies, aid to 
     underdeveloped nations, economic assistance to fledgling 
     democracies, promotion of United States exports abroad, 
     United States payments to international organizations, and 
     United States contributions to international peacekeeping 
     efforts. The policy of this resolution is that there shall be 
     budget authority of $23,900,000,000 and outlays of 
     $19,600,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $264,200,000,000 and outlays of $219,800,000,000 over fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011, which is $0.7 billion of 
     discretionary budget authority and $0.7 billion of 
     discretionary outlays greater than the CBO current services 
     baseline in 2002, and $7.6 billion of discretionary budget 
     authority and $6.7 billion of discretionary outlays greater 
     than the CBO current services baseline over fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011, to address priorities such as but not limited 
     to: providing greater security for foreign-service personnel 
     and embassies, improving health care in poor countries, with 
     particular emphasis on combating HIV/AIDS, providing a 
     supplemental appropriation to advance the national security 
     interests of Israel, supporting drug-interdiction efforts, 
     and promoting the economic, environmental, political, and 
     national security interests of the United States.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250): This 
     function includes funding for the National Science 
     Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     (except air transportation programs), and general science 
     research programs of the Department of Energy. The policy of 
     this resolution is that there shall be budget authority of 
     $22,500,000,000 and outlays of $21,200,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2002, and budget authority of $250,000,000,000 and outlays of 
     $243,100,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, which 
     is $0.3 billion of budget authority and $0.2 billion of 
     outlays greater than the Committee-passed resolution in 2002, 
     and $3.1 billion of budget authority and $2.8 billion of 
     outlays greater than the Committee-passed resolution over 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011, and will allow for 
     substantial expansion of programs in this function to reflect 
     the important role that scientific research plays in 
     fostering the future prosperity and security of the Nation. 
     These amounts will be used to address priorities including 
     but not limited to: expanding research, and math and science 
     educational activities, undertaken by the National Science 
     Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, and the Office of Science of the Department 
     of Energy.
       Fiscal year 2002:

[[Page 4820]]

       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,200,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270): This function includes funding for the 
     nondefense programs of the Department of Energy as well as 
     for the Tennessee Valley Authority, rural electrification 
     loans, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The programs 
     supported by this function are intended to increase the 
     supply of energy, encourage energy conservation, facilitate 
     an emergency supply of energy, and safeguard energy 
     production. The policy of this resolution is that there shall 
     be budget authority of $1,400,000,000 and outlays of $0 in 
     fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of $17,000,000,000 and 
     outlays of $2,900,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 
     2011, which is $0.6 billion of budget authority and $0.2 
     billion of outlays greater than the Committee-passed 
     resolution in 2002, and $2.4 billion of budget authority and 
     $2.1 billion of outlays greater than the Committee-passed 
     resolution over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, to maintain 
     funding for appropriated energy programs after full 
     adjustment for inflation, to address priorities such as but 
     not limited to: funding energy research, stabilizing energy 
     supplies, addressing rising energy costs, increasing energy 
     production, conserving energy, using energy more efficiently, 
     protecting the environment, reducing pollution through 
     development of clean-coal technologies, and assisting low-
     income families who are hard-pressed by high home heating and 
     cooling costs by protecting programs such as the 
     Weatherization Assistance Program.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $900,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300): This function 
     includes programs in a variety of Federal agencies concerned 
     with the development and management of the Nation's land, 
     water, and mineral resources, and recreation and wildlife 
     areas; and environmental protection and enhancement. The 
     policy of this resolution is that there shall be budget 
     authority of $30,300,000,000 and outlays of $28,400,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of $348,400,000,000 
     and outlays of $338,300,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011, which is $3.6 billion of budget authority and 
     $2.0 billion of outlays greater than the Committee-passed 
     resolution in 2002, and $59.0 billion of budget authority and 
     $53.0 billion of outlays greater than the Committee-passed 
     resolution over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, better to 
     address priorities such as but not limited to: full funding 
     levels for the Land Conservation, Preservation, and 
     Infrastructure Improvement Program, established last year as 
     part of the Interior Appropriations Act. In establishing this 
     program, Congress recognized land conservation and related 
     activities as critical national priorities and provided a 
     mechanism to guarantee significantly increased funding. 
     Congress resolved to provide $1.76 billion for fiscal year 
     2002 and $12 billion from 2001-2006 for conservation, 
     preservation, and recreation programs, and to set this 
     funding aside in a new dedicated conservation budget 
     category. The President's budget request would breach last 
     year's agreement, and rewrite the funding levels of the 
     conservation budget category, reducing the fiscal year 2002 
     level to $1.5 billion and reducing the six-year funding total 
     by $2.7 billion. It is the policy of this resolution to 
     maintain and fully fund the new budget category for 
     conservation; to increase grants to states and local 
     governments for improvements in our nation's safe drinking 
     water and wastewater treatment infrastructure; to continue 
     funding needed to reduce the threat of wildfires on Federal 
     lands and to fight fires when they occur; to provide high-
     priority funding for Pacific Northwest salmon recovery; to 
     fund grants for States and Tribes for administration of 
     environmental programs, within the Department of Commerce; to 
     continue current funding levels for the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration; to fund continued procurement of 
     an advanced weather satellite system being developed jointly 
     with the Department of Defense; to continue current funding 
     levels for the Army Corps of Engineers and to increase 
     funding to deal with the deferred maintenance backlog in the 
     National Park system; to provide funds to protect wetlands 
     and endangered species and their habitats on public and 
     private lands.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,600,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350): This function includes programs 
     administered by the Department of Agriculture, including such 
     activities as agricultural research and the stabilization of 
     farm incomes through loans, subsidies, and other payments to 
     farmers. The policy of this resolution is that there shall be 
     budget authority of $27,300,000,000 and outlays of 
     $25,600,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $219,300,000,000 and outlays of $204,000,000,000 over fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011, which is $8.2 billion of budget 
     authority and $8.1 billion of outlays greater than the 
     Committee-passed resolution in 2002, and $46.9 billion of 
     budget authority and $46.6 billion of outlays greater than 
     the Committee-passed resolution over fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011, better to address priorities such as but not 
     limited to: maintaining the inflation-adjusted funding for 
     appropriated agriculture programs over ten years, including 
     food safety protection, conservation, and vital agriculture 
     research, which is cut in the Committee-passed resolution; 
     increasing mandatory programs for agriculture by $8 billion 
     in fiscal year 2002, $6 billion in fiscal year 2003, and $4 
     billion per year thereafter, reflecting spending levels 
     consistent with recent needs; providing farmers with a more 
     stable, dependable source of supplementary income assistance, 
     rather than continued unpredictable ad-hoc assistance, 
     minimizing the need for continued emergency assistance, and 
     making spending assumptions more realistic, in preparation 
     for the upcoming reauthorization of the farm program.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,200,000,000.

[[Page 4821]]

       (B) Outlays, $18,800,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370): This function 
     includes deposit insurance and financial regulatory agencies; 
     the mortgage credit programs of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development (HUD); the Department of Commerce's Census 
     Bureau, its business promotion programs, and its technology 
     development programs; rural housing loans; the Small Business 
     Administration's business loans; the Postal Service; and 
     other regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications 
     Commission (FCC). The policy of this resolution is that there 
     shall be budget authority of $7,400,000,000 and outlays of 
     $4,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $127,900,000,000 and outlays of $84,300,000,000 over fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011, to address priorities such as but 
     not limited to: an increase in the limit on the maximum loan 
     that may be guaranteed, thereby making home ownership in 
     high-cost housing areas more affordable, and consequent 
     increased premium collections for the Federal Housing 
     Administration's Mutual Mortgage Insurance (MMI) Fund, which 
     will finance other important housing activities; increased 
     premium collections from allowing FHA to insure hybrid 
     adjustable-rate mortgages; continuation of the Advanced 
     Technology Program in the Department of Commerce, and 
     increased funding by 18 percent, or $9 million, for the 
     collection and calculation of basic economic statistics, to 
     improve key measures used by government and business policy 
     makers.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400): This function is comprised mostly 
     of the programs administered by the Department of 
     Transportation, including programs for highways, mass 
     transit, aviation, and maritime activities. The function also 
     includes several small transportation-related agencies, and 
     the civilian aviation research program of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The policy of 
     this resolution is that there shall be budget authority of 
     $63,700,000,000 and outlays of $55,600,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2002, and budget authority of $641,200,000,000 and outlays of 
     $647,300,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, which 
     is $2.7 billion of budget authority greater than the 
     Committee-passed resolution in 2002, and $33.2 billion of 
     budget authority and $7.7 billion of outlays greater than the 
     Committee-passed resolution (which imposes a cut in nominal 
     dollars) over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, better to 
     address priorities such as but not limited to full funding of 
     the authorized levels provided for highways and transit under 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 
     full funding of the levels authorized for the Federal 
     Aviation Administration under the Aviation Investment and 
     Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), the funding needed 
     to keep the Federal commitment to Amtrak, and the funding 
     needed to meet the ongoing requirements of the Coast Guard, 
     at a level higher than requested by the President, to improve 
     personnel training, eliminate spare parts shortages, operate 
     drug interdiction more effectively, and ensure maritime 
     safety.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,200,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450): This function 
     includes programs that support the development of physical 
     and financial infrastructure intended to promote viable 
     community economies. It covers certain activities of the 
     Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development. This function also includes spending to 
     help communities and families recover from natural disasters, 
     and spending for the rural development activities of the 
     Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 
     other agencies. The policy of this resolution is that there 
     shall be budget authority of $10,500,000,000 and outlays of 
     $11,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $116,300,000,000 and outlays of $110,800,000,000 over fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011, which is $0.4 billion of budget 
     authority greater than the Committee-passed resolution in 
     2002, and $2.7 billion of budget authority and $1.8 billion 
     of outlays greater than the Committee-passed resolution over 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011, better to address priorities 
     such as but not limited to full inflation-adjusted funding of 
     appropriations, including: the Community Development Block 
     Grant (CDBG) program, which is frozen in the Committee-passed 
     resolution, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 
     Empowerment Zones, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the 
     Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), and 
     the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500): This function primarily includes Federal spending 
     within the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and 
     Human Services for programs that directly provide or assist 
     states and localities in providing services to young people 
     and adults. The activities that it covers include providing 
     developmental services to low-income children, helping 
     disadvantaged and other elementary and secondary school 
     students, offering grants and loans to post-secondary 
     students, and funding job-training and employment services 
     for people of all ages. The policy of this resolution is that 
     there shall be budget authority of $87,700,000,000 and 
     outlays of $79,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget 
     authority of $1,050,300,000,000 and outlays of 
     $995,800,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This is 
     greater than the level of the Committee-passed resolution by 
     $5.6 billion of budget authority and $3.0 billion of outlays 
     in fiscal year 2002, and $132.8 billion of budget authority 
     and $104 billion of outlays over fiscal years 2002 through 
     2011, better to address priorities such as but not limited 
     to: reducing class sizes by recruiting and adequately 
     compensating qualified teachers; improving teacher quality 
     through professional development programs, especially for 
     math and science teachers; facilitating school renovation by 
     providing grants and subsidizing interest-free loans to local 
     school districts; ensuring the effectiveness of all of our 
     schools through increased funding of the title I program; 
     enhancing the performance of our schools through investments 
     in technology, school counselors, and after-school programs; 
     expanding the Federal commitment to special education under 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by no less 
     than $1.5 billion per year, expanding access to higher 
     education by sufficiently funding higher education programs, 
     including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant award; 
     sustaining the strength of the Nation's vocational 
     rehabilitation programs, ensuring that each year more of 
     those children eligible for Head Start are enrolled in the 
     program and are well prepared for elementary education, 
     sustaining the competitiveness of our economy through 
     sufficient funding for workforce investment programs, and 
     strengthening the safety net provided to our

[[Page 4822]]

     nation s most vulnerable people through, for example, 
     increased funding levels for child welfare programs and the 
     Social Services Block Grant (title XX).
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $109,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $108,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $132,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,800,000,000.
       (11) Health (550): This function includes Federal spending 
     for health care services, disease prevention, consumer and 
     occupational safety, health-related research, and similar 
     activities. The largest component of spending is the Federal/
     State Medicaid program, which pays for health services for 
     some low-income women, children, and elderly people, as well 
     as people with disabilities. The policy of this resolution is 
     that there shall be budget authority of $194,300,000,000 and 
     outlays of $190,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget 
     authority of $2,898,600,000,000 and outlays of 
     $2,873,100,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This 
     is greater than the level of the Committee-passed resolution 
     by $1.7 billion of discretionary budget authority and $400 
     million of discretionary outlays in fiscal year 2002, and 
     $4.0 billion of discretionary budget authority and $2.6 
     billion of discretionary outlays over fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011, better to address priorities such as but not 
     limited to: doubling funding for the National Institutes of 
     Health relative to the 1998 level by 2003, maintaining 
     inflation-adjusted funding for other discretionary health 
     programs, expanding access to health insurance for working 
     families by allowing states to cover families under the 
     Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program, and 
     allowing a buy-in to Medicaid for families with special-needs 
     children if family income is under 300 percent of poverty, 
     increasing funding for community health centers, providing 
     low-income Medicare beneficiaries protection against premiums 
     and cost-sharing requirements of a Medicare prescription drug 
     benefit, and restoring Medicaid benefits to certain legal 
     immigrants.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $213,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $235,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $233,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $274,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $296,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $319,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $341,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $366,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $393,200,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570): This function is comprised of spending 
     for Medicare, the Federal health insurance program for 
     elderly and eligible disabled people. Medicare consists of 
     two parts, each tied to a trust fund. Hospital Insurance (HI, 
     also known as Part A) reimburses providers for inpatient care 
     that beneficiaries receive in hospitals, as well as care at 
     skilled nursing facilities, home health care related to a 
     hospital stay, and hospice services. Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance (Part B) pays for physicians' services, outpatient 
     services at hospitals, home health care, and other services. 
     The policy of this resolution is that there shall be budget 
     authority of $229,200,000,000 and outlays of $229,100,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $3,487,100,000,000 and outlays of $3,486,800,000,000 over 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This is greater than the 
     level of the Committee-passed resolution by $100 million of 
     budget authority in fiscal year 2002, and $179.5 billion of 
     budget authority and $179.2 billion of outlays over fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011, better to address priorities such as 
     but not limited to: extending the solvency of the Medicare HI 
     (Part A) Trust Fund, by transferring surplus funds from 
     outside the program to the HI Trust Fund, creating a 
     voluntary prescription drug benefit within the Medicare 
     program for all Medicare beneficiaries, and providing $330 
     billion to fund it, and taking the Medicare HI (Part A) Trust 
     Fund off-budget to ensure that it is used solely for current-
     law Medicare benefits.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $281,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $281,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $324,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $353,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $382,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $487,400,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600): This function covers Federal 
     income-security programs that provide cash or in-kind 
     benefits to individuals. Some of those benefits (such as food 
     stamps, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance 
     for Needy Families, housing, and the earned income tax 
     credit) are means-tested, whereas others (such as 
     unemployment compensation and Civil Service Retirement and 
     Disability payments) do not depend on a person's income or 
     assets. The policy of this resolution is that there shall be 
     budget authority of $273,800,000,000 and outlays of 
     $272,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $3,230,300,000,000 and outlays of $3,217,300,000,000 over 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This is greater than the 
     level of the Committee-passed resolution by $2.3 billion of 
     budget authority (but $100 million less of outlays) in fiscal 
     year 2002, and $17.6 billion of budget authority and $15.7 
     billion of outlays over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, 
     better to address priorities such as but not limited to: 
     enhancing America's nutritional safety net through 
     improvements that facilitate access to the Food Stamp 
     program, providing increased funding for the Low-Income Home 
     Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP) and emergency funds in 
     response to escalating energy prices; ensuring that Special 
     Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
     children (WIC) funds supplying nutritional benefits and 
     counseling for pregnant women, infants and children increase 
     with inflation; giving states more resources to support 
     families moving from welfare to work through child care and 
     critical TANF assistance programs; addressing the Nation's 
     affordable housing crisis by maintaining public housing 
     Capital Fund and Drug Elimination programs at inflation-
     adjusted levels; renewing all expiring section 8 contracts, 
     maintaining adequate section 8 reserves, and adding 84,000 
     new section 8 housing assistance vouchers and maintaining 
     them for ten years, increasing housing resources for the low-
     income elderly in preparation for the aging of the baby boom 
     generation, maintaining Congress' commitment to the flexible 
     HOME Investment Partnership Program, ensuring that grants to 
     state and local governments for affordable rental housing and 
     home ownership activities at least keep pace with inflation, 
     as opposed to the Committee-passed resolution which 
     diminishes HOME program grants through new set-asides, and 
     restoring SSI and food stamp benefits to certain legal 
     immigrants.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $338,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $350,600,000,000.

[[Page 4823]]

       (B) Outlays, $349,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $361,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,300,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650): This function is comprised of 
     spending for the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance 
     programs, commonly known as Social Security. Social Security 
     consists of two parts, each tied to a trust fund. The Old-Age 
     and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program provides monthly 
     benefits to eligible retired workers and their families and 
     survivors. The Disability Insurance (DI) program provides 
     monthly benefits to eligible disabled workers and their 
     families. The policy of this resolution is that there shall 
     be budget authority of $11,000,000,000 and outlays of 
     $11,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $150,900,000,000 and outlays of $150,900,000,000 over fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011. This is greater than the level of 
     the Committee-passed resolution by $100 billion of 
     discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 2002, and $3.1 
     billion of discretionary budget authority and $2.7 billion of 
     discretionary outlays over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, 
     better to address priorities such as but not limited to: 
     protecting the Social Security Trust Fund from any diversion 
     of its surplus, to extend the solvency of this essential 
     program for today's retirees and for future generations, and 
     maintaining the inflation-adjusted level of appropriations 
     for social security administrative costs, with $3 billion 
     more in funding than provided in the Committee-approved 
     Republican Budget Resolution, thereby protecting the level of 
     service for all elderly, disabled, and survivor 
     beneficiaries.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700): This function 
     covers programs that offer benefits to military veterans. 
     Those programs, most of which are run by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, provide health care, disability 
     compensation, pensions, life insurance, education and 
     training, and guaranteed loans. The policy of this resolution 
     is that there shall be budget authority of $52,400,000,000 
     and outlays of $51,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and 
     budget authority of $606,400,000,000 and outlays of 
     $602,000,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This is 
     greater than the level of the Committee-passed resolution by 
     $100 million of budget authority and $100 million of outlays 
     in fiscal year 2002, and $12.4 billion of budget authority 
     and $11.9 billion of outlays over fiscal years 2002 through 
     2011, better to address priorities such as but not limited 
     to: increasing funding for appropriated veterans programs by 
     $100 million for 2002 over the levels in the Committee-
     approved Republican resolution, to meet the needs of the VHA, 
     and to increase Department of Veterans Affairs personnel and 
     technology for claims processing and administration, 
     reaffirming our commitment to veterans by adequately funding 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs; avoiding shifts from one 
     program to another to meet current crises; ensuring that 
     veterans are able to receive, in a timely manner, the 
     benefits Congress intended for them; and increasing mandatory 
     programs for veterans by raising the education benefit in the 
     Montgomery GI bill from $650 to $1100, and enhancing certain 
     burial benefits as provided in H.R. 801.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,600,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750): This function covers 
     programs that provide judicial services, law enforcement, and 
     prison operation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
     Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the 
     Federal court system are all supported under this function. 
     The policy of this resolution is that there shall be budget 
     authority of $32,400,000,000 and outlays of $31,400,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of $378,400,000,000 
     and outlays of $374,700,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011. This is greater than the level of the 
     Committee-passed resolution (which cuts funding for the 
     Justice Department in nominal dollars) by $1.5 billion of 
     budget authority and $1.1 billion of outlays in fiscal year 
     2002, and $19.1 billion of budget authority and $18 billion 
     of outlays over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, better to 
     address priorities such as but not limited to maintaining 
     inflation-adjusted levels of appropriations for every 
     program, specifically including: the Community Oriented 
     Policing Services (COPS) program, which provides funds to 
     local communities to hire additional community police 
     officers; all of the Department of Justice's law enforcement 
     and legal divisions, the Treasury Department's United States 
     Customs Service; the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF); and State and local law 
     enforcement assistance.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,700,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800): This function covers the 
     central management and policy responsibilities of both the 
     legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government. 
     Among the agencies it funds are the General Services 
     Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. The policy 
     of this resolution is that there shall be budget authority of 
     $17,200,000,000 and outlays of $16,800,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2002, and budget authority of $177,100,000,000 and outlays of 
     $174,600,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 2011. This is 
     greater than the level of the Committee-passed resolution by 
     $500 million of budget authority and $500 million of outlays 
     in fiscal year 2002, and $600 million of budget authority and 
     $1.2 billion of outlays over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, 
     better to address priorities such as but not limited to 
     maintaining inflation-adjusted levels of appropriations, 
     above the level of the Committee-approved Republican Budget 
     Resolution, and enactment of election reform legislation 
     guaranteeing State and local election jurisdictions 
     sufficient funds to replace outdated and outmoded voting 
     technologies.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,400,000,000.

[[Page 4824]]

       (B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,900,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900): This function includes the debt-
     servicing obligation of the Federal Government for the sum of 
     all of its past budget deficits. The policy of this 
     resolution is that there shall be budget authority of 
     $259,600,000,000 and outlays of $259,600,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 2002, and budget authority of $2,311,000,000,000 and 
     outlays of $2,311,000,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 
     2011, which is $71.6 billion of budget authority and $71.6 
     billion of outlays less than the Committee-passed resolution 
     over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, to address priorities 
     such as but not limited to: the most rapid retirement of debt 
     possible, faster than under the President's budget, and 
     faster still than under the Committee-approved Republican 
     Budget Resolution, and the consequent maximum reduction in 
     the Federal Government's net interest costs, to strengthen 
     the budget and the economy for the demographic challenges 
     ahead.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $241,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $223,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $215,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $205,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $195,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $195,300,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920): This function may include amounts to 
     reflect proposals that would affect multiple budget 
     functions. The policy of this resolution is that there shall 
     be budget authority of $5,000,000,000 and outlays of 
     $1,800,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget authority of 
     $50,000,000,000 and outlays of $45,500,000,000 over fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2011, to address priorities such as but 
     not limited to a reserve fund for unforeseen contingencies 
     such as floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950): This function 
     comprises major offsetting receipt items that would distort 
     the funding levels of other functional categories if they 
     were distributed to them. The policy of this resolution is 
     that there shall be budget authority of -$38,700,000,000 and 
     outlays of -$38,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and budget 
     authority of -$514,900,000,000 and outlays of 
     -$514,900,000,000 over fiscal years 2002 through 2011, to 
     address priorities such as but not limited to adjusting rates 
     of compensation for civilian employees of the United States 
     at the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of 
     compensation for members of the uniformed services. The 
     budget resolution does not include the provision contained in 
     the President's budget that assumes the opening of the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling. The budget 
     resolution does not extend a provision included in the 
     February Blueprint and the Committee-approved Republican 
     Budget Resolution that increases agency contributions for 
     employees covered by the civil service retirement system.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$57,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$55,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$46,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$60,300,000,000.

     SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Submission by House Committee on Ways and Means for Tax 
     Relief in Fiscal Year 2001.--Not later than May 1, 2001, the 
     House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill that consists of changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction to reduce revenues by not more than $60 
     billion during fiscal year 2001.
       (b) Submissions by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     for Enhanced Statutory Protections and Solvency Extension for 
     Medicare and Social Security.--
       (1) Taking medicare off-budget and re-affirming the off-
     budget status of social security.--Not later than June 8, 
     2001, the House Committee on Ways and Means shall report to 
     the House Committee on the Budget a reconciliation bill that 
     changes laws within its jurisdiction to designate the 
     Medicare HI surplus as having the same off-budget status as 
     the Social Security surplus, and that reaffirms the off-
     budget status of the Social Security surplus. Pursuant to 
     this and without exception:
       (A) 100 percent of the Social Security surplus in each 
     fiscal year from 2002 through 2011 shall be saved by 
     purchasing from the Treasury special non-marketable bonds, 
     which can be redeemed only to pay for Social Security 
     benefits stipulated in current law;
       (B) 100 percent of the Medicare HI surplus in each fiscal 
     year from 2002 through 2011 shall be saved by purchasing from 
     the Treasury special non-marketable bonds for the Medicare HI 
     trust fund, which can be redeemed only to pay for Medicare HI 
     benefits stipulated in current law; and
       (C) the Treasury shall use the proceeds of sales of special 
     non-marketable bonds to the Social Security and Medicare HI 
     trust funds exclusively for redeeming publicly held debt.
       (2) Extending social security and medicare solvency.--Not 
     later than June 8, 2001, the House Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall submit legislation to the House Committee on the 
     Budget providing for the annual remittance from the General 
     Fund of the Treasury to the Hospital Insurance (Medicare Part 
     A) Trust Fund and to the Old Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund of an amount equal to one-third of the projected 
     on-budget, that is non-Social Security, non-Medicare HI, 
     surplus, currently projected to be $910 billion from fiscal 
     year 2002 through fiscal year 2011. Such remittances shall be 
     equally divided between the two trust funds, with the 
     objective of extending their solvency to at least 2040 and 
     2050, respectively. Such remittances shall be derived 
     exclusively from the on-budget, that is non-Social Security, 
     non-Medicare HI, surplus over that ten-year period.
       (c) Submissions by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     for Responsible Tax Relief.--
       (1) Submission.--Not later than June 8, 2001, the House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall submit legislation to the 
     House Committee on the Budget reducing revenues in amounts 
     which, when combined with the debt service costs of tax 
     adjustments made in fiscal year 2001, does not exceed $34 
     billion in fiscal year 2002, $300 billion for fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006, and $737 billion for fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011.
       (2) Policy assumptions.--Within the framework of this 
     budget resolution, which provides for the extension of the 
     solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, the 
     policy of this resolution is that there shall be net tax 
     relief, which when combined with the debt service costs of 
     tax adjustments made in fiscal year 2001, does not exceed $34 
     billion in fiscal year 2002, $300 billion in fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006, or $737 billion in fiscal years 2002 
     through 2011. Such tax relief shall include but not be 
     limited to provisions that--
       (A) create a new income tax bracket, taxing income at a 
     rate below the current 15 percent rate;
       (B) mitigate the marriage penalty including that created 
     through the earned income credit;

[[Page 4825]]

       (C) increase the earned income credit for working families 
     with children;
       (D) eliminate estate taxes on all but the very largest 
     estates; and
       (E) grant other tax relief, such as modification of the 
     individual alternative minimum tax and enhancement of tax 
     incentives for retirement savings.
       (3) Flexibility for the committee on ways and means.--If 
     the reconciliation submission by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means alters the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in ways that 
     are scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation as outlay 
     changes, as through legislation affecting refundable tax 
     credits, the submission shall be considered to meet the 
     revenue requirements of the reconciliation directive if the 
     net cost of the revenue and outlay changes does not exceed 
     the revenue amount set forth for that committee in paragraph 
     1 of this subsection. Upon the submission of such 
     legislation, the chairman of the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall adjust the budget aggregates in this resolution 
     and allocations made under this resolution accordingly.
       (d) Submissions by House Committees on Energy and Commerce 
     and Ways and Means for Medicare Prescription Drugs.--
       (1) Not later than June 8, 2001, the House Committees named 
     in paragraph (2) shall report the following changes in laws 
     within their jurisdiction to the House Committee on the 
     Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2)(A) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall 
     increase outlays by not more than the following: $94,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002, $97,865,000,000 for the period fiscal 
     year 2002 through 2006, and $330,000,000,000 for the period 
     of fiscal year 2002 through 2011.
       (B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall increase 
     outlays by not more than the following: $94,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, $97,865,000,000 for the period fiscal year 
     2002 through 2006, and $330,000,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal year 2002 through 2011.
       (e) Other Submissions by House Committees.--
       (1) Submissions.--Not later than June 8, 2001, the House 
     Committees named in paragraph (2) shall report the following 
     changes in laws within their jurisdiction to the House 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (2)(A) Submission by house committee on agriculture for 
     assistance to farmers, restoring food stamps for legal 
     immigrants, and enhancing the nutritional safety net.--The 
     House Committee on Agriculture shall increase outlays by not 
     more than the following: $8,381,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $29,158,000,000 for the period fiscal year 2002 through 2006, 
     and $54,019,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2002 
     through 2011.
       (B) Submission by house committee on education and 
     workforce for student loan forgiveness for math and science 
     teachers.--The House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     shall increase outlays by not more than the following: 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002, $32,000,000 for the period fiscal year 2002 through 
     2006, and $82,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2002 
     through 2011.
       (C) Submission by house committee on energy and commerce 
     for the family opportunity act and for providing access to 
     health insurance for low-income families.--The House 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce shall increase outlays by 
     not more than the following: $97,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002, $13,475,000,000 for the period fiscal year 2002 through 
     2006, and $50,021,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2002 
     through 2011.
       (D) Submission by house committee on veterans affairs for 
     expansion of montgomery gi bill education benefits, burial 
     benefits, and other benefits.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans Affairs shall increase outlays by not more than the 
     following: $264,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $3,205,000,000 
     for the period fiscal year 2002 through 2006, and 
     $7,087,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2002 through 
     2011.
       (E) Submission by house committee on ways and means for 
     extending tanf supplemental grants, increasing title xx 
     (social services block grant), promoting safe and stable 
     families, providing independent living vouchers for foster 
     children, increasing the child care and development fund, and 
     restoring equity in ssi and medicaid benefits for certain 
     legal immigrants.--The House Committee on Ways and Means 
     shall increase outlays by not more than the following: 
     $714,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $9,411,000,000 for the 
     period fiscal year 2002 through 2006, and $31,091,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal year 2002 through 2011.

     SEC. 5. TREATMENT OF OASDI ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       In the House, in addition to amounts in this resolution, 
     allocations to the Committee on Appropriations shall include 
     the following amounts, which are assumed to be used for the 
     Administrative expenses of the Social Security 
     Administration, and, for purposes of section 302(f)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, those allocations shall be 
     considered to be allocations made under section 302(a) of 
     that Act: $3,597,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $3,542,000,000 in outlays.

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       In the House, whenever the Committee on Appropriations 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto 
     is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that 
     provides new budget authority for any fiscal year from 2002 
     through 2011 of at least the level appropriated in the 
     previous fiscal year adjusted for inflation for programs 
     authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (IDEA), part B grants to States, the Committee on the 
     Budget shall increase the appropriate allocations of new 
     budget authority and outlays for that fiscal year by 
     $1,500,000,000 (and adjust any other appropriate levels), an 
     amount to be used solely for programs authorized under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), part B 
     grants to States. However, no such adjustment shall exceed 
     the amount by which the bill exceeds the applicable 
     allocation.

     SEC. 7. FUNDS ALREADY APPROPRIATED FOR ARREARAGES TO THE 
                   UNITED NATIONS.

       For purposes of enforcing the allocations in this 
     resolution, any outlays scored from authorizing legislation 
     releasing previously appropriated funding for the United 
     Nations is assumed not to be new outlays.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE STABILIZATION OF 
                   CERTAIN FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES, COUNTIES, 
                   AND BOROUGHS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Federal revenue-sharing 
     payments to States, counties, and boroughs pursuant to the 
     Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500), the Act of 
     August 28, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f), 
     the Act of May 24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753; 43 U.S.C. 
     1181f-1 et seq.), and sections 13982 and 13983 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note) should be stabilized 
     and maintained for the long-term benefit of schools, roads, 
     public services, and communities, and that providing such 
     permanent, stable funding is a priority of the 106th 
     Congress.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NATIONAL 
                   SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the levels in this concurrent budget resolution for 
     function 250 (General Science, Space, and Technology) for 
     fiscal year 2002 are $300,000,000 above the level in the 
     House Republican budget resolution and over ten years (fiscal 
     years 2002 to 2011), the levels in this concurrent resolution 
     are $3,100,000,000 above the levels in the House Republican 
     budget resolution;
       (2) the National Science Foundation is the largest 
     supporter of basic research in the Federal Government;
       (3) the National Science Foundation is the second largest 
     supporter of university-based research;
       (4) research conducted by the grantees of the National 
     Science Foundation has led to innovations that have 
     dramatically improved the quality of life of all Americans;
       (5) because basic research funded by the National Science 
     Foundation is high-risk, cutting edge, fundamental, and may 
     not produce tangible benefits for over a decade, the Federal 
     Government is uniquely suited to support such research; and
       (6) the National Science Foundation's focus on peer-
     reviewed, merit-based grants represents a model for research 
     agencies across the Federal Government.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the function 250 levels assume an increase for National 
     Science Foundation that is sufficient for it to continue its 
     critical role in funding basic research, cultivating 
     America's intellectual infrastructure, and leading to 
     innovations that assure the Nation's economic future.

     SEC. 10. FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY.

       (a) Findings.--The House of Representatives finds the 
     following:
       (1) Members of the uniformed services and civilian 
     employees of the United States make significant contributions 
     to the general welfare of the Nation.
       (2) Increases in the pay of members of the uniformed 
     services and of civilian employees of the United States have 
     not kept pace with increases in the overall pay levels of 
     workers in the private sector, so that there now exists--
       (A) a 32 percent gap between compensation levels of Federal 
     civilian employees and compensation levels of private sector 
     workers; and
       (B) an estimated 10 percent gap between compensation levels 
     of members of the uniformed services and compensation levels 
     of private sector workers.
       (3) The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2002 
     includes a 4.6 percent pay raise for military personnel.
       (4) The Office of Management and Budget has requested that 
     Federal agencies plan their fiscal year 2002 budgets with a 
     3.6 percent pay raise for civilian Federal employees.

[[Page 4826]]

       (5) In almost every year during the past 2 decades, there 
     have been equal adjustments in the compensation of members of 
     the uniformed services and the compensation of civilian 
     employees of the United States.
       (b) Sense of the House of Representatives.--It is the sense 
     of the House of Representatives that rates of compensation 
     for civilian employees of the United States should be 
     adjusted at the same time, and in the same proportion, as are 
     rates of compensation for members of the uniformed services.

     SEC. 11. ASSET BUILDING FOR THE WORKING POOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress find the following:
       (1) For the vast majority of United States households, the 
     pathway to the economic mainstream and financial security is 
     not through spending and consumption, but through savings, 
     investing, and the accumulation of assets.
       (2) One-third of all Americans have no assets available for 
     investment and another 20 percent have only negligible 
     assets. The situation is even more serious for minority 
     households; for example, 60 percent of African-American 
     households have no or negative financial assets.
       (3) Nearly 50 percent of all children in America live in 
     households that have no assets available for investment, 
     including 40 percent of Caucasian children and 73 percent of 
     African-American children.
       (4) Up to 20 percent of all United States households do not 
     deposit their savings in financial institutions and, thus, do 
     not have access to the basic financial tools that make asset 
     accumulation possible.
       (5) Public policy can have either a positive or a negative 
     impact on asset accumulation. Traditional public assistance 
     programs based on income and consumption have rarely been 
     successful in supporting the transition to economic self-
     sufficiency. Tax policy, through $288,000,000,000 in annual 
     tax incentives, has helped lay the foundation for the great 
     middle class.
       (6) Lacking an income tax liability, low-income working 
     families cannot take advantage of asset development 
     incentives available through the Federal tax code.
       (7) Individual Development Accounts have proven to be 
     successful in helping low-income working families save and 
     accumulate assets. Individual Development Accounts have been 
     used to purchase long-term, high-return assets, including 
     homes, postsecondary education and training, and small 
     business.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Federal tax code should support a significant expansion 
     of Individual Development Accounts so that millions of low-
     income, working families can save, build assets, and move 
     their lives forward; thus, making positive contributions to 
     the economic and social well-being of the United States, as 
     well as to its future.

     SEC. 12. FEDERAL FIRE PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Increased demands on firefighting and emergency medical 
     personnel have made it difficult for local governments to 
     adequately fund necessary fire safety precautions.
       (2) The Government has an obligation to protect the health 
     and safety of the firefighting personnel of the United States 
     and to ensure that they have the financial resources to 
     protect the public.
       (3) The high rates in the United States of death, injury, 
     and property damage caused by fires demonstrates a critical 
     need for Federal investment in support of firefighting 
     personnel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Government should support the core operations of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency by providing needed fire 
     grant programs to assist our firefighters and rescue 
     personnel as they respond to more than 17,000,000 emergency 
     calls annually. To accomplish this task, Congress supports 
     preservation of the Assistance to Firefighters grant program. 
     Continued support of the Assistance to Firefighters grant 
     program will enable local firefighters to adequately protect 
     the lives of countless Americans put at risk by insufficient 
     fire protection.

     SEC. 13. FUNDING FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION AT CHILDREN'S 
                   TEACHING HOSPITALS

       It is the sense of Congress that:
       (1) Function 550 of the President's budget should include 
     an appropriate level of funding for graduate medical 
     education conducted at independent children's teaching 
     hospitals in order to ensure access to care by millions of 
     children nationwide.
       (2) An emphasis should be placed on the role played by 
     community health centers in underserved rural and urban 
     communities. An increase in funding for community health 
     centers should not come at the expense of the Community 
     Access Program. Both programs should be funded adequately, 
     with the intention of doubling funding for increased capacity 
     for community health centers, in addition to keeping the 
     Community Access Program operational.
       (3) The medicare program should emphasize such preventive 
     medical services as those provided by vision rehabilitation 
     professionals in saving Government funds and preserving the 
     independence of a growing number of seniors in the coming 
     years.
       (4) Funding under function 550 should also reflect the 
     importance of the Ryan White CARE Act to persons afflicted 
     with HIV/AIDS. Funds allocated from the CARE Act serve as the 
     safety net for thousands of low-income people living with 
     HIV/AIDS who reside in metropolitan areas but are ineligible 
     for entitlement programs. Moreover, the CARE Act provides 
     critically needed grants directly to existing community-based 
     clinics and public health providers to develop and deliver 
     both early and ongoing comprehensive services to persons with 
     HIV/AIDS.

     SEC. 14. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON PRESERVING HEALTH CARE 
                   SERVICES AND PROFESSIONAL HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) it recognizes the need to maintain the national network 
     devoted to providing health care services and supports its 
     continuation;
       (2) without adequate resources devoted to research and 
     development of new technologies, modern medicine cannot meet 
     the challenges of the new century; and
       (3) without adequate resources devoted to the recruitment 
     and training of skilled caregivers in all setting, the latest 
     technologies may never benefit the American people.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that to preserve funding for vital health care services, 
     address shortages in health care professions, such as 
     nursing, as well as health care research, the Congress should 
     support fully funding these programs, specifically including 
     health care professions training, and other health-related 
     programs, at a level sufficient to support continuation of 
     current services.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each will control 25 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is full of empty 
promises. President Bush says he is the education President, but he 
eliminates the commitment to modernizing our aging schools.
  President Bush says he wants to protect Medicare, but his budget does 
not provide the resources to shore it up.
  President Bush says he wants to protect the environment; but at the 
same time he is allowing arsenic into our water supply and preparing to 
drill for oil in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He 
shortchanges environmental protection by $60 billion.
  President Bush says he wants to fix our broken election system to 
avoid another fiasco like we had in Florida, but he does not provide a 
dime in his budget to solve the problem.
  Why all the unfulfilled promises? Because one cannot provide a $2 
trillion tax cut targeted to those making a million dollars a year, and 
one cannot provide tax-free inheritances for the sons and daughters of 
billionaires without giving something up. What President Bush gives up 
are priorities like educating our kids, health care for our veterans, 
saving Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, and keeping our 
air and water safe and clean.
  We Democrats think that is a bad deal, a poor trade-off; so we are 
offering America a more balanced, more responsible choice for a 
brighter future.
  We are for a tax cut, yes, but one that gives as much of a break to 
the middle-manager or teacher or fire fighter as it does for the oil 
magnate.
  With the money we save by giving a fair tax cut for all, instead of 
an enormous tax cut for the millionaires, we can pay down our national 
debt; we can provide a prescription-drug benefit for our seniors, 
something we all know will be there when we retire; we can make sure 
every child, whether from an inner city or wealthy suburb or rural 
community, can get an education in a modern school with up-to-date 
textbooks and access to the Internet; and, yes, we can provide a $60 
billion stimulus package right now, immediate tax relief; and we can 
improve the standard of living for the soldiers who protect our 
freedom.
  The choice is clear. Let us not give up all of these possibilities 
just so a multimillionaire can get a $30,000 tax cut.
  We have been down that budget-busting, deficit-spending road before. 
It took us a decade and a half to get out

[[Page 4827]]

of it. We had high inflation, high unemployment, high interest rates. 
We do not need to go back to that with the economy as it is today.
  Let us win a brighter future for all of America's families. That is 
what the Democratic budget does. It does it responsibly. It gives tax 
relief. It pays down the debt at a quicker rate. Ultimately, it secures 
America's economic future and those of its families. Vote for the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) will 
control the 25 minutes in opposition to the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to some of the basic principles that 
undergird this basic budget. I think when people begin to understand 
that, they will begin to realize it is fair, it is responsible, it is 
reasonable, and in many respects it is overdue.
  First of all, maximum debt elimination. I think every American 
realizes that one of the greatest gifts we can give to our kids is to 
pass this Nation on to our kids debt free. We pay off the maximum 
amount of debt possible over the next 10 years.
  Tax relief for every taxpayer. For the average family of four in my 
district, ultimately this results in about $1,600 worth of tax relief. 
That is money that they will get to spend on their priorities, not 
Washington's.
  Improve education for our children. That is one of President Bush's 
top priorities to make certain that our kids are getting the education 
they will need to compete in the world marketplace.
  A stronger national defense. I think most of us realize we have 
shortchanged the kids who serve us in uniform around the world.
  Health care reform that modernizes Medicare. We all know, if we are 
honest with ourselves, that something has to happen in the next several 
years to reform and modernize our Medicare system.
  Finally, a better Social Security for seniors today and for tomorrow.
  These are all big goals, these are all important principles, and they 
are included in this budget blueprint.
  One of the things we have heard a lot about in the last couple days 
is, well, this is all built on pie-in-the-sky projections. Well, the 
truth of the matter is that is not the case at all. In fact, here is a 
quote from the Congressional Budget Office when they testified before 
the House Committee on the Budget. Let me read it:
  ``A recession of average size would probably not alter the 10-year 
outlook significantly. The reason is that the CBO's baseline 10-year 
assumptions allow for the likelihood of a recession of average severity 
will occur over the next decade.''
  We are assuming the economy will slow down at least once. In fact, it 
is even better than that. We are assuming relatively slow economic 
growth in this budget projection. In fact, I asked the director of the 
Office of Management and Budget a very serious question.
  Here is my question: So if revenue growth just equals the 40-year 
average, we will actually have revenues in excess of $2 trillion more 
than we are currently using in your budget projections; is that right? 
The answer is: ``Yes, sir, that is correct.''
  What that means, Mr. Chairman, is, if the economy simply grows, if 
revenue to the Federal Government grows at what it has grown on average 
for the last 40 years, we will not have a $5.5 trillion surplus, we 
will have a $7.5 trillion surplus. I think we are being extremely 
conservative in our projections.
  Finally, let me just talk briefly because we have heard a lot about 
protecting our farmers. I said this earlier and I will say it again, no 
one in this Congress, no one in this Chamber is going to take for 
granted our farmers. No one wants to bet the farm and end up losing a 
generation of younger farmers. We are going to be there. We have been 
there in the last several years.
  But when we passed this last farm bill, we all agreed that we were 
going to see a reduction in the baseline for agriculture. But this is 
what we have actually been spending.
  If we include what we are agreeing to in this budget resolution in 
terms of emergency spending, it would be hard for anyone honestly to 
argue that we are not going to keep our commitment to agriculture.
  We understand that things are tough on the farm, but the answer is 
not necessarily in more and bigger checks from the Federal Government. 
The answer is better access to markets both internationally and 
domestically.
  I think this budget is fair. It is responsible. It is reasonable. It 
has been built on a solid foundation and important principles. I think 
the American people will agree with it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my fellow colleagues in Congress to 
support the Democratic amendment being offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  This bill provides our Nation with the needed funding for education. 
Unlike the Republican proposal, the Democratic amendment provides an 
additional $130 billion over 10 years for class size reduction, for 
school renovation, for title I aid for the disadvantaged students, Pell 
grants, and for Head Start.
  President Bush calls himself the education President, but falls short 
on adequately addressing the Hispanic education crisis facing our 
Nation. Just 70 percent of Hispanic students complete high school, and 
only 10.6 percent have a bachelor's degree.
  With the Republican-proposed budget, the Hispanic community will have 
no hope of improving upon their current situation and raise the level 
of education attainment.
  Mr. Chairman, President Bush has stated that his budget proposal will 
leave no child behind. Well, today, the Republican proposal makes sure 
that children are not left behind. Millions of students are forgotten 
altogether.
  My fellow Republican colleagues have said that today's Republican 
proposal will take the money from Washington and return it to the 
people. The truth is that today's Republican bill will take America's 
education budget and return 43 percent of it to the wealthiest 1 
percent.
  The truth is that everyone in Congress wants to give America a tax 
cut, including me; but the real question is if we are willing to do it 
irresponsibly.
  Finally, the Spratt Democratic plan returns $910 billion to America 
and provides for education, for health care, for agriculture, for 
Medicare and election reform. This budget plan is responsible and good 
for America.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address some of the concerns that have been 
raised by the other side of the aisle about the budget we are voting on 
today. This budget does protect Social Security and Medicare actually 
in ways that we have never done before as a Congress. It truly takes 
the trust funds and protects them for the future for generations to 
come.
  It also for the first time in our Nation's history really does do 
something about the debt. We pay off more national debt under this 
budget than Congress has ever done before. In fact, we pay down all of 
the available national debt.
  We also, despite what we have heard from the other side and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) just talked about education, we 
increase funding significantly for education. We are going to improve 
our public schools under this budget with, again, an increase in 
education spending that is

[[Page 4828]]

significantly higher than Congress had traditionally done. In fact, 
overall, if one looks at the spending for education and other items on 
the domestic discretionary side, we increase spending by 4.5 percent, 
well above inflation.
  After we do all that, protect Social Security and Medicare, increase 
funding for education, pay down the national debt, strengthen our 
national defense significantly, there is still money left on the table.
  I heard a story today about a woman in Iowa who spoke up at a town 
meeting and said, You know, I make cookies for my kids; and when the 
cookies are left on the table, something happens to them. They get 
eaten. We do not want to leave more cookies on the table to get eaten 
by a bigger and bigger Federal Government. We do not want a bigger, a 
more intrusive Federal Government. We want to be able to give the 
taxpayers some money back of the $5.6 trillion surplus we are now 
building up here in Washington projected over the next 10 years.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the speaker before me 
on the Republican side, talked about how this projection is actually 
conservative. The vote today is whether we are going to let those 
taxpayers keep a little of that hard-earned money. We are saying, we 
are proposing that they ought to be able to keep a little less than 28 
percent of that surplus, remember, every dime of which was created by 
the hard-working taxpayers of this country. That is what we are saying.
  We are saying, at the end of the day, after we have taken care of all 
of these other priorities, we ought to let the people who are paying 
the bill, who are pulling the wagon, who created all this surplus keep 
a little of that hard-earned money for their own lives and their own 
decisions. We have got to do it now to help this economy.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point again that this is a big 
debate between Republicans and Democrats. It is a debate that is raging 
around the country, and it comes down to how big Washington is going to 
be, how big is our spending going to be on more and more government, or 
are we going to let people keep more of their money.
  With job losses around the country, including in my own district, 
with the potential of a recession looming, we have got to not only let 
people keep a little more of their hard-earned money, but we have to as 
a Congress stimulate economic growth and get this economy back on its 
feet to ensure we have jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the budget proposal 
before us today and reject the Democrat alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, we Democrats also care about the people 
that are pulling the wagon; but unlike the Republicans, we are 
concerned that we are going to put too much of a debt load on the 
people that are pulling the wagon. What this comes down to is a great 
deal of risk; a gambit, a ``river boat gamble,'' as the term was used 
back in 1981. This is what the Congressional Budget Office says are the 
likelihood of whether or not we will see a $5.6 trillion surplus. It is 
all over the map in the outyears, and that is when the bulk of the 
projected surplus comes into play.
  This budget before us, the Republican budget, is drafted around the 
maximum size of a tax cut you can get, and the problem with that is 
that it leaves no room for error.
  Mr. Chairman, Democrats believe that we can have a tax cut, but we 
should be risk-averse in doing so; that we should first pay our 
obligations, and the first obligation is to paying down the national 
debt. We pay down more national debt in the Spratt substitute than the 
Republican budget does. My colleagues are going to say, we are paying 
down all of the debt that can be redeemed, that matures within the time 
period. Nobody in this House knows exactly how much debt can be paid 
down, but rather than limit ourselves at what we can do through our 
budget resolution, the Democrats say, let us dedicate more to paying 
down debt.
  Mr. Chairman, we do it for a couple of reasons. We do it because it 
is our obligation to pay it, and also because these numbers, like the 
Congressional Budget Office, may be wrong. We may actually be in a 
deficit, not in a surplus, in 10 years. If we do not have a safety 
valve through paying down the debt, we will end up issuing more debt. 
That does not lighten the load of the people that are pulling the 
wagon, it increases the load. At the same time, we say, let us take 
Medicare and Social Security off budget. Let us lighten the load there 
as well. Our Republican colleagues go the other direction. In their 
plan they would shorten the life span of Medicare and Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, how would you make up for the shortening of that life 
span? Well, there are only really three ways. You can cut benefits, you 
can raise payroll taxes or add even more debt. To me that heavies the 
load for the people that are pulling the wagon.
  The Democrats care as much as the Republicans. Some of us would argue 
the Democrats care even more about the people pulling the wagon, the 
Dicky Flats of the world. What we are saying here today is we are not 
going to take a river boat gamble on something that may or may not 
occur 10 years down the road that would put the burden back on the 
American working families that are out there.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Spratt substitute, 
defeat the Republican budget, and we will be a lot better off for it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the very distinguished vice chair of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, we are considering a Democrat alternative 
right now, and I think it is important to review the budget that is on 
the floor and to make some fair contrasts, because there are a lot of 
claims that are being made.
  Mr. Chairman, we just heard one about retiring even more debt than is 
in the Republican budget proposal. We are going to retire $2.3 trillion 
in debt over the next 10 years. That is more debt than has ever been 
retired in the history of our country. We have paid down about $625 
billion in public debt.
  I think what we are hearing is in many ways an esoteric argument 
whether we can pay down $2.3 trillion or $2.5 trillion or $2.7 trillion 
over the next 10 years, and that fog is being sent out in order to 
create an argument against cutting taxes. I understand that there are 
some of my colleagues in this Chamber that have no interest in lowering 
the tax burden on the average American.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) made clear the 
tax proposal in this budget gives back 28 percent of the surplus to the 
American taxpayer, and there are a lot of my colleagues in this Chamber 
on the minority side who think that is too much money to give back to 
the American people. They do not want to cut income tax rates in order 
to encourage economic growth; they do not want to repeal the death tax 
or eliminate the marriage tax penalty. There are probably 150 or 180 
Members of this Congress that did not vote to repeal the marriage tax 
penalty when it came before us last year. That is unfortunate. 
Ultimately those colleagues are looking for an argument to be able to 
continue to stand to oppose tax relief and keep that money in 
Washington in order to increase the size and scope of the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, do we set aside every penny of the Social Security 
surplus? Of course we do, and so does the Democrat alternative. My 
colleagues recognize that is the right thing to do. We also set up a 
reserve for Social Security and a reserve for Medicare. It has never 
been done in the history of our country, but it makes sense, and it is 
the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day we come down to a whole series of 
excuses why we should not cut taxes until we balance the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago the same Democrats that are opposing this 
budget resolution said we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. 
Three years ago they said we cannot cut

[[Page 4829]]

taxes until we set aside the Social Security surplus. We did both of 
these things. We set aside the entire Medicare surplus; and now what we 
see is we cannot cut taxes because we cannot predict the future, and 
there is some uncertainty as to what the level of economic growth will 
be next year or the year after that.
  Mr. Chairman, of course on that reasoning we will never cut taxes, 
and I think for some of my colleagues on the minority side, that is the 
ultimate goal. Leave the money here in Washington. I think that is 
unfair. I think we should support what is a balanced budget proposal to 
pay down debt, cut taxes and fund the right priorities.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to what the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu) just said, I do not know what resolution my colleague is 
talking about, because the resolution now before us sets aside fully 
one-third of the surplus from the years 2002 through 2011 for tax 
reduction, and targets that tax reduction at those taxpayers that need 
it the most. That is a tax cut of more than $750 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition we say because we know there will be a 
substantial surplus this year, let us take two-thirds of that surplus 
that we can foresee coming on the end of this year, $60 billion, and 
give it to taxpayers now both because they deserve it, because we know 
that it is available, and because we believe that it will be a stimulus 
to this sagging economy.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what is in our resolution, and what the 
gentleman from New Hampshire said is 180 degrees out from what is 
before the House at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget and in support 
of the Democratic substitute. The Republican budget resolution is 
terribly flawed. It fails to protect Social Security and Medicare and 
makes cuts in vital areas, such as housing, transportation and the 
environment, to provide a tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent of 
Americans.
  In addition to the cuts targeted at those who can ill afford to lose 
any more, we are asking the hard-working men and women who run our 
Nation's small businesses to bear an unfair burden of this budget.
  Although the Republicans continue to claim that they are providing 
tax relief for small businesses, the truth is that what is contained in 
the Republican budget resolution is not a tax break for small 
businesses, but a tax increase by imposing new fees for SBA loans and 
technical assistance.
  Ask any business owner, and he or she will say that these fees are 
nothing more than a tax. To add insult to injury, small-business 
owners, who have seen their businesses destroyed in a flood, 
earthquake, hurricane or some other disaster, will be expected to pay 
almost $10,000 more for disaster assistance, effectively prohibiting 
many business owners from rebuilding their life's dream.
  Is this what the President means when he talks about compassionate 
conservatism; kicking someone when they are down?
  The Democratic substitute is fair and realistic. It continues to 
protect and fund this Nation's priorities while providing sensible tax 
relief to all Americans. Therefore, I will urge my colleagues to 
support the Democratic substitute and vote down the Republican budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the committee's resolution is preferable to 
the substitute, and I want to focus on just one issue, and that is 
national defense. The committee budget recognizes that the President 
has ordered a strategic review, and that strategy should come first, 
and that strategy should drive decisions on resources.
  We know there are some places we need to spend more money. The budget 
recognizes that we are going to spend more than $5 billion on people 
for pay raises, more housing and military health care. We know we are 
going to have to spend more on research and development, and we make a 
down payment on that. But there is a lot we do not know. So we have 
this contingency fund so that, after the strategic review is completed, 
we can draw more resources to fund the strategy that the President and 
the Secretary of Defense recommend.
  Now, the substitute takes a different approach. They believe they 
know how much more resources we need for defense. They believe we need 
$2.6 billion more in 2002 and about $48 billion more over the next 10 
years. But that is putting cart before the horse. For too long we have 
had a mismatch between the strategy, the programs to implement that 
strategy, and the funding of those programs. It is time to get it all 
together and to get it all aligned. This administration is trying to do 
that with a strategic review to see where we are in the world, what our 
missions should be, and what kind of force structures we need to 
accomplish those missions.
  This administration also acknowledges that the world is changing 
around us, and we better do some hard thinking about what we need to 
spend money on so that we can be prepared for those threats coming in 
the future. I believe that the strategic review, followed by the 
contingency fund to implement that review, is a better approach to 
making sure that this Nation is safely defended in the years to come.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget plan and in strong support of the Democratic 
substitute offered by my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  We need a budget. We need to be able to take the money which the 
American public has given us and to use it fairly and wisely. We need 
to save certainly on taxes, but we also need enough money left to do 
the other things that are important to the American public.
  Now, everyone who comes before this Congress and says what they think 
the American public wants, they do not always know what the American 
public wants. But that is sort of a word that everyone uses, the 
American public says so-and-so. Not so, because we need to improve 
education, we need to provide real prescription drug relief, we need to 
ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and we need to pay 
down the national debt. There is no question about it, we cannot do it 
with the Republican budget.
  Now, there have been many other efforts made, but the Spratt effort 
shows how that that can be done. We need a good balance of tax relief, 
debt relief and a third for new programs. The housing part of this 
budget is criminal. What they have said is that they are putting more 
money into housing. That is not correct.
  When we look at it, we see we will not be able to get the affordable 
housing which the Republican budget has come up with, because what they 
have done is, they have done what they call the funny money shuffle and 
mixed the FHA funds in terms of regular housing funds. They have also 
reduced monies for public housing. Tragic.
  We should look at this much more closely and not pass this particular 
approach to the budget resolution. And the Congress should understand 
that when they go back home to their districts, they are not going to 
be able to answer some of these crucial problems, particularly 
regarding affordable housing, one of our major problems.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Republican budget.

[[Page 4830]]

It is sensible, it is responsible, and it is fair.

                              {time}  1530

  I think my colleagues have done a great job of pointing out the 
underlying foundation of this budget. Number one, it pays down the 
national debt. That is good for everybody, for our children, our 
grandchildren. It gives tax relief to working Americans. It allows them 
to keep more of what they earn, and that is important.
  When we look at Social Security and Medicare, it preserves those 
programs for our senior citizens and their kids and their grandkids as 
well, and it improves education by putting more money and giving more 
local control and flexibility.
  Finally, as a new Member who comes from a district that is largely 
military oriented, I am proud to say that this budget begins to make 
America strong again. It begins to rebuild our forces which have been 
hollowed out for the last 8 years. It is a good budget. It is a sound 
budget, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, a little less than a month ago, the House 
overwhelmingly passed a bankruptcy reform measure that while not 
perfect sent an unmistakable message to every household in America: Do 
not spend money that you do not have because if you do you will be held 
responsible for your choices. We are not going to give you a pass on 
personal responsibility just because you could not say no to all the 
enticing credit card offers you received in the mail.
  Thus, today, I have to stand here and shake my head in amazement. 
Here we are, scarcely a month later, debating a Republican budget 
resolution that is an abdication of fiscal responsibility. The tax cuts 
outlined in this GOP budget document would cost more than $2 trillion 
over the next decade; and as a result, they would squander projected 
surpluses. Note the emphasis on projected. They are not in hand. As a 
matter of fact, 70 percent of the American public showing their wisdom 
do not think they will ever be in hand.
  Maybe our friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, ought 
to trust the common sense and intuition and wisdom of their 
constituents. Instead, they insist on pushing ahead with this budget 
blueprint for the fortunate few. The top 1 percent get 45 percent of 
this tax cut.
  This bill, the Democratic bill, cuts three-quarters of a trillion 
dollars in taxes and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) gets 
up and says we are against tax cuts. Baloney. What we are for is 
responsibly helping working Americans, but not adding, as we did in the 
1980s under President Reagan and a Republican Senate, $4 trillion to 
the debt of whom? Of the American public. That is whose debt we added 
to. It is their money that is being put at risk. But at what cost?
  Their plan would do nothing to stimulate our economy now. It 
threatens to invade the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and it 
would cut vital services, such as after-school lunch programs that 
improve learning and help make schools safer.
  The diversified Democratic plan, on the other hand, would provide a 
responsible tax cut for all Americans. It would extend the solvency of 
Social Security and Medicare. It will allow us to invest in crucial 
national priorities. I am for investing in our defense and have 
supported every defense bill that has been signed by the Presidents, 
Republican and Democratic.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing today. Vote for fiscal 
responsibility. Vote for a diversified budget plan that meets our 
Nation's needs. Vote for this Democratic alternative.
  I was here in 1981 when we passed Gramm-Latta I and Gramm-Latta II. I 
voted against them. I was here when we passed Conable-Hance, the tax 
cut bill. And I was here when bright young people like the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) got up here with their charts and said 
it will all work.
  I was here when that bill was sent from this House, from this Senate, 
to the White House. And I was here in August of 1981 when President 
Reagan signed the bill and, like the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) said, guess what, we are going to balance the budget by October 
1, 1983.
  In that time frame, we added almost a billion extra dollars to 
America's debt; $3 trillion was yet to come of additional debt that we 
added on the heads of Americans.
  Let us be responsible. Vote for the Democratic alternative. It is 
good for America. It is good for our country and it is good policy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 83 and against 
the pending substitute. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for crafting a responsive and 
responsible budget in general and for being especially sensitive to the 
needs and the concerns of our veterans around this country.
  The decision of the Committee on the Budget to increase the veterans' 
affairs budget by 12 percent, that is $5.6 billion over last year, 
including $1 billion more than even the Bush administration suggested, 
is a breakthrough and a very, very important plus-up for all of our 
veterans.
  I have said all along that the Bush budget was a work in progress and 
that we would do more, and today our budget chairman has done so. This 
12 percent increase in funding will be a serious and a very tangible 
expression of solidarity and support for veterans and is especially 
justified in light of the sacrifices that our veterans have made.
  Let me just say to my friends and colleagues, that record increases 
in spending for medical care will compensate, one, for inflation, as 
well as for significant increases in spending on mental health care, 
long-term care, additional staff for reducing waiting times, higher 
pharmacy costs, spinal cord injury care, homeless veterans, 
transitional housing, and the list goes on and on.
  Yesterday this House passed two very important pieces of legislation 
that I was the sponsor of--H.R. 801 passed 417 to 0 and then H.R. 811 
passed overwhelmingly as well. Both of those bills are fully 
accommodated by this budget.
  As a matter of fact, the second bill, H.R. 811, would provide $550 
million for emergency repair of our hospitals. We saw what happened 
with the recent earthquake, the seismic damage that was done to the 
American League Hospital. There are many hospitals that have, 
unfortunately through neglect they are in grave need of upgrading and 
repair. This legislation would do that.
  Tomorrow I will be introducing the new GI Bill of Rights, the 
Education GI Bill of Rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 83.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 83--and 
against the pending substitute.
  I want to begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Nussle for crafting a 
responsible budget in general--and for being especially sensitive to 
the needs and concerns of veterans in particular. The decision of the 
Budget Committee to increase funding by 12 percent for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs--up $5.6 billion over last year--including $1 
billion more than the Bush administration's budget proposal--is a 
breakthrough increase for veterans.
  I have said all along that the Bush budget was a work in progress--
and that we would do more. This 12-percent increase in funding in the 
underlying resolution is a serious and tangible expression of 
solidarity and support for veterans and is especially justified in 
light of the personal sacrifices made by the men and women who have 
protected our Nation, in peace and war, and whose lives have forever 
been changed by their experiences. This victory is a victory for all 
veterans, especially those who continue to suffer from the disabling 
effects of war wounds or from lingering

[[Page 4831]]

mental illnesses connected to their service. They answered the call and 
now we must do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, record increases in spending for medical care will 
compensate for inflation, as well as allow for significant increases in 
spending on mental health care, long-term care, additional staff to 
reduce waiting times, higher pharmacy costs, spinal cord injury care, 
homeless veterans transitional housing and emergency care. Additional 
funds will also be provided for research and construction, state 
nursing home and cemetery grants, the Veterans Benefits Administration 
and National Cemetery Administration.
  For the first time in my memory, the Budget Resolution includes 
additional funds to cover mandatory increases which will be needed to 
fund H.R. 801, the Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001, and a bill I 
will introduce later this week to increase benefits available to 
veterans using the Montgomery GI bill. By providing funds in this 
year's budget to immediately implement H.R. 801, the Congress will be 
able to provide overdue increases to cover the rising costs of many 
urgently needed veterans' services, such as adaptive automobile and 
housing grants for severely disabled veterans.
  H.R. 801, which passed the House yesterday by an overwhelming vote of 
417-0 will also expand the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program 
to include spouses and children, and make the increase in the maximum 
benefit from $200,000 to $250,000 retroactive to October 1, 2000, in 
order to provide a higher benefit to those men and women who have 
recently lost their lives in tragic military accidents.
  The bill also increases funds for specially adopted housing grants as 
well as other important projects.
  Under our proposal to update the Montgomery GI bill, the monthly 
benefit will be increased to a level that allows a qualified recipient 
to cover their monthly costs of attending a State college as a 
commuter. It would increase the monthly benefit available to a full-
time student over a 3-year period beginning October 1, 2001 from $650 
to $1,100 per month.
  Last night, the House also approved the Veterans Hospitals Emergency 
Repair Act, H.R. 811, a bill that I introduced to provide immediate 
emergency funding to repair and rebuild dilapidated VA medical care 
facilities. The increase in funds for veterans contained in this 
resolution is based in part on the need for funds authorized in H.R. 
811. This legislation authorizes $550 million over the next 2 years for 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to immediately address urgent 
construction needs, specifically in facilities identified as having 
patient safety hazards, requiring seismic protection, or to improve 
privacy or accommodations for disabled veterans.
  In closing, let me again thank the Committee and advise all of my 
colleagues that the level for veterans authorized in this resolution is 
both fair and defensible. Although there are certainly advocates who 
are calling for even higher levels of funding, I tell my colleagues 
that this is a good budget and one we should take pride in.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democratic 
substitute and commend our ranking member, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for his leadership, and in opposition to the 
Republicans' irresponsible budget resolution.
  Our national budget, Mr. Chairman, I believe, should be a statement 
of our national values. The Republican budget resolution makes very 
clear the priorities of the Republican leadership and President Bush. 
They value tax cuts for the wealthy above all else, above initiatives 
that working families rely on to care for their children.
  Mr. Chairman, anyone who has studied economics or reads the business 
section of the paper or makes investments, or all of the above, is 
familiar with the term opportunity cost of money. When we use money for 
one purpose, we lose the opportunity to use that money for another 
purpose. The opportunity cost is the benefit that would have accrued to 
the investor.
  When the House chooses to use trillions of dollars for a tax cut, it 
gives us a tremendous opportunity cost to American families. We lose 
the benefit of improving child care and education for our children. We 
lose the opportunity for real prescription drug benefits for our 
seniors. We lose the benefit of reducing interest rates on our credit 
cards, mortgage and car payments. We lose the benefit of fully paying 
down the debt, strengthening Social Security and Medicare and giving a 
tax cut to American working families that will stimulate the economy 
and be responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, the opportunity cost of the Republican tax budget is an 
opportunity lost for America's children and their futures. President 
Bush has said many times that this administration will leave no child 
behind. Yet his budget and the budget resolution, which is based on the 
funding levels proposed in President Bush's budget outline, both do 
exactly that in order to pay for the irresponsible tax cut.
  Example after example demonstrate the President's budget does leave 
many children behind. The Bush budget cuts the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant by $200 million. It cuts grants to prevent and 
investigate child abuse by $15.7 million. It eliminates the Early 
Learning Fund, which was created last year to improve the quality of 
child care and pre-education education.
  This budget not only fails to live up to the President's rhetoric, it 
fails to represent the values of our country. I urge our colleagues to 
support the Democratic alternative, give a vote to the children of our 
country and to their future.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a new member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, Eliran Rosenberg, Natali Landsgoren, and 
Shelhevat Pass, just 10 months old, three Israelis killed in recent 
terror attacks by bombs and a sniper, a sniper, where warning was given 
against these Israelis.
  This afternoon we have learned that Israel has taken action today 
against Force 17, Yassir Arafat's own personal security detail, that 
plants cars bombs in Israel. This budget fully funds the President's 
International Affairs Function 150 request of $23.8 billion and it 
sends a message to the Middle East and to the Arab League that we will 
stand by our allies, and especially Israel in her hour of need.
  This is a responsible budget and fully funds America's role in the 
world.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the position of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Kirk) and his knowledge of this position, but let me say we have 
something in our budget that the other side does not have. We have put 
in the 150 line for foreign aid and assistance $450 million to fund the 
supplemental for Israel because of the dire straits in which Israel now 
finds itself.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) would yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I do not have the time to yield.
  It is in our budget. If the gentleman votes for it, the money will be 
coming.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, we have been seeing this chart now for the 
last 2 days, and it is a very interesting chart and I need to run 
through it quickly.
  As we can see here, first of all I want to start out by saying that 
the budget we have before us is better than the budget the President 
submitted to us. I give him credit for that. It is a step in the right 
direction and I appreciate the effort, but there is more to do.
  Maximum debt elimination, better budget than the President's. The 
Democratic alternative does more.
  Tax relief for every taxpayer, the only difference is we only want to 
cut taxes by $800 billion. That is all we want to cut taxes by. I guess 
I can be criticized for that, and I will take that criticism because 
the question is, what do we want to do with the difference?
  The difference is going to some debt elimination; do more for 
improving education; do more for the Defense Department, $47 billion 
more; do more for Medicare; do more for Social Security.
  On this particular list, we do not even see things like LIHEAP, 
things like housing, things like election reform, things like research, 
things like

[[Page 4832]]

retraining, and we can go on and on and on. They are not here. Our 
budget does it. The other side does not. That is why our budget is 
better.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for the spectacular job he has done 
in crafting this with members of his committee.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last 6 years, Republican majorities in both 
the House and the Senate have made history with budgets that stopped 
reckless Washington spending; paid down the debt; protected Social 
Security and funded our Nation's top priorities. For the first time in 
the now over 2 decades that I have been privileged to serve here in the 
United States Congress, we have a budget that has come from the 
President, that has not been designated ``dead on arrival.''
  Republicans changed the culture of Washington so much that President 
Clinton was forced to acknowledge that the era of big government is 
over. Today, with President Bush at the helm, we continue to make 
history. The Republican budget pays down $2.3 trillion of national 
debt. This Republican budget provides real tax relief for every 
American taxpayer. This Republican budget makes our children's 
education a top priority. This Republican budget protects Social 
Security from spending raids. This Republican budget restores strength 
to America's military.
  To sum it up, Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget is a fair and 
balanced American budget that fully funds our shared priorities while 
providing tax relief to working Americans and paying down our national 
debt. We should all provide strong bipartisan support for this very 
balanced measure.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic 
budget alternative. The Democratic budget provides a more realistic 
level of funding for our Nation's immediate defense needs. If we do not 
increase the amount of money we spend on our military now, Navy pilots 
will not have enough fuel to conduct flight tests, the Army will not 
have enough ammunition for training, and all branches of the military 
will face a shortage of spare parts. These shortages will have a real 
and lasting effect on the readiness of our Nation's military.
  President Bush promised to improve the quality of life for our men 
and women in the military, but the Republican budget resolution fails 
to fund those priorities.
  However, the Democratic budget alternative provides for a fiscal year 
2001 supplemental appropriations bill totaling $7.8 billion to 
immediately address these needs.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for national security and 
vote for the Democratic budget alternative.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, once again, class warfare, rich versus 
poor, politics of division, politics of fear. This madness must stop in 
America. Tell me who hires American workers. Is it the man on welfare, 
or is it the men and women who take a risk. Some of them go bankrupt, 
but some become successful and some gain great wealth. Thank God for 
that.
  Wealth, profit, success are not dirty words in a free enterprise 
society; and by God, that is what we are, and we should be proud of it.
  The dream of America is that we can be all we can be. We should be 
promoting and incentivizing the opportunity to gain wealth, not to 
demean those who have gained such wealth. After all, if the wealthy 
lose money, they move overseas and take your people and my people's 
jobs along with them. I want to incentivize the opportunity in America 
to gain wealth for all people, thus keeping those jobs here in America.
  Mr. Chairman, our capitalist phenomenon not only creates jobs and 
stabilizes families, it does one more important thing. It stabilizes 
democracy not only in America, but around the world; and in doing so, 
it highlights the pitfalls, the injustice, and the failure of 
communism, I say to my colleagues.
  I support the budget of President Bush. I commend the great work of 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I want to close by saying, the 
President is right on. If we target some people in, you thus target 
people out. That is not the dream of America. This rhetoric of division 
can some day turn into the fuel of socialism, I say to my colleagues. 
What strengthens America is there is just one America, not two, not 
three. One people, under God, indivisible. That is the dream of 
America. Wealth, profit, and success are not dirty words.
  The Democratic substitute is not all that bad; but it does still play 
to divide, and I shall oppose it and I will support the work of the 
gentleman from Iowa. I believe we have a fine budget. Parts of it can 
be refined. I applaud his efforts.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in strong support of the Democratic substitute which provides 
substantially more funding for transportation over the next 10 years 
than does the budget resolution provided by the Republican majority.
  Given the congestion in the Nation's transportation system, we must 
do better; and this Democratic substitute does better. The intent of 
the majority resolution is to honor the funding guarantees for highway, 
transit, and aviation as provided in TEA 21 and AIR 21; but the 
committee developed their resolution based on the administration's 
budget resolution, and they got it wrong.
  The budget resolution brought to the floor by the majority does not 
include enough transportation funding under Function 400 to honor the 
firewalls of TEA 21 and AIR 21 and provide necessary funding for the 
Coast Guard.
  This is not an issue of partisan politics, counting things 
differently. The administration admits they got it wrong. Ten days ago 
they admitted they got it wrong. OMB wrote to the Committee on the 
Budget to explain the understated transportation amounts necessary to 
fund the President's proposed budget.
  Last night, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, in a discussion on the 
floor with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, got assurances that the chairman would work to 
restore funding to honor TEA 21 and AIR 21 in conference, and I commend 
our chairman for that effort. But the point is that what we are voting 
on does not provide enough funding for the transportation programs that 
it claims to fund. They have had 10 days to fix it. They even had a 
rule that included a self-executing amendment to the resolution; and we 
could have had it fixed there, but they did not do it.
  In contrast, the Democratic substitute fully funds TEA 21 and AIR 21 
guarantees for highway, transit, and aviation investments. The 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) does not say with a wink, I 
will take care of it later. He says, it is in here; add it up. The $33 
billion additional is there to deal with these issues. Let us deal with 
the Democratic substitute.
  Still worse than the disservice to transportation is the majority's 
treatment of education in this budget resolution. The Republican budget 
increases appropriated funding for the Department of Education by only 
$2.4 billion, or 5.7 percent, over the 2001 enacted levels. This is 
less than half the average increase Congress has granted education 
appropriations for the last five years.
  The Democratic budget, however, provides $4.8 billion more in 
appropriated funding for education and related services than the 
Republican budget. Over the ten-year period from 2002 to 2011, the 
Democratic budget provides $129 billion more for education than the 
Republican plan. These funds allow

[[Page 4833]]

Democrats to boost funding for critical priorities including class size 
reduction, school renovation, special education, and Pell grants and 
other higher education programs.
  This past Sunday, I met with teachers and administrators of Duluth 
area schools, as well as state legislators, all of whom underscored the 
need for significantly greater investment in education. They shared 
with me their views on the need for greater education partnership with 
and expanded investment from the federal government.
  For example, Frank Wanner, a teacher from the Duluth School District, 
said that in 1978 he had $1700 for classroom materials; today, the 
allocations buy only a box of Kleenex. Similarly, Russ Berntson of 
Proctor, Minnesota, said that 3,000 layoffs are expected in my home 
state of Minnesota in the next year due to underfunding and declining 
enrollment.
  This kind of disrespect for public education must stop. Clearly, the 
Democratic substitute offers a substantially greater investment in 
education and the future of our country than does the committee or the 
administration budget resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my 
specific thanks to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the rest of 
the Committee on the Budget on both sides for including an amendment by 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my good friend, that would 
maintain the nearly 20-year-old tradition of pay parity between 
military and civilian Federal employees.
  As many of my colleagues already know, the pay rates for both 
civilian and military personnel have fallen significantly below those 
of their private sector counterparts. Very recently, the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics released a report that confirmed that even now, more 
than 10 years after the enactment of the Federal Employees Pay 
Comparability Act, FEPCA, civilian and military employees are paid 32 
percent and 10 percent respectively less than their private sector 
counterparts.
  The Committee on the Budget has taken the first important step for 
protecting the 20-year tradition of pay parity between military and 
civilian Federal employees. I would like to thank my very good friend 
and neighbor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for leading the 
cause of the committee and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for 
accepting this. Without this and the help of the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget we would not have had this included in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget.
  A few words about the bigger picture, Mr. Chairman. The budget we 
have proposed is good for America's future. It shows a strong 
commitment to the fiscal responsibility that has long been lacking here 
in Washington. We are committed to paying down the national debt by 
providing $2.3 trillion for this purpose. That is the most that we can 
pay. The substitute pays down more of the debt that we can pay because 
of the long-term, non-callability of some of the government bonds, 
which leads me to suspect this money would lay around Washington and 
could be spent on other programs.
  It also recognizes that the American people deserve to keep more of 
their hard-earned money by providing tax relief for every family that 
pays taxes. That, Mr. Chairman, is only fair. It does not do so at the 
expense of important programs such as Medicare. In fact, it 
incorporates the vital protections we passed overwhelmingly in H.R. 2 
by keeping the Medicare part A surplus off limits for any purpose other 
than for Medicare itself or paying down the debt until necessary 
reforms are made. It recognizes the vital role the Federal Government 
plays in health care by providing a $2.8 billion increase for NIH.
  Finally, it reflects the obligation we have to the future of our 
youngest citizens by increasing education spending by $47.5 billion 
over the next 10 years, including an 11.5 percent increase for fiscal 
year 2002, the largest percentage increase for any department.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is a clear reflection of our priorities. It 
protects our senior citizens; it teaches the young; it improves the 
Nation's health care economically, physically and mentally. I urge my 
colleagues to give it their support.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt 
amendment for the children of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican 
Budget Resolution. Unfortunately, this budget is a missed opportunity 
and it represents misplaced priorities.
  Sadly, Mr. Chairman, this budget is very much a missed opportunity. 
The White House and the Republican Leadership have utterly failed to 
deliver on the President's promise of a bipartisan process that puts 
accomplishment for the American people above gamesmanship by Washington 
politicians.
  More importantly, this budget fails to provide for America's 
priorities. We must pay down the national debt to remove that burden 
from our children and grandchildren and cut interest rates for items 
like cars and homes. This Republican tax package will return us to the 
days of big deficits, high interest rates, high unemployment and a 
struggling economy.
  I support balanced tax relief as part of a comprehensive economic 
plan that will restore America's prosperity so that all of our hard 
working families can have security in their family finances. In my 
state of North Carolina, last month, we registered an unemployment rate 
higher than the national average for the first time in nearly two 
decades. We must pass a strong economic plan, not a wasteful tax 
giveaway.
  The Republican budget mortgages the future based on a guess. If the 
projected surpluses fail to materialize, Social Security and Medicare 
will be on the chopping block. The American people know that the budget 
projections are not real. They are an estimate. It is irresponsible to 
make decisions that will directly impact people's lives based on a ten-
year number we know is no more reliable than a ten-year hurricane 
forecast.
  As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I was 
very pleased by the President's promise to increase education 
investment. But this budget is a big disappointment because the 
increase is due largely to the education appropriations we passed last 
year. It rolls back the clock on school renovation by making those 
funds compete with other needs. This budget does nothing to help states 
build schools to relieve overcrowding and get our students out of 
trailers. Other areas that could be subject to cuts include child care, 
Head Start and job training that are vitally important to allow people 
to make the most of their God-given abilities.
  Mr. Chairman, a great deal of attention has been paid lately to the 
trouble on Wall Street and signs the economic boom may well be over. 
One sector that hasn't been booming for some time is agriculture, and 
farmers in my district have been hurting in the face of production 
cuts, commodity price losses and natural disasters. I was appalled when 
the Budget Committee passed its budget that would gut important farm 
programs. If approved, these cuts would eliminate funds to identify 
solutions to the state's hog waste problems and force dozens of our 
Farm Service Agency offices to close their doors. These agriculture 
cuts are wrong, and I will fight to restore them despite the Budget 
Committee's action.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is a missed opportunity, but it doesn't 
have to be that way. I urge my colleagues to vote down this budget and 
come together to pass a responsible budget that honors America's values 
and respects the people's priorities.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have served in this House for more than 18 years; and 
for most of these years, the deficit has been our dominant concern. It 
has actually been a fixation. It has taken us almost 20 years and $4 
trillion in debt to escape the fiscal mistakes we made in the 1980s and 
turn this big budget around, out of deficits and into surpluses.
  Today I have one priority, one overriding objective, and it is simply 
this: to make sure that we do not backslide into the hole we just dug 
ourselves out of. That is my overriding objective and that is why I 
have a problem with the Republican resolution, because it leaves so 
little room for error.
  I hope that these blue-sky projections that total some $5.6 trillion 
in surpluses over the next 10 years will materialize. It will be a 
great bounty for all of us. But if they do not and if we pass this 
resolution, we can find ourselves right back in the red again in the 
blink of an economist's eye. This

[[Page 4834]]

chart says it all. That is how thin the ice is on which this budget 
skates for the next 10 years.
  We, at least, avoid or lessen that problem, that risk, by setting 
aside one-third of the surplus, or $910 billion, if these projections 
pan out. To the extent that these projections do not pan out, that 
share of the surplus serves as a buffer to protect Social Security, 
Medicare and their trust funds from being raided again. So we have 
downside protection; they do not.
  The next problem I have with the Republican resolution is that it 
gives so much room, so much room to tax reduction that it leaves almost 
no room for anything else. If we want to see the consequences of that, 
if we have not been listening to this debate up until now, just go 
through the major accounts of the budget. We are both committed, at 
least rhetorically, to providing Medicare prescription drugs, but we 
provide a real Medicare benefit with $330 billion in real money. They 
provide a meager $153 billion and take that, siphon that out of the 
Medicare trust fund.
  We provide for education. We believe in education. We provide $130 
billion more than they do, because we have a balanced budget.
  We provide for the environment, parks, conservation. We had a bill 
out here last year where we increased the amount of money we are 
spending there significantly. We fully fund it; they do not.
  Finally, this resolution does nothing to save or make solvent Social 
Security and Medicare for the long run. For years and years now, we 
have known that we face a shortfall in both of these programs looming 
in the future, just over the horizon of this budget. But we have not 
had until now the resources to do anything about that problem. The $2.7 
trillion surplus in the general fund which we hope we now have over the 
next 10 years gives us that opportunity, and we dare not do anything 
else with it if we are going to be true to the commitments that have 
been made to the beneficiaries of the Social Security and Medicare 
program, and that includes almost all Americans.
  The question is, will we uphold this great compact on which the 
country has stood, the intergenerational compact for 65 years, or will 
we slough the problem off to our children.
  To keep the promises that we made, we set aside $910 billion, one-
third of the surplus, and transfer it in equal shares, half to the 
Medicare trust fund, half to the Social Security trust fund, making 
Social Security solvent until 2050, and making Medicare solvent to 
2030.

                              {time}  1600

  By contrast, the Republican resolution siphons money out of the 
Medicare trust fund, shortens the solvent life of that program, and 
does nothing at all for Social Security.
  If Members want to save Social Security, if they want to provide a 
real prescription drug benefit, if they want to do something for 
education and scientific research, for successful programs like COPS, 
if Members want to provide $740 billion in tax relief over 10 years and 
$60 billion over the next several months, if Members want to pay down 
the debt by $900 billion more, their choice is clear: Vote for the 
Democratic budget resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), I am going to oppose his 
budget, but I want to thank the gentleman for the way he has conducted 
the debate today and for the honorable partnership that we have formed 
in the Committee on the Budget to bring this vehicle to the floor 
today.
  We have some shared goals, even though we do not always share the 
ideas on how to achieve those goals. I want to applaud the gentleman 
publicly.
  I also want to applaud the staff on both sides who have worked so 
hard to bring both the gentleman's substitute and our base bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a different working relationship, more 
methodical, to the problem this year than in years past, and I 
appreciate that. I do, however, look forward to the day when the well 
of the House becomes a free market of ideas again, and we can hope to 
meet on common ground and negotiate our differences and come up with a 
final result that has something for the gentleman and something for us 
both in it.
  I am sorry to see us diverge on this occasion rather than converge, 
but I hope some day soon, and perhaps this year before this process is 
all over, we will sit down and try to find common ground.
  Mr. NUSSLE. We will work together to enforce the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Let me also, Mr. Chairman, if I might, thank my staff, 
who have worked arduously. I am not sure about the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, our compliance with it, with the hours they have worked. But we 
could not have pulled this together or brought this to the floor or 
made this presentation had it not been for the diligent work of our 
staff.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I, too, want to add my congratulations to the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget and to the ranking member for a job well done. 
This is the chairman's first budget, and we are very proud of the work 
that he has done in bringing this budget to the floor. He has done an 
outstanding job in bringing a lot of people together and listening to a 
lot of people, and now we have a budget I think that is good for 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, the Members need to be real careful, because the 
Democrat substitute budget is a beguiling mirage. It is sold as fiscal 
discipline, but a close inspection shows that it sustains big 
government and offers taxpayers little more than a patched waste of 
paltry relief.
  The Democrat budget gives the impression that it offers significant 
debt reduction, but it really comes down to a false choice. Even 
Chairman Greenspan has reservations about paying off too much of the 
debt too quickly. Democrats do not take his concerns into account.
  Because Democrats refuse to return the tax surplus to the people who 
earned it, their budget leads to two unacceptable outcomes: first, 
excessive bonus payments to foreign investors who now hold U.S. debt 
and who will not sell them back before they mature; and second, the 
Federal government buying up stocks and bonds once our public debt is 
gone.
  Under the Democrat plan, the Federal government could actually 
eventually control up to 5 percent of the entire stock market in just 
10 year's time after the Treasury has to invest the surplus dollars in 
an investment product other than Treasury securities. For the first 
time, the Federal government would own stock in the stock market.
  The Democrat plan offers less than $700 billion for tax relief. After 
we account for their $300 billion alternative minimum tax proposal, 
there is not even enough room to drop the bottom tax bracket from 15 
percent to 10 percent, or there is not enough room to double the per 
child tax credit.
  That is not all that the taxpayers give up for the Democrat plan. The 
Democrats keep the death tax. The Democrats keep the marriage penalty. 
Their plan shortchanges taxpayers.
  But Congress can choose real relief. That is why every Republican and 
open-minded Democrat Member of this House ought to support the 
President's budget, because it strengthens American families, it 
expands economic freedom, and it strikes a very fair and reasonable 
balance between national need and fiscal restraint.
  For every hard-working family, every struggling small businessman, 
and for every young woman who is ready to launch her own business 
start-up, the

[[Page 4835]]

President's budget carries a note of hope and optimism.
  In fact, for anyone who hopes to realize his or her American dream, 
this budget, our budget, brings that dream one step closer to reality. 
That is because our budget respects the taxpayer. The reasoning behind 
it begins with the supposition that tax dollars actually belong to the 
people who earned them.
  The President wants to let America keep more of what it earns, and we 
ought to help him do it. So for those women and men who desire nothing 
but the opportunity to challenge their talents and chase their dreams, 
the President's budget will spur job creation, enhance economic 
freedom, and provide the resources to restore limited constitutional 
government.
  Vote down and reject the Democrat substitute, and support freedom by 
supporting the President's budget.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget 
resolution put forward by the Republican leadership and in support of 
the Democratic Substitute introduced by the Ranking Member of the House 
Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt. Within the framework of a balanced 
budget, the Democratic budget provides for a better future for all 
Americans.
  The Republican-supported budget resolution fails our seniors, fails 
our children, fails our veterans, fails our cities and communities, 
fails our farmers and fails our small businesses. In good conscience, I 
cannot support it.
  I cannot support a budget that shortens the solvency of Medicare by 
at least five years and the solvency of Social Security by nine years, 
bankrupting these programs by 2024 and 2029 respectively. We should be 
working to extend the solvency of these programs. The Democratic budget 
puts $910 billion over ten years into the Medicare and Social Security 
Trust Funds with resources coming from outside these two programs. This 
extends solvency to at least 2040 for Medicare and at least 2050 for 
Social Security.
  I will not support any budget that gambles with the lives and well-
being of our seniors. And I certainly will not support any budget that 
actually decreases the solvency of these programs, which have kept 
millions of elderly Americans out of poverty and provided for the 
majority of their health care needs.
  The Democratic budget provides $1.7 billion for LIHEAP, the Low-
Income Home Energy Program, which so many Massachusetts and New England 
families and seniors depend when faced with skyrocketing energy costs 
and energy emergencies. The Republican budget freezes LIHEAP and 
eliminates the emergency funds, in effect cutting LIHEAP funding by 
$300 million from FY 2001 levels.
  The Republican budget breaks faith with our police and firefighters, 
men and women who put their lives on the line every day for our safety. 
The enormous cuts to overall funding for justice programs in the 
Republican budget threaten the Community Oriented Policing Service, the 
COPS program, which, since 1994, has placed over 100,000 new police 
officers on the street and provided new resources for state and local 
law enforcement. The COPS program has been the cornerstone of community 
crime prevention efforts, has helped reduce violent crime since 1994, 
and has brought the nation's crime rate to a 25-year low.
  Just as troubling, the Republican budget fails to provide the $300 
million approved by Congress last year to support the FIRE Act, funds 
for grants that help develop and provide new resources and technology 
to save the lives of victims and firefighters alike. Last year, 
hundreds of firefighters from across the nation fought for and won this 
new funding. The Worcester Firefighters Association, and especially 
Fire Chief Frank Raffa and his colleagues, spent weeks personally 
talking to over 250 Members of Congress about the tragic fire in 
Worcester that took the lives of six firefighters and that helped 
awaken the conscience of a nation to the special needs of these 
dedicated public servants. I refuse to turn my back on the men and 
women who serve our local communities and I will not support a 
Republican budget proposal that treats them so callously.
  I'm very concerned that the Republican budget backtracks on last 
year's landmark agreement to set aside dedicated funding for land 
conservation, preservation and recreation programs. In contrast, the 
Democratic budget keeps the promise to preserve and protect our 
environment and helps our communities clean up contaminated lands and 
ensure that our families have clean water to drink and clean air to 
breathe. The Democratic budget provides the resources to tackle the 
nation's water infrastructure needs, an issue of great concern to many 
communities in the 3rd Congressional District of Massachusetts. It 
funds new grants for states to help them set up and carry out clean-up 
programs for brownfields. Helping Massachusetts with this problem will 
spur economic development in urban areas and remove one of the great 
causes of urban sprawl.
  Even in an area where President Bush and the Republican majority 
increase funding, such as education, they fail our families, students 
and communities.
  The Republican education budget increases funds by 5.9 percent over 
last year's level. However, this represents less than half of the 
average yearly increase that Congress has provided in the last five 
years. The Republican budget fails to keep pace with the nation's 
education needs.
  Once again, the Republican budget fails to help schools address 
emergencies and repairs, eliminating the new $1.2 billion urgent school 
repair program. It fails to include the bipartisan Johnson-Rangel 
initiative to provide interest-free bonds from school construction. Our 
country is facing a nation-wide crisis in school facilities and this 
budget fails to address that crisis in any effective way.
  The Republican budget diverts desperately needed Title I education 
program monies for low-income and poor children to private and 
religious school voucher programs.
  The Republican education budget also fails to invest additional 
resources in critical education programs like the TRIO program, which 
funds successful programs in Worcester and Bristol Counties, and GEAR-
UP. It freezes funding for Head Start, eliminates the new Early 
Learning Opportunities Fund, and appears to freeze funding for safe 
schools, after-school programs and education technology initiatives. 
Furthermore, the Republican budget fails to provide sufficient, let 
along full, funding for Pell Grants and for the federal share of 
special education (IDEA) programs.
  The Democratic budget, in contrast, provides for $129 billion more 
than the Republican budget over ten years in funding for education and 
related services. Democrats boost funding for critical priorities, 
including class size reduction, school renovation, teacher recruitment, 
training, and development, title I aid to the disadvantaged, Pell 
Grants and other higher education programs, special education (IDEA), 
after-school programs, school counselors, instructional technology and 
Head Start.
  Finally, the Democratic budget provides for all these programs and 
more, within the framework of a balanced budget, and still provides 
$910 billion in tax relief to America's hard-working families.
  The Democratic budget cuts taxes and funds priorities like Social 
Security and Medicare solvency, education, community infrastructure and 
public services, the environment, and still has room to provide a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit and continues to pay down the debt. 
This is not a budget built on smoke and mirrors. The numbers add up, 
and the proposals are based on real monies and not projected funds that 
might fail to materialize.
  The Democratic budget will better the lives of all of Massachusetts' 
communities and residents. The Republican budget will not.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today, Congress debated and voted on 
the President's FY 2002 Budget plan. The President's plan is both 
harmful to our economy and unnecessarily cuts important government 
programs, and I voted against it.
  Today, in response, I supported three alternative budgets that better 
address our future needs while providing working Americans with tax 
relief. Each alternative plan allows for an honest estimate of future 
spending needs and provides tax relief that will go directly to 
families who most need assistance.
  The Republican plan triple counts Social Security and fails to 
protect Medicare in order to fit the President's tax cut. Such a 
proposal doesn't address some of the real inequities in the tax code 
like the Alternative Minimum Tax, which increasingly impacts middle-
income families.
  I know Oregonians deserve better than the shame budget approved 
today, and I was pleased to support alternative plans that 
realistically address America's needs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 243, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page 4836]]



                             [Roll No. 69]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--243

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Gordon
     Lampson
     Rothman
     Sisisky

                              {time}  1629

  Messrs. BRADY of Texas, PHELPS, DOOLITTLE, BOEHLERT, SHOWS, BUYER, 
HALL of Texas and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. HOLDEN, DICKS, RUSH, MOLLOHAN and JACKSON of Illinois changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1630

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order for a period of final debate on the 
concurrent resolution.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today we present a budget that we have been working on 
for more than just a few days. We have been working on this budget for 
almost 20 years, a 20-year attempt to slow the rate of growth of 
government, provide tax relief for Americans, pay off the debt held by 
the public, and recognize once and for all that the important decisions 
happen around kitchen tables, not around committee tables.
  Mr. Chairman, the most important debate today will not occur on this 
floor. The most important debate of today is going to happen tonight 
sometime after the kids are tucked into bed and mom and dad are sitting 
around the kitchen table, and they are trying to figure out how to pay 
for college, and they are trying to decide whether to buy Nike shoes or 
Keds, or they are trying to decide how to pay that Visa bill that just 
went over their limit one more time, or they are trying to figure out 
how to pay the mortgage, how to pay the heating bill, how to pay for 
the extra energy costs.
  Mr. Chairman, we sometimes think that the trillion dollars and 
trillion dollars of debate that we have here is the most important. But 
sometimes it is the $10, the $20, the $100 that is debated around our 
kitchen tables that is the most important. That is why we have 
presented the budget that meets the goals that we have worked so long 
to achieve.
  We had a priority of paying down the maximum amount of publicly held 
debt. We accomplish that, and there is still money left over.
  We set aside in a bipartisan way, I would say to my friends on both 
sides, all of the Social Security trust fund, a big victory for the 
American people and for seniors today and seniors tomorrow; and there 
is still money left over.
  We set aside all of the trust fund for Medicare. We provide for a 
prescription-drug benefit. We want to modernize Medicare in this 
budget, and there is still money left over.
  We provide for the important priorities of defense, agriculture, 
education, environment, so many issues that we have come here to debate 
in the halls of Congress; and there is still money left over.
  The question is, Who does that money belong to? It belongs to the 
people who debate around their kitchen table tonight. Let us give them 
that refund that the President asked. Let us provide for them in this 
budget. Let us pass the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have stated the reasons that I oppose this resolution 
before, but I will state them in a nutshell again.
  First of all, in its single-minded zeal for tax reduction, this 
resolution cuts so close to the bone that it leaves no margin of error. 
If these projections do not pan out, we are in deficit again.
  Secondly, it makes so much room for tax cuts that it leaves little 
room for

[[Page 4837]]

other priorities. If my colleagues want to see those other priorities, 
look at them, tick them off: Medicare, prescription drugs, education, 
conservation, down the list. It does an insufficient amount.
  Finally, it does nothing at all for Social Security and Medicare, 
nothing at all. In fact, it actually deducts funds from the Medicare 
program by siphoning off money from the Medicare Hospital Insurance 
trust fund to pay for a meager and inadequate prescription-drug 
insurance.
  For all of that, if the bottom line is debt reduction, it achieves 
less debt reduction to the tune of $915 billion than the resolution 
that we have just presented which covers priorities across the board.
  We can do better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to consider voting against 
this budget resolution and to support the Democratic budget because I 
think it is a better budget.
  When one does a budget, one makes choices. One makes choices between 
size of tax cuts, how much is going to go to pay down the debt, how 
much goes to Medicare, prescription medicine, how much goes for 
education, how much goes to support the environment.
  I suggest to Members that we are making a mistake with this budget. 
Let us think of it as two products. First, we have the Republican 
budget product. It is a $2 trillion-plus tax cut, most of which goes to 
the wealthiest Americans. If we buy this budget, this is what is 
contained in this plan, this program.
  On the other hand, if my colleagues vote for a Democratic budget, 
they get much more. It is a better product. We get lower interest 
rates. Yes, we get a tax cut focused on middle-income Americans, but we 
also get debt-free by the year 2008.
  We get a prescription-drug benefit for all senior citizens. It 
extends Social Security to 2050, Medicare to 2040. It extends both 
about 12 years. More quality teachers and more cops on the beat.
  So the question is which box do we want for the American people. I 
suggest that this is a decision that will be with us for a long time.
  I was here in 1981. We had a new President who came saying that he 
wanted a budget that included a large tax cut. We came to this floor in 
1981 and debated that budget. The President said that it would not 
cause large deficits, that it would create jobs, that it would bring 
down interest rates and inflation.
  After we lost our alternative to that tax bill, many of us sat on the 
floor and wondered what we would do, how we would vote.
  I was getting calls from home, people saying give the new President a 
chance; and I did. I voted for the Reagan tax cut. Then the deficits 
began, as we worried they would. First it was $100 billion a year, then 
$200 billion, then $300 billion, then almost $400 billion. We went from 
$1 trillion in back debt to this country to almost $6 trillion in debt.
  It took the budget summit of 1990 and the Budget Act of 1993 and 1997 
to begin to get that deficit under control.
  Now, instead of having deficits as far as the eye can see, we have 
surpluses for the first time in 20 years. Why? I ask my friends in this 
Congress, why would we want to go back and repeat that mistake again?
  When I went home these last weeks, constituents came up and said 
where is the Medicare prescription drug program that I thought was 
going to be coming after the election? Where is the furthering of the 
solvency of Medicare and Social Security? Where are the smaller 
classrooms with better teachers and more classroom sizes? These are the 
issues that people are deciding in this budget debate.
  I plead with Members, turn down this budget and let us do a budget 
that does not send this country back into bankruptcy, back into high 
deficits, back into high interest rates, back into high inflation. We 
still have time to avoid it.
  I urge Members to vote against this misguided wrong-headed budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the very distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened very intently to the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader; and, Mr. Chairman, 
his argument just does not wash. In fact, it promises a ``Tide'' of new 
spending for America.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is right for America. It establishes a new 
direction. For too many years, we have seen liberals raise our taxes 
and send spending into orbit.
  But now we have a new President and one who wants to tell us all to 
come back to Earth. Our new President wants to send us in a new 
direction; and we should say, We are with you, Mr. President.
  Mr. Chairman, I am amazed by the complaints I have heard about this 
budget. I hear your spending plan does not go far enough. We cannot 
lower taxes that much. What do these complaints mean? They mean more 
taxes, and they mean more spending.
  Now, have we heard this before? Yes. Think about what we are hearing. 
That is called tax and spend, and that is the track we are trying to 
leave. It is the same tired vision for America. It is a vision that we 
reject.
  We are here today trying to establish a new direction, one that we 
can call fiscal responsibility. Yes, we have achieved a lot already. We 
have had the first balanced budget in 30 years. Today again, for the 
fifth year in a row, we will not only balance a budget, but run a 
surplus in our budget. Mr. Chairman, that has not happened for 70 
years.
  Fiscal responsibility used to be about as common in this town as 
Haley's comet, but we put the tax and spend century behind us. We are 
here today to replace it with a century of surplus.
  We have to understand that this budget, Mr. Chairman, is not about 
numbers. It is not about pie charts. It is not about CBO or OMB or 
calculators or green eye shades. This budget is about people. This 
budget is about setting the right example. This budget is a vision for 
a better America, a responsible vision.
  This budget is a road map for America. It is not the end of the road, 
Mr. Chairman; it is the beginning of the road. It points the way that 
reflects all the right priorities.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Chairman, this budget is, in fact, fiscally responsible. It will 
pay down all of the available public debt, and that is in addition to 
the half trillion dollars of public debt we have already paid down. And 
it makes generous provisions for the spending on the right priorities: 
education, public health, national defense. And after we have done all 
of that, yes, indeed, we will give tax relief to everybody in America 
who pays taxes. There is marriage penalty tax relief. There is across-
the-board tax reductions in the rates. There is death tax relief. We 
will do as much as we can to give money back to the people who earned 
it.
  As for spending, some of my colleagues still complain that our 
spending plan does not go far enough. Mr. Chairman, this budget spends 
an additional trillion dollars over the next 10 years. If you put a 
trillion dollars together end to end, it would reach to the planet 
Mars; and that is not enough? This budget spends $23 trillion total 
over the next 10 years. If you put $23 trillion together end to end, it 
would take you to Jupiter and back; and that is not far enough? I think 
my colleagues who are saying that are still out there someplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I was in Congress when we passed the first $1 trillion 
Federal budget. It took two centuries for Congress to spend a trillion 
dollars in a single year, and here we are 14 years later, we are near 
the $2 trillion mark; and that is not far enough? And now we will add 
an extra trillion dollars over the next 10 years; and that is still not 
enough?

[[Page 4838]]

  So the choice is very clear. The choice is between two visions: a 
vision of bigger and bigger government spending, a choice between 
larger and larger taxes, or a choice of smaller government that trusts 
the people to make up their own minds.
  My colleagues, especially those of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle, let us trust the American people as our President has led us to 
do. Let us say we are with you, Mr. President. We are with you, Mr. and 
Mrs. America. We are ``yes'' on this budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the very distinguished Speaker 
of the House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all due respect to the 
minority leader, yes, we have all been sold soap before; and sometimes 
bigger boxes of soap do not necessarily get the job done, especially 
when bigger boxes of soap mean more government. I remember one time 
when my wife was breaking me in on just how to wash the laundry. If you 
put too much soap in that machine, bubbles came out, and it gushed all 
over. We had soap all over. Everywhere was soap and bubbles.
  Mr. Chairman, that happens with government, too. If we put too big of 
dollars in government, what happens is spending goes up. We will never 
see a balanced budget again. We will never see a surplus. That is what 
this is all about. This is all about trying to lay out what our plans 
are for our children and grandchildren and our lives in the next 10 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of work done on this bill, and 
there are a lot of points of view, and I appreciate what everyone did 
because it laid down the parameters of debate on what people really 
wanted to do and what their vision for the Nation is. Those are the 
choices that we will have to make, and the vote in a few minutes will 
give us the chance to make those choices.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice here is a choice between government that 
grows too big, too much, too fast, too big a burden on the American 
taxpayers, or a budget that holds the growth of government down to slow 
growth of government and takes a little bit of that extra money, not 
all of it, not half of it, but just a part of it, and says, we need to 
take some of that money, and we need to pay it back, we need to give it 
back to the people that made it in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what this choice is all about. So there is tax 
relief for the American people. So people who get married are not 
paying an extra $1,400 because they are married rather than being 
single. Or if you have a small farm or family business and you want to 
pass it on to the next generation, you can do that without the Federal 
Government coming in and confiscating 55 or 60 percent of it.
  Probably everybody who pays taxes deserves a little tax relief. When 
we cut across the board the marginal tax rates, that means thousands 
and thousands of Americans in this country who pay taxes now will not 
even have to pay taxes. But it also means the man and wife that go to 
work to support their children that earn the $60,000 or $70,000 a year, 
or $40,000 or $50,000, are going to have more money in their own pocket 
so they can make decisions about their kids and families and what kind 
of education they are going to have; or maybe just pay the bills or the 
tuition to a sports camp, something special for their family. Those are 
the choices that we are trying to take away from government bureaucrats 
with too much spending and give it back to the American people who know 
what their priorities are, that have the right and deserve to spend 
more of their money the way that they see fit.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is also about children and about children 
in a very special way. It is about education. When you talk about 
education, sometimes it just kind of goes over some people's heads. But 
where real education takes place, and I spent 16 years in a classroom, 
education takes place in a classroom with good teachers and parents who 
care. We put more dollars not into some bureaucracy, not for some 
bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., to lay down more paper and more 
busywork, but we put dollars in the classroom so teachers can do a 
better job and parents can get more satisfaction sending their children 
to school and knowing something good is going to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, we have talked about this budget a great deal. There 
has been a lot of debate on this floor today, but this budget, crafted 
by the President, worked on by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), 
and I thank him for his great work, really goes to the heart of what we 
want to do for the future of this country and for the moms and dads and 
children and our grandchildren.


  We can make this a better place to live. We can make, through this 
budget, better choices for people to make because they can make their 
own choices and have better education for their kids.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to support us today and pass this budget resolution because it is 
time we do it. Let us go to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2002, revising the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2001 and, setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal 
years 2003 through 2011 and, pursuant to House Resolution 100, he 
reported the concurrent resolution, as amended by the adoption of that 
resolution and by the previous order of the House, back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution, as amended.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 205, not voting 6, as follows:

                              [Roll No 70]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)

[[Page 4839]]


     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Gordon
     Lampson
     Rothman
     Sisisky

                              {time}  1715

  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________