[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3672-3705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 353, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                    ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only on the matter before us.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 372 is a closed rule which has been crafted to 
bring forward the annual Congressional budget resolution. While this 
differs in some ways from years past, it does reflect the fact that the 
previous 6 months has been anything but typical in the United States of 
America. As with all legislation considered by this body in the wake of 
the September 11 terrorist attacks, we have found ourselves in a unique 
situation where the traditional way of doing things has been modified 
by both sides to meet the more important priorities of a Nation 
fighting a war.
  I am very pleased that the motion to adjourn and the one that 
preceded it both showed that even though there were 77 Members, or 72 
Members in the second vote of the loyal opposition who do want to 
adjourn, that on a large bipartisan basis, most of this body wants to 
get on with this important work of the budget, and I think it is in 
that bipartisan spirit that we present this rule.
  For a number of years, we have gotten into the admirable habit of 
managing debate on the budget by asking that all amendments be drafted 
in the form of substitutes so that Members could consider the whole 
picture as we debate and weigh spending priorities, which is, after 
all, our first mission here. Although we set out to continue that 
practice this year, unfortunately no real alternatives were offered.
  While some may claim and some will claim that some near substitutes 
were offered, the proposals were actually modifications to process 
rather than substance, and they in no way qualified as full 
substitutes.
  Despite rhetoric that I am sure we will hear as we always do in this 
particular debate that states otherwise, this rule provides a healthy 
forum for debate of our Nation's budget, and that is what we will be 
about this afternoon. It provides for 3 hours of general debate with 2 
hours confined to the Congressional budget, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Budget. Additionally, 1 hour of what we call Humphrey-Hawkins 
debate on the subject of economic goals and policies will be equally 
divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the House chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Joint Economics respectively.
  The rule further waives all points of order against consideration of 
the concurrent resolution and provides that the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules shall 
be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole, and the rule permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency.
  Finally, the rule provides that the concurrent resolution shall not 
be subject to a demand for a or division the question of its adoption. 
So this is a fair rule. It is a practical rule and it fits the 
circumstances that we have today very well.
  Mr. Speaker, in previous years the beginning of the budget season was 
a time when Members of this body would show the full color of their 
beliefs. Like in that other great rite of spring, the growth of the 
cherry blossoms, Washington explodes with new life and vividness as the 
great budgetary debates began, and we heard lots of good ideas. We 
argued over what programs should grow, what should prosper, what should 
be cut. We disagreed about how much money should be used to pay down 
debts and how much should be given back to the citizens, and we debated 
about lockboxes and highway funds, and in short, we argued about what 
are the proper responsibilities of the government, how do we go about 
our spending.
  In all my years on Capitol Hill I have seldom met a Member of this 
body who did not believe that security and defense are among the most 
basic and essential duties of government, and that is what this budget 
is about, our national security. In fact, this budget is about three 
types of security.
  First, it is about fiscal security for the Nation. This budget 
increases our defense spending by 13 percent so that well-paid, well-
trained and well-equipped soldiers can defeat and deter all those who 
wish to harm the United States of America and its citizens at home and 
abroad.
  The budget also provides $38 billion for new homeland defense 
spending. This money will be used to monitor our borders, improve 
intelligence collection, secure airports and better equip first 
responders for acts of terrorism, and indeed, we have seen some amazing 
heroic acts from those first responders.
  Second, this budget is about economic security. It continues to pay 
down the national debt and retains important tax cuts for families and 
businesses. Additionally, this budget provides money for investments in 
energy, transportation and agriculture. Collectively, these measures 
will ensure that our economy continues to turn the corner away from 
recession and towards sustained prosperity.
  Third, this budget is about personal security. It secures the 
commitments that our government has made to its citizens. It increases 
spending for veterans programs, and in my district that is particularly 
welcome news. It increases spending for education funding, for Medicare 
costs and environmental needs, and of course, Social Security is 
protected.
  All of America's most important social spending programs are 
maintained and increased under this budget. In total this $2.1 trillion 
budget the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has put together meets all 
of America's long-standing commitments while it greatly increases funds 
for programs that will safeguard the lives of our families, our 
neighbors, our fellow citizens in this time of unusual peril.
  Many may try to argue that this is the first deficit budget in recent 
years or that some favorite project of theirs is not sufficiently 
funded. Many will even try to claim both of these at the same time, and 
it is true that some projections show we will run a modest deficit this 
year, but in the last 6

[[Page 3673]]

months our Nation has been through war and recession. The small deficit 
we may face this year is a minor cost considering the urgency of 
defense needs and given the fact that all major social programs are 
fully funded.
  Further, most budget experts agree that for the rest of the decade 
after this emergency year we can expect increasing budget surpluses.
  When I speak to my constituents back home in southwest Florida, the 
last thing in the world they are concerned about is which political 
party scored points in this debate today. What matters to them now is 
that their government steps up and does the job that it was created to 
do to protect their lives and their liberty. It is our duty to give the 
American people a budget that does precisely that.
  This is a fair rule to bring forward, an excellent budget. I urge 
passage of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule. I oppose the cynicism it 
embraces and the contempt it demonstrates for honest debate. With this 
rule, the Republican leadership has blocked amendments offered by 
Democrats, all in an effort to adapt a flawed and disingenuous budget.
  Our side of the aisle has made clear that the President has the firm 
support of this caucus when it comes to waging war on terrorism, and as 
a ninth generation American whose ancestors have fought in every United 
States conflict since the Revolutionary War, I am keenly aware of the 
sacrifices that war calls for.
  I am also keenly aware that national security does not abrogate us 
from pursuing the priorities important to the country. Mr. Speaker, we 
have promises to keep. Generations of Americans have poured billions of 
dollars into Social Security and Medicare with the promise that these 
vital programs would be there for them when they and their loved ones 
retired. This body has voted five separate times to put Social Security 
and Medicare in a lockbox and throw away the key. Yet this budget 
resolution breaks that promise.
  Indeed, the measure before us wipes out most of the Social Security 
surplus and decimates all of the Medicare surplus over the next 5 
years. Thirty-two million retirees rely on Social Security income, and 
that number is increasing every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I am still stunned that we have fallen so far so fast. 
In less than a year a surplus of $5.6 trillion shrank by $4 trillion. 
This is the worst fiscal reversal in American history and for what? A 
single-minded obsession with tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the 
very wealthy in this Nation, and do not be fooled by today's rhetoric. 
The negative impact of the budget priorities of the majority were 
already stinging many Americans well before the tragedy that unfolded 
September 11. In fact, 43 percent of the surplus was already gone by 
then due to the tax cut.
  Why then in the midst of this fiscal problem do we now hear that the 
leadership in the House is demanding further tax cuts a month from now? 
Why are we jeopardizing the Nation's future for a press hit during tax 
time?
  This administration and leadership of the body has squandered an 
extraordinary opportunity for reasons largely unrelated to the war. The 
budget reverses a decade of fiscal progress and takes the country back 
down a perilous path of unending deficits. From 2002 through 2012, 
budget surpluses are converted into budget deficits, and Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds are raided with abandon.
  Mr. Speaker, virtually every independent analysis of this budget has 
dubbed it a sham. It omits numbers in the second 5 years even though we 
have employed 10-year projections since Congress passed the Balanced 
Budget Act. Even more ominously this resolution uses OMB rather than 
CBO estimates in an effort to hide the real impact of the budget. 
Instead of relying on Congress' nonpartisan CBO estimates, the majority 
chose to use the much rosier estimates provided by the administration's 
political appointees at OMB.
  My colleagues may recall that in 1995 the other side shut down the 
government to insist on the use of CBO estimates. If CBO should prove 
correct rather than OMB, virtually the entire Social Security surplus 
will be gone for the next 10 years.
  At the very least the Committee on Rules should have allowed an 
amendment by Mr. Moran to pull in the reins on deficit spending to 
allow us to return to fiscal responsibility. The committee should have 
allowed the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to offer his 
substitute, which simply used realistic CBO cost estimates to shape the 
Nation's budget.
  Moreover, Democrats had hoped to offer amendments on a host of 
issues. In addition to undermining Social Security and Medicare, the 
resolution woefully underfunds education, a prescription drug benefit, 
efforts to fight HIV and AIDS. The list goes on and on.
  This close ruled kills honest debate on these and other issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) for allowing me a few minutes to talk about the budget, the 
Republican budget, that has run through committee.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in that committee has done a 
fabulous job and I want to talk about some of the great things that 
this budget does.
  First of all, as the parent of a child with Down's syndrome, I am 
very pleased to know that we are going to continue providing schools 
with money for IDEA. It is important that this Congress understand that 
IDEA and the education of our children is important. We have increased 
funding.
  We have made sure that as we go through this budget that we make sure 
that not one penny has been taken from Medicare, Medicaid or Social 
Security. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I had an opportunity to 
speak with not only the chairman of the Committee on the Budget but 
also the ranking member and asked the question specifically, is there 
one penny that we have taken out? That answer is no.
  We have continued to make sure we pay down debt. We have continued to 
make sure that veterans receive not only an increase of the money we 
give them but that we continue to focus on the efficiency of those 
programs.
  We make sure in this budget that not only do we talk about homeland 
security, which is probably the number one issue combined with winning 
the war, but we fully fund those requests that come from our President 
to make sure that those things happen with making sure the military and 
homeland security gets their money.
  We are making sure that we do things to support funding of not only 
education and homeland security but we are also making sure that we are 
giving the money to NIH. NIH funding has doubled now since 1996. We are 
making sure that we take care of the needs of a growing Nation, a 
Nation that needs NIH to solve and give us cures related to medicine.

                              {time}  1330

  So what we are doing in this budget is going through and making sure 
that the priorities of this Nation are taken care of. We are increasing 
funding some places, but we are making sure that homeland security and 
the defense of this country is taken care of. At a time when we are at 
war, what we are doing is not having deficit spending. We are making 
sure that we end with a balance here. And at a time when increasingly 
it is more and more difficult to find enough money to keep spending, we 
are making sure that priorities are taken care of.
  I am proud of not only what this Republican bill does, but last night 
we heard from the other side, the Democrats, that they do not intend to 
offer

[[Page 3674]]

a budget. I think it is very insincere for someone to come and attack 
you for doing the heavy lifting when in fact they do not present their 
own budget. It is easy to attack one piece or another, one place or 
another, but when you put together an entire budget, which is what we 
have done, I think it deserves the support of this House, and that is 
what I support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I speak 
as the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, and I speak 
with those who wear the uniform of our country in mind.
  The vote on this resolution might well be the most important national 
defense vote cast this year. In my opinion, the rule that is being 
offered today shortchanges national defense. Let me explain.
  The top line that is recommended is a $48 billion increase. I think 
that is fine. We have needed that for some time. However, there is a 
$10 billion so-called reserve fund that we are not allowed to 
appropriate. My amendment that was offered at the Committee on Rules, 
and that was denied, would fix that flaw and fix that error. So what 
this amounts to is a $10 billion zero, a cut in the proposed figure of 
$48 billion down to a $38 billion increase.
  Under the Constitution, our duty is clear: article one, section 8 
requires that the Congress of the United States raise and maintain the 
military. We cannot delegate that duty, as is proposed in this rule and 
in this resolution. We cannot give it to anyone else, the Secretary of 
Defense, though he is a fine man; the President, or anyone else. As 
Harry Truman once said, and the little sign said on his desk: ``The 
buck stops here.'' The buck stops on national security and national 
defense right with us.
  I cannot offer, as a result of the Committee on Rules' denial of my 
amendment, a pay increase that should equal the pay increase that the 
soldiers and those in uniform received last year. They cannot receive 
the military construction money that is needed. And just today, General 
Joe Ralston revealed in testimony and showed us in pictures the 
dilapidated family housing that our people live in in Europe. We need 
more Navy ships, ammunition, and unfunded requirements.
  It is our duty. It is not a political thing; it is our duty under the 
Constitution to vote against this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time that remains on 
either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) has 20 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York 
has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Since September 11, Americans have united in historic fashion, 
pulling together as a national family to face down the new dangers of 
terrorism, and Democrats remain committed to ensuring our troops have 
all the resources they need to win the war on terrorism. There is no 
partisan debate over defending America. But that is not the only 
challenge facing us right now, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that my friends on the other side of 
the aisle are great fans of Lewis Carroll. You remember Lewis Carroll. 
He is the fellow who wrote ``Alice in Wonderland.'' We have a situation 
where down is up and up is down. Republicans say, oh, we do not touch 
the Social Security surplus. We do not take a penny out of Social 
Security. Well, down is up and up is down, my colleagues, because, in 
fact, this budget uses $1 trillion of the Social Security and Medicare 
surplus the first 5 years and $2 trillion over a 10-year period.
  Over the past 12 years, America has fallen into a very deep and 
dangerous budgetary hole, one that poses a great threat to Social 
Security and other priorities like education, prescription drugs, and 
homeland security. Since Republicans passed their budget last year, 
America has lost $5 trillion of the proposed surplus. That is nearly 90 
percent of our national nest egg down the drain.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, we were planning to pay off America's 
national debt. This year, the Bush administration wants to increase the 
debt ceiling so all Americans can go deeper into debt. Before last 
year, we were using the Social Security surplus to strengthen Social 
Security. In fact, this House overwhelmingly passed five different lock 
boxes, pledging not to spend Social Security on other government 
programs. But this year, Republicans have broken their promise to 
America and offered a budget that raids Social Security in each of the 
next 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole 
and that is by working together as a national family to restore fiscal 
responsibility and honest budgeting. That is how families across the 
country operate. They sit down at the kitchen table and take an honest 
look at their expenses, their debts, and their income. Mr. Speaker, 
that is why Democrats have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget 
politics as usual and join us at the negotiating table to work out a 
bipartisan budget.
  Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to even acknowledge the mess they 
have made or the threat it poses to Social Security. Instead, their 
budget cooks the books yet again and tries to pass off another bad 
check on the American people. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are hiding 
behind budget gimmicks and accounting tricks that no self-respecting 
accountant would stomach, unless he worked for Enron.
  Republicans are desperate, Mr. Speaker. They are desperate to hide 
the fact that the Republican budget is a trillion dollar raid on Social 
Security, one that still increases the debt and shortchanges priorities 
like education and prescription drugs. Additionally, as the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Shows) have pointed out, Republicans are seriously shortchanging health 
care for veterans and military retirees.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the budget.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Charlotte, North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the hub of 
most good flights going to Florida these days, and a member who does 
great work on our Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I think over this next period of hours we are going to be hearing 
a lot of rhetoric about Social Security and what is happening to Social 
Security. It seems to be the keynote of the day.
  I just wanted to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for what he has done in 
bringing this budget forward.
  I came here, like a lot of others, in 1995, with the commitment that 
we are going to balance the budget; and in 1997 we were able to achieve 
that, and we have been doing that every year since. And Chairman Nussle 
is keeping us on that path.
  We have paid down debt; and, yes, we can move the numbers around, 
people seem to be good at that, but we have paid down almost a half 
trillion dollars in debt so far, and that is really a good start. We 
are going to be paying down more, and we have a commitment to continue 
to do that as well as protecting Social Security over these next few 
years.
  And I will say that anybody who is receiving Social Security today, 
or is close to receiving Social Security or Medicare, should not be 
misled in any way by people saying, oh well, it is not going to be 
there for them. They are perfectly fine. We are talking about the 
future, which we are going to be working on.
  I cannot help but make the comment that if previous leaderships over 
the past 30 years, before we took over in 1995, had not spent the 
Social Security

[[Page 3675]]

surplus specifically for other government programs, they used it every 
year, if that had not happened, that money would still be there and we 
would not be having any argument whatsoever of whether there was enough 
money for Social Security. That point seems to get lost when we are 
doing debate.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention 
and again commend Chairman Nussle for the good job he has done in 
protecting our future with the war and our homeland defense and our 
economic security; and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule 
and ``yes'' on the budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is a case study in poor leadership and 
fiscal management. It serves as an example of what goes wrong when you 
fail to think ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, the general theme of this year's budget resolution is a 
reckless disregard for the obvious. After all, the resolution does not 
account for the last 5 years of last year's tax cut, and it certainly 
does not account for real CBO numbers.
  What the majority's figures do account for is a more than 5 percent 
cut in nondefense related spending and an additional $28 billion in tax 
cuts. They account for a 16 percent shortchanging of ``leave no child 
behind,'' and they account for the elimination of the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds.
  The resolution also accounts for cuts in health care, law 
enforcement, energy production, environmental protection, not enough 
money for election reform, housing for the elderly, the capital fund 
for housing, homeless assistance cuts; and all the way across the board 
we find this.
  Basically, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is the lock box has been 
unlocked, thrown away, retooled, and made into an ATM machine.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, for the purpose of a colloquy with a 
colleague.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage in a short 
colloquy with the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.
  It is my desire to clarify where the increase in the money authorized 
for health-related spending will go. I would like to stress the 
importance of providing funding for the Center for Disease Control 
buildings and facilities in respect to winning the war on terrorism.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be pleased to 
enter into that colloquy with the very distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  One of today's most serious potential threats to our national 
security is bioterrorism. The CDC is a major and integral part of the 
homeland defense because of its ability to identify, classify, and 
recommend courses of action in dealing with biological and chemical 
threats.
  In addition to working in asbestos-laden facilities, many highly 
trained scientists perform their research in facilities that lack 
safety features, such as sprinkler systems and adequate electrical and 
air flow systems, and, as a result, limits the agency's ability to 
recruit and retain the world-class scientists.
  The multiyear master plan, put together by the CDC for adding to and 
replacing infrastructure at its Atlanta location, has received wide 
bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. Addressing the 
deficiencies will greatly benefit all Americans. It will enhance CDC's 
ability to respond to emergencies as well as provide the desperately 
needed facilities required for day-to-day public health and research 
activities.
  Last year, we provided $250 million for upgrading out-of-date 
equipment and restore dilapidated facilities at CDC. The CDC needs an 
additional $300 million to provide the 4th year of construction funding 
for a new infectious disease laboratory, which will include greatly 
needed bio-safety level-four hot labs, construction of a new 
environmental toxicology lab, and greatly needed security updates.
  The budget resolution for fiscal year 2003 calls for $223.5 billion 
in health-related spending, which is a $22.8 billion increase from the 
$200.7 billion in fiscal year 2002. It is my understanding that fiscal 
year 2003 total spending for HHS's bioterrorism efforts would rise to 
$4.3 billion, an increase of $1.3 billion above the 2002 level. These 
funding levels will support critical homeland security initiatives. 
This includes funding for improvement to buildings and facilities at 
CDC.
  Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman clarify that the increase in health 
funding would include improvements and modernization of facilities at 
CDC?

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The budget 
resolution assumes $4.3 billion to counter the threat of bioterrorism. 
Emphasis, I believe, should be given to hospitals and other public 
health facilities, research and development, and it does accommodate 
the Georgia CDC lab in Atlanta.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
can the gentleman clarify that the budget resolution will accommodate 
at least $300 million of the $4.3 billion for improvements to the 
buildings and facilities at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, an amount that 
was authorized in the bioterrorism bill passed by the House and the 
Senate last year?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, it would 
accommodate for a facility such as the gentleman has described in 
Atlanta, Georgia, $300 million for CDC.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
clarification of this matter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, whatever this Congress 
does, we have to respect funding for national security. But while 
protecting ourselves from foreign enemies, we should fund programs that 
protect seniors and children, too. This budget fails to protect 
children or senior citizens.
  In fact, according to this chart, this budget spends the Social 
Security surplus and the Medicare surplus for the next 10 years. For 
the next 3 years, we go into deficit spending over and above the 
surpluses in Medicare and Social Security. More than 40 million 
Americans are without health insurance, and yet there is nothing in 
this budget that does anything for them. There is no prescription drug 
benefit for seniors. The expectation of the cost is $750 billion. This 
budget does not even make a down payment on that.
  Many States like Texas have trouble funding its SCHIP program which 
provides health care for children. There is nothing in this budget that 
allows the $3 billion for our States to have insurance for our 
children. To cap this off, the government is backing deficit spending 
for 3 years, and for the next 10 with Medicare and Social Security, as 
Members can see from this chart.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
and would like to identify another reason for opposing this rule. We 
need to have a credible plan to get back to the balanced budget without 
relying on the Social Security Trust Fund once we have gotten control 
over this war on terrorism that the chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence has alluded to and pulled out of this 
recession.
  This budget resolution provides no such credible plan. A trigger, 
which a number of us offered which received a Republican vote in the 
Committee on

[[Page 3676]]

the Budget, stated that next year the House had to produce a budget 
resolution that put the budget in balance without using the Social 
Security Trust Fund, and it had to be a 5-year plan. There is no such 
provision in this bill today. We are headed down a path without regard 
to how we are going to debate spending and tax cut proposals as far as 
how it impacts our ability to get back to a balanced budget, to pay 
down the debt, to help keep interest rates low, to prepare Medicare and 
Social Security for its future solvency when the baby boomers begin to 
retire in 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a plan. This budget resolution does not do it. 
The trigger is such a plan, and it ought to be part of a debate we have 
today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to 
speak against this rule. I and my moderate Blue Dog colleagues sought 
to present a reasonable, bipartisan alternative that would have adopted 
the majority's budget, but would have required us in Congress to do 
what every American with a bank book is required to do, and that is to 
keep it balanced.
  This rule does not allow for discussion of a bipartisan alternative. 
It does not allow for discussion about prescription drugs for seniors. 
It does not allow for discussion about squandering our surplus, or 
allow for a full debate on avoiding a raid on the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds every year for the next 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly voted with my Republican friends and 
with the President when I felt that they were reaching across party 
lines to develop bipartisan consensus on real problems. I had hoped 
that we would be able to do that with this budget and this rule, but 
this rule does not provide for that. It is unfair. It is undemocratic. 
It is the majority's way or no way; and on that basis we should defeat 
this rule and come back and develop true bipartisan consensus on a 
balanced budget, a strong defense and meets the needs of working 
families.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this budget. We 
have led on our side. We have a plan to protect Social Security. We 
have a plan to prosecute the war and provide for tax relief for 
Americans.
  The other side's leadership has ordered them not to produce a budget. 
The gentleman from South Carolina is a very fine Member of Congress who 
would have been able to put together a good alternative had he been 
allowed to. But instead, there is no plan on the other side. When we 
look at the options, the options are to raise taxes, cut defense 
spending, go further into debt. We have no leadership on the other 
side. Thank goodness our majority has led on this topic.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in support of a 
strong budget and increased intelligence spending, but these priorities 
can and should be met in the context of a balanced budget with balanced 
priorities. I voted for such a budget over a decade, and each time that 
budget has been supported by the Blue Dogs, of which I am a Member. One 
does not have to be from the South, unless we count southern 
California, or a male, to be a Blue Dog, and I proudly am one and 
proudly support a fiscally responsible budget.
  This time, for the first time, the Blue Dog proposal has not been 
made in order, and so we do not have on the table and we will not be 
able to vote for a balanced budget proposal with balanced priorities.
  I strongly oppose this rule. I strongly oppose the notion that many 
of us on a bipartisan basis are not in favor of balanced budgets. I 
think as we talk about homeland security, we can only achieve that in a 
context of economic security which we risk destroying by this vote 
today. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I am here to oppose the rule. The President 
has asked for bipartisanship, and I have bent over backwards to be 
bipartisan. In fact, I voted for the President's tax cut last year. 
When we were asked to be bipartisan, we have tried. In fact, a group of 
us, the Blue Dogs, submitted a substitute budget using all of the 
numbers in the Republican budget with two differences: One, that we 
used Congressional Budget Office numbers, the same numbers used for the 
last 10 years, not switching numbers; number two, that we added a 
midyear review in August in case the projections do not come out the 
way that we hope they will.
  So when we hear a Member on the other side say there was not an 
alternative or substitute budget submitted, it is not true. They can 
say black is white, but it does not make it true. They have the votes, 
and they denied our substitute budget. They denied us the opportunity 
to present a substitute budget. They know that the numbers do not add 
up.
  Mr. Speaker, why is a review important? Because Congress right now is 
in the Social Security funds and will be in $200 billion by the end of 
the next fiscal year, and $1 trillion over the next 10 years if things 
are not changed. Under the present budget and the proposal, it is a 
trillion dollars into Social Security funds over the next 10 years. I 
voted for the tax cut. I want a chance to work with the other side in a 
bipartisan manner, but it is not happening. We reached out to them and 
basically were slapped in the face.
  I wish we could start this over because we could work together given 
half an even and fair chance. The President and the Secretary of 
Treasury have asked for a $750 billion increase in the debt limit. That 
is a $750 billion blank check. I think Congress has a responsibility to 
make sure that we oversee the use of that money and not write blank 
checks or provide blank checks to any person.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) 
invoked my name, and let me assure the gentleman, I am a free agent. I 
am comfortable with the decision that our caucus has made and our 
leadership has made. Frankly, we tried to produce a budget resolution, 
and we found to have a competing resolution on the floor and an apples-
to-apples comparison, we would have to use the gimmicks and the devices 
the other side used to get the results they achieve. We did not want to 
do that for a couple of reasons, not the least of which we did not want 
to go to 5 years. We think a 10-year budget is proper. We did not want 
to use OMB, as complacent as they can be sometimes in helping Members 
get the bottom line that they want. We wanted to stick with the 
Congressional Budget Office, the neutral and nonpartisan group.
  Mr. Speaker, for these and many other reasons, we decided not to do a 
budget resolution; but there will be a Democratic resolution. It will 
be presented in the other body by Senator Conrad.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the rule and the underlying legislation. As a member of the Committee 
on Rules and the Committee on the Budget, I congratulate the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Dreier) on a fair rule, for allowing for open 
debate, and for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for producing a 
wartime budget that recognizes the need to secure our homeland, win the 
war on terror, and bolster our economy.
  By providing record increases in defense spending, providing for 
greater intelligence networking and funding antiterrorism measures, our 
budget takes a comprehensive approach to winning the war on terror.
  By including funds for aviation security, defending against 
biological attacks, and securing America's borders, our budget makes 
homeland defense

[[Page 3677]]

our highest priority. By allowing American taxpayers to keep $66 
billion more of their own money during the next 5 years through 
economic stimulus tax relief, our budget helps stabilize and secure our 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion lately about the 
importance of a balanced budget. I have always been a strong proponent 
of balanced budgets; but even proponents of proposals for balanced 
budget constitutional amendments like we addressed several years ago, 
those allow flexibilities when emergencies occur. Surely this time of 
national emergency, war and economic distress more than justifies 
temporary budget flexibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight four aspects of this 
resolution which are of particular interest to my area of the Pacific 
Northwest: First, as chairman of the House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, I am 
pleased that the Committee on the Budget has included my provision to 
set the Department of Energy's nuclear cleanup budget at $6.7 billion 
for next year, and a total of $1.1 billion to be available to fully 
implement the Department of Energy's accelerated cleanup effort.
  Second, by including bipartisan language authored by myself and the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), our budget highlights local fish 
recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest. People in central Washington 
and throughout the region are dedicated to ensuring the survival of our 
salmon. It is crucial that the Federal Government and Pacific Northwest 
residents continue to work together to address the entire range of 
factors impacting fish populations.
  Further, this budget serves our growers and farmers by fully 
providing for the expansion of the Market Access Program included in 
the House farm bill. Funding for this program will more than double 
from $90 million to $200 million in order to open new markets and 
expand trade opportunities for American agricultural products.
  Finally, the budget resolution provides $700 million in additional 
borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power Administration. This 
additional borrowing authority is supported on a bipartisan basis by 
all Members from the Pacific Northwest.

                              {time}  1400

  This increase will be used to assist the BPA in upgrading and 
building transmission lines that are urgently needed. I am pleased that 
this resolution fully funds the President's request for additional 
borrowing authority.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is anything bipartisan about this budget 
resolution, it is probably our mutual displeasure with it. I do not 
think anyone is satisfied with this budget. And even if my colleagues 
on the other side accept the bottom line, that this budget resolution 
will run a real deficit and then continue to spend Social Security and 
Medicare dollars to pay for general government for years to come, I 
would say this year's partisan budget process does not permit a single 
substantive amendment, not in the Budget Committee, not in the Rules 
Committee, not on the House floor.
  I mention only one. Yesterday, I asked the Rules Committee to make in 
order an amendment that would have made improvements to this budget, 
specifically to increase our investment in research and development. It 
was not allowed. This budget resolution does provide increased funding 
for the National Institutes of Health, but it does not provide enough 
funding for general scientific research and development through the 
National Science Foundation and other agencies. The NSF, the National 
Science Foundation, provides the backbone for the science and the 
scientists that are necessary to ensure that this Nation remains a 
leader. In other words, if the NIH investment is going to pay off, we 
need to make an investment in the other areas of science research and 
development.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I take to the floor in the strongest possible opposition to 
this unfair rule. I cannot believe my colleagues on this side that can 
stand up and say, ``Support this fair rule.''
  But the first thing I want to say today is let the record clearly 
state, and I could not agree more, that Congress must join the 
President to provide for the security of our Nation, our troops, our 
law enforcement officials, and everyone else who is fighting the war on 
terrorism. We agree. However, it is cowardly, not patriotic, to use 
this vitally important priority for all of us as a scapegoat for 
abandoning all fiscal responsibility and the budget process in the 
pursuit of this unfair rule.
  As a member of the minority, I do not expect I am going to win very 
often on the floor. But I do expect the majority to show a modicum of 
respect for the democratic process, if not for Democrats. To have every 
single Democratic amendment, both a complete substitute as well as 
numerous single bullet amendments, completely shut out of the debate is 
outrageous. What really bothers me about this, I remember the times in 
the last 23 years in which I have stood up with you on this side of the 
aisle when you were in the minority and demanded that you have an 
opportunity to have your amendments on the floor and debated and 
usually I was with you.
  But yesterday the Rules Committee said ``no'' to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and 
myself when under the rules that you sent to us, we brought you a 
complete substitute and you said, ``No, we do not wish to allow you to 
have 1 hour of debate on a substitute.'' We offered the good hand of 
friendship to you and you said ``no.'' That is your privilege. That is 
your privilege. You can do so. But it is not just a few Blue Dogs or 
the Democrats who have a problem. The majority seems determined to 
ignore it, but they have the same problem that needs to be solved and 
that is a deficit.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California, the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, that denied me an opportunity to have 
debate.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in the testimony that 
the gentleman from Texas gave yesterday before the Committee on Rules, 
he made it very clear that what he was offering was, and this is a 
direct quote, ``a perfecting amendment to the chairman's budget.'' That 
is how he described what did come forward, he said as a substitute. He 
described it as a perfecting amendment to the chairman's budget. I 
thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I take back my time from the chairman and say that 
these are the rules of the House. The Rules Committee said to all 
people who brought a rule, ``Bring a budget that is scored by CBO.'' We 
did. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) did not bring a budget to the 
Committee on Rules scored by CBO. You ignored your own rules in 
allowing the gentleman from Iowa to come forward with an OMB-scored 
when your rules and what you instructed me to do is come CBO-scored. 
You chose to ignore it, which you can do. You can waive any rule any 
time you want to in the majority. But let me remind the gentleman that 
the chickens will come home to roost.
  You are going to have to vote to borrow $750 billion, and it is going 
to be more than that with the economic game plan you folks are on. You 
are going to get to stand up and provide 218 votes to increase the debt 
ceiling when we could have been with you and we offered to be with you 
in a bipartisan way to the President saying, We do not have to resort 
to games; we can do it under the rules of the House and we can do it 
bipartisanly. But no thanks, you did not want any part of that.
  There is justice in this world, and you are going to get a chance 
pretty soon to borrow that money in an up and down vote and explain why 
you are

[[Page 3678]]

doing it when you could have had something better.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield again such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, for a colloquy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska, the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Iowa on H. Con. Res. 353, the fiscal year 2003 House budget resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. First of all, I would like to commend Chairman 
Nussle of the Committee on the Budget for bringing this resolution to 
the floor. I am very pleased with the cooperative working relationship 
that has developed between our two committees.
  As you know, the President's budget proposes an $8.6 billion, or 27 
percent, reduction in highway funding, from $31.8 billion in fiscal 
year 2002 to $23.2 billion in fiscal year 2003. Most of this proposed 
decrease in funding is based on the revenue-aligned budget authority 
provision of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 
otherwise known as TEA-21, which I continue to support in principle. 
However, it is simply too harmful to our State transportation budgets 
and our economy to allow such a dramatic funding cut to take place next 
year. Therefore, my goal has been to restore the highway program to a 
reasonable, sustainable funding level of at least $27.7 billion, which 
is the funding level envisioned by fiscal year 2003 in TEA-21. Any 
language to the contrary in the report accompanying H. Con. Res. 353 
does not accurately reflect my views on this subject.
  My position on this issue is made clear in H.R. 3694, the Highway 
Funding Restoration Act. H.R. 3694 calls for highway funding of not 
less than $27.7 billion in fiscal year 2003. The words ``not less 
than'' are profoundly important to me and the 315 cosponsors of the 
legislation. This is a fluid process, and I reserve the right of my 
committee to move this bill or some version of it in the future if 
necessary. If it becomes clear to me that the highway trust fund can 
sustain a higher funding level and at that time there is significant 
support for restoring more than $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2003, then 
I will actively support a further increase in highway funding. The 
budget resolution adds $4.4 billion for highways and highway safety, 
thereby increasing funding for the highway program to $27.7 billion. 
This is a significant improvement over the President's budget. For that 
and other reasons, I support the resolution and urge my colleagues, on 
my committee especially, to do likewise.
  I would like to clarify my views with the gentleman from Iowa and ask 
if there is anything in H. Con. Res. 353 that would preclude adding 
more than $4.4 billion to the highway program at some point in the 
future.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue 
and also for the cooperation between our committees. I agree with the 
gentleman from Alaska that there is nothing in this resolution that 
would preclude adding more than $4.4 billion to the highway program 
under certain circumstances. For instance, such a further increase 
could be possible if conference negotiations with the Senate result in 
a higher funding level for highways or if the Appropriations Committee, 
as an example, would allocate additional outlays to its transportation 
subcommittee by reducing outlays in some other function.
  I understand the gentleman will continue to work with the Budget 
Committee to help modify the caps, including those for highways and 
transit to, among other things, accommodate the additional 
transportation spending and to smooth out the year-to-year fluctuations 
in the revenue adjustments made under the RABA provision of TEA-21. I 
appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will 
work with him as I have told him before not only on the floor but in 
private to provide both the general purpose and transportation caps to, 
among other things, reflect the increase in highway spending. I want to 
thank the gentleman again for his good work.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all of us have to vote against 
this rule, because all of us have voted to do so. Unless you were just 
elected in the past year, every single one of us have voted to protect 
Social Security and Medicare if at all possible. I offered the most 
reasonable amendment you could imagine, a trigger amendment. All it 
said was that we will give you a pass this year but beginning next 
year, if the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we are operating 
at a deficit, that we will have to dip into Social Security trust 
funds, then the Budget Committee has to produce a path, a budget plan 
over 5 years to bring us back into balance without using Social 
Security. That is all it does. If you vote against the rule, you are 
saying that you are letting off the Budget Committee from coming up 
with a 5-year plan that is not based upon raiding Social Security trust 
funds. And this budget does do that. That is the problem with this 
budget.
  There is a $224 billion deficit in this year's budget that is paid 
for by Social Security Trust Funds. Over the next 5 years, $830 billion 
comes out of the Social Security trust funds. Over the next 10 years, 
$1.6 trillion is going to come from Social Security trust funds. All we 
are saying is that as of next year, if you find that we are still 
operating at a deficit, give us a plan, a 5-year plan that will enable 
us to be good to our word, because five times we have voted for the 
lock box. Five times. 228 Republicans have voted for the lock box, 
saying we are not going to use Social Security to balance the budget. 
Yet here we are today, about to do exactly what we promised never to 
do.
  If you vote for the rule, you are rejecting an amendment that simply 
said give us a 5-year plan to get out of the reliance upon Social 
Security trust funds. Let us balance this budget with general funds 
revenue, not take it from the trust funds, not put the burden on our 
children to have to come up with our retirement and our Medicare health 
funds. That is all we are asking for, to be good to our word. We are on 
record. We gave allowances if we are at a time of war. Or in a weak 
economy, it does not apply. But all things being equal, the Budget 
Committee has a responsibility to bring us to balance over 5 years 
without depending upon the trust funds. And if for no other reason, you 
need to support that and vote against this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I again yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding.
  I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee 
in a colloquy.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the budget 
resolution includes a reserve fund for highways and highway safety. My 
reading of the relevant provisions indicates to me that if the 
Appropriations Committee reports a bill with obligation limitations for 
programs within the highway category in excess of $23.864 billion, then 
you as the chairman of the Budget Committee may increase the allocation 
for outlays for the highway program if the Appropriations Committee 
bill allocates the additional funding in accordance with TEA-21.

[[Page 3679]]



                              {time}  1415

  In addition, the outlays from the reserve fund cannot exceed $1.18 
billion. Is that correct?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. It is also my understanding that the budget 
resolution does not require the Committee on Appropriations to report a 
bill containing obligation limitation for programs within the highway 
category in excess of $23.864 billion. Is that correct?
  Mr. NUSSLE. That is also correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In the course of my review of the budget 
resolution before us today, I see no provision that establishes 
discretionary caps in fiscal year 2003 or extends the highway and 
transit guarantees beyond 2003. Is that accurate?
  Mr. NUSSLE. That is also accurate. As a concurrent resolution, the 
budget before us today does not establish discretionary caps or 
continue the highway or transit firewalls beyond fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Would the chairman also agree that discussions 
on establishing discretionary caps in fiscal year 2003 and beyond and 
extending the highway and transit firewalls beyond the current fiscal 
year should include the Committee on Appropriations?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I most definitely agree with that. The Committee on the 
Budget has exclusive jurisdiction over the Budget Enforcement Act, but 
the chairman and I, I think, have established a good working 
relationship, and I will continue to consult with the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as you have just said, you and I 
have established great communications. We have had numerous discussions 
about the need of the Committee on Appropriations to be able to 
determine the appropriate balance of competing needs and priorities 
within the discretionary segment of the budget. The needs are great for 
the prosecution of the war against terrorism, homeland security and 
other critically important Federal programs. We both recognize that the 
cuts anticipated in the highway program are too great to be sustained 
this year, though these reductions in the highway program are required 
by provisions of existing law in TEA21 in which expenditures must equal 
receipts. Those provisions were supported by a majority of the House 
and had the full backing of the highway lobby at the time. 
Nevertheless, there is a great deal of support to increase spending for 
highways beyond the collections of the trust fund this year.
  By contrast, the resources to fund all these unmet needs are limited. 
That is why the gentleman from Wisconsin and I introduced legislation 
that would ensure that any increase for the highway program not come at 
the expense of other Federal programs. H.R. 3900 adjusts the highway 
category. It ensures that additional spending is guaranteed for 
highways in fiscal year 2003.
  H.R. 3900 has been referred to your committee. Is your committee 
expected to report favorably this legislation to ensure that the 
highway firewalls are increased above the $23.864 billion this year?
  Mr. NUSSLE. It is my expectation that my committee will be reporting 
legislation to ensure that the highway category is increased.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commitments of 
the gentleman from Iowa and the clarity that he has provided to me and 
to the House today. I would like to add that his job is not the easiest 
job in the Congress. It is a difficult job to bring all of the 
divergent views together. I applaud the gentleman for the good job he 
has done. He can count on my vote for this resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
There is only one more difficult job than mine, and that is to do it 13 
times. I certainly respect and admire the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations for his good work.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this rule. 
The rule is unfair. It does not allow an adequate debate on the most 
important issue we will decide on the floor of this House this year. It 
is a travesty that we have 3 hours to talk about the most important set 
of decisions we will make perhaps in a generation.
  We should be talking about a different budget today. The budget 
should be based on values, on opportunity, responsibility and 
community. But this Republican budget, which is the only thing we are 
able to consider today, fails on all counts.
  It is not honest. It shows deficits as far as the eye can see, in 
large part because of the Republican economic program that we passed 
about 9 months ago.
  First of all, we have squandered the surplus, squandered the surplus, 
$4.5 trillion, gone in the flash of an eye. Gone. $4.5 trillion, gone 
in the flash of an eye. Twelve months ago we had it; now it is gone. Of 
course, the loss of that surplus means that we cannot fulfill our 
promise to the lockbox. Five times in this House 220-plus Members of 
the Republican Party voted solidly for the lockbox. By voting today for 
this budget, they are breaking into the lockbox. We are not keeping our 
word.
  Let us look at the words. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) 
declared the House of Representatives is not going to go back to 
raiding the lockbox. He said, ``Not a dime's worth of Social Security 
or Medicare money will be spent on anything other than Social Security 
and Medicare.''
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chair of the 
committee, said, ``This Congress will protect 100 percent of Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds. Period. No speculation. No 
supposition. No projections.''
  These are words that mean something. They are being broken.
  The Speaker of the House in the same month said, ``Since I have been 
Speaker, we have not spent a penny of the Social Security Trust Fund, 
and,'' he said, ``we don't intend to.''
  Promises are being broken. The contract is being broken. The word, 
our collective word, is being broken by what we are trying to do here 
today with this budget.
  $1.8 trillion will be spent from Social Security in the next 10 years 
with this budget. We do not even have time to talk about it, to debate 
it, to worry about it. We said a number of years ago, let us put Social 
Security first. This budget puts Social Security last. We are in 
essence taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and we are 
spending it on everything else. It is last. That is not what we said to 
the American people.
  Then there is prescription drugs. Oh, we all ran ads on prescription 
drugs. Oh, we are going to take care of prescription drugs.
  Where are the prescription drugs in this bill? The program that is 
described in this Republican budget is paltry. It does not affect most 
of the senior citizens who thought they were going to get something out 
of this program, because, once again, I guess it is prescription drugs 
last in Medicare. We are going to put it behind everything else.
  Let me just finally say this: I guess my greatest worry is that we 
are doing this without anybody in the country much knowing about it. 
How many people in the country actually know what happened to Social 
Security in this budget? It is 3 hours, I fear, because we do not want 
them to know what is happening to their Social Security.
  This bill has real live consequences for people, millions of people 
all over this country. Let me just tell you my story as kind of a 
symbol or an analogy of what is happening to lots of other people.
  My mother called me a week ago and she said, ``I bounced some 
checks.'' She is 94-years-old and she still keeps her own checkbook. 
She lives in independent living in St. Louis. She said, ``I bounced 
some checks. It is the first time I have ever done it in my life. 
Please, when you come home next, sit down with me. We have to figure 
this out.''

[[Page 3680]]

  So I sat down with her and we went over all of her checks. She lives 
in independent living. The cost is $2,500 a month. She has got a 
prescription drug bill of about $600 over that. So her monthly outgo 
before she gets to spending money is about $3,100 a month. Her Social 
Security is $1,200 a month. My brother and I, we are lucky. We are fine 
and we can help her with the difference.
  But as we were going over her checks, she kept saying to me, ``Dick, 
what if the Social Security check were to stop coming? How would we do 
this?'' She even suggested to me, ``Maybe I ought to move out of this 
place because we cannot afford it,'' because her prescription drug bill 
has been going up every month.
  She is 94. She and millions like her and their families should not 
have to be worrying about all this. What if she were in a family that 
did not have people like my brother and me who could help her? We are 
fortunate. What if she did not have that money coming in to take care 
of her prescription drugs, to pay her monthly bills?
  This budget has real live consequences for the people that we 
represent. Are we going to privatize Social Security? Are we going to 
cut the benefits? Because that is the logical conclusion of this 
budget. The President has said he wants to privatize it, which means 
you have got to come up with a lot of money that is not in this budget. 
The only way you are going to get it is to cut the benefits. Is that 
what we are saying to the American people today? I hope it is not.
  This is the most important budget that you will vote on probably in 
your time in this Congress. A year ago we had surpluses; today we are 
breaking the lockbox. A year ago we had taken care of Social Security 
first; this budget puts Social Security last. A year ago we had the 
money for prescription drugs; today we are not going to have a decent 
prescription drug program.
  It is a travesty that we have 3 hours to talk about the most 
important fiscal decisions that will have consequences in everybody's 
life in this country.
  I urge Members to vote no on a ridiculous rule and vote no if we have 
to vote on this budget today. Let us get to a summit. Let us get to a 
discussion. Let us get to a family discussion with the President. Let 
us work out a budget for America that is a real compromise, that will 
keep the word and the promise of the United States Congress to the 
people of this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would advise both 
sides that each side has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and I am opposed to 
this budget resolution. It is a budget, unfortunately, that only Enron 
could love. It is using 5-year numbers instead of 10 years, obviously 
hiding the impact of the tax cuts exploding in the second 5 years and 
the impact that is going to have with budget deficits. It is using OMB 
numbers instead of the Congressional Budget Office, when the same 
Republican party shut down this place in 1995 accusing President 
Clinton of doing the exact same thing; and it underestimates the true 
cost of Medicare spending in the years to come.
  As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again. It takes us 
back to the deficit spending of the eighties and early nineties, using 
Social Security and Medicare trust fund money for other purposes, 
rather than taking us forward by maintaining fiscal discipline so we 
can deal with the greatest fiscal challenge facing us today: the aging 
population. This is happening at exactly the wrong time, Mr. Speaker, 
just before the 77 million American baby-boomers start retiring in just 
a few short years.
  But this is more than just about the baby-boomers. This is about the 
future of my 3- and 5-year-old boys, because it will be their 
generation who will be asked to fix the irresponsibility of what 
occured last year and what is about to happen today.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose this 
budget resolution.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we will be calling 
a vote on it. I will offer an amendment to this unfair and undemocratic 
closed rule.
  Democrats are seeking to make in order two amendments to the budget 
resolution. The first is a trigger amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the second is the Moore-Stenholm-Tanner-
Matheson substitute that the majority on the Committee on Rules refused 
to make in order.
  The Moran trigger amendment prohibits the Congress from adopting any 
budget resolution next year if it does not project a surplus within 5 
years. Democrats have offered a vehicle in this trigger amendment that 
can force the institution to face up to the facts.
  The majority has spent some time today complaining that no 
substitutes were offered in the Committee on Rules. I beg to differ. 
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), offered a substitute that 
establishes a budget plan for fiscal discipline. Yet, the Committee on 
Rules failed to make it in order. Our amendment to the rule would 
correct this serious failing.
  Last year, Mr. Speaker, the President and every House Republican 
leader promised that every dollar of Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds would be saved for Social Security and Medicare. With this 
budget, that promise has been broken.
  We want to give the majority one last chance to do the right thing, 
Mr. Speaker. By defeating the previous question, we can restore honesty 
to the budget process and protect Social Security.
  The time for games has ended. Let us pass an honest budget, or at 
least a trigger amendment that protects Social Security. It is the 
right thing to do, and every Member knows it.
  I urge a no vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from greater San Dimas, California (Mr. 
Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate, and I 
guess have participated in it briefly with my friend, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  I have to say that I am reminded, as I have heard the exchange take 
place over the last hour or so, of the words of a very famous former 
Democratic President who was known for his colorful but poignant words 
when Harry Truman said, ``Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it 
takes a carpenter to build one.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a beautifully crafted budget 
which has come forward from the hard work of the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) and the members of the Committee on the Budget working to 
address a challenge the likes of which the United States of America has 
never faced, this war on terrorism, while at the same time focusing on 
the important need to make sure that we have the resources to win the 
war on terrorism and to address a wide range of other priority needs 
which have come forward: transportation, which the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) addressed; national security issues; and education 
issues.
  That is why it is so important that we focus on stimulating our 
economy and making sure that we grow this economy so that we have the 
resources necessary. Why is it that we have seen

[[Page 3681]]

this slowdown? Because of September 11 and the slowing economy that 
followed. And what we have done is we have seen time and energy put 
into place to craft, like carpenters, this beautiful plan which I 
believe does deserve bipartisan support because we are all together in 
our quest to win the war on terrorism, and the way to do it is to make 
sure that we have the resources necessary and a budget in place that 
will do that.
  What is it that we have gotten from our friends on the other side of 
the aisle? Absolutely nothing. My friend, the gentlewoman from 
Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) just talked about the fact that we 
had substitutes submitted. There were no substitutes submitted.
  Mr. Speaker, every single time we have made in order substitutes that 
have come from the Blue Dogs, from the Progressive Caucus, from the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and yet, we saw 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget tell us that 
96 pages, 96 pages, Mr. Speaker, were put into a package which simply 
criticized the package that came forward from the Committee on the 
Budget, and in fact, there was no alternative provided whatsoever.
  Vote in favor of this rule and in favor of this very fair, 
responsible budget.
  The amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved in to the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration resolution (H. Con. 
     Res. 353) establishing the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2003 and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2007. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. General debate shall not exceed three hours, with two 
     hours of general debate confined to the congressional budget 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour 
     of general debate on the subject of economic goals and 
     policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Stark of California 
     or their designees. After general debate the concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole. The concurrent resolution, 
     as amended, shall be considered as read. No further amendment 
     to the concurrent resolution shall be in order except those 
     specified in section 2 of this resolution. Each further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order specified in 
     section 2, may be offered by a Member designated in section 2 
     or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable as specified in section 2, equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     specified in section 2 are waived. After the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, the 
     Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendment as may have 
     been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto 
     to final adoption without intervening motion except 
     amendments offered by the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The 
     concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division on the question of its adoption.
       Sec. 2. The further amendments referred in the first 
     section of this resolution are as follows:
       (a) By Representative Moran of Virginia, debatable for 30 
     minutes.
       After section 303, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 304. CIRCUIT BREAKER FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Effective January 1, 2003, if the 
     Congressional Budget Office's January Budget and Economic 
     Outlook for any fiscal year projects an on-budget deficit 
     (excluding social security) for the budget year or any 
     subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, then the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget year shall 
     reduce on-budget deficits relative to CBO's projections and 
     put the budget on a path to achieve balance within 5 years, 
     and shall include such provisions as are necessary to 
     facilitate deficit reduction.
       (b) Points of Order.--(1) In any fiscal year in which the 
     Congressional Budget Office's January Budget and Economic 
     Outlook for any fiscal year projects an on-budget deficit for 
     the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year covered by 
     those projections, it shall not be in order in the House or 
     the Senate to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for the budget year or any conference report thereon that 
     fails to reduce on-budget deficits relative to CBO's 
     projections and put the budget on a path to achieve balance 
     within 5 years.
       (2) In any fiscal year in which the Congressional Budget 
     Office's January Budget and Economic Outlook for any fiscal 
     year projects an on-budget deficit for the budget year or any 
     subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, it shall 
     not be in order in the House or the Senate to consider an 
     amendment to a concurrent resolution on the budget that would 
     increase on-budget deficits relative to the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget in any fiscal year or cause the 
     budget to fail to achieve balance within 5 years.
       (c) Suspension of Requirement During War or Low Economic 
     Growth.--This section is suspended if--
       (1) the most recent of the Department of Commerce's 
     advance, preliminary, or final reports of actual real 
     economic growth indicate that the rate of real economic 
     growth (as measured by real GDP) for each of the most 
     recently reported quarter and the immediately preceding 
     quarter is less than 1 percent; or
       (2) a declaration of war is in effect.
                                  ____

       (b) By Representative Moore of Kansas, debatable for one 
     hour
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2003.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 through 
     2007 are hereby set forth.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2007:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________.
       Fiscal year 2006: $________.
       Fiscal year 2007: $________.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________.
       Fiscal year 2006: $________.
       Fiscal year 2007: $________.
       (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 2003: $________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________.
       Fiscal year 2006: $________.
       Fiscal year 2007: $________.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________.
       Fiscal year 2006: $________.
       Fiscal year 2007: $________.
       (4) Surpluses.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________.
       Fiscal year 2006: $________.
       Fiscal year 2007: $________.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________.
       Fiscal year 2006: $________.
       Fiscal year 2007: $________.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $________.
       Fiscal year 2004: $________.
       Fiscal year 2005: $________.
       Fiscal year 2006: $________.
       Fiscal year 2007: $________.

     SEC. 102. HOMELAND SECURITY.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 
     2003 for Homeland Security are as follows:
       (1) New budget authority, $________.
       (2) Outlays, $________.

[[Page 3682]]



     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:

[[Page 3683]]

       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $________.
       (B) Outlays, $________.

  TITLE II--RESTORING FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY

     SEC. 201. REVIEW OF BUDGET OUTLOOK.

       (a) In General.--If, in the report released pursuant to 
     section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     entitled the Budget and Economic Outlook Update (for fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2012), the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office projects that the unified budget of the United 
     States for fiscal year 2003 will be in balance and that the 
     budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) will be in balance 
     by fiscal year 2007, then the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House is authorized to certify that the 
     budget is projected to meet the goals of a balanced budget 
     and protecting social security.
       (b) Calculating Discretionary Spending Baseline.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall use the discretionary 
     spending levels set forth in this resolution to calculate the 
     discretionary spending baseline. In calculating the report 
     referred to in subsection (a), such Director shall exclude 
     the emergency appropriations provided in the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From and 
     Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (Public 
     Law 107-38) in calculating the baseline for discretionary 
     spending.

     SEC. 202. REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PLAN TO RESTORE 
                   BALANCED BUDGET AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   SURPLUS.

       (a) Request if Unified Deficit Projected.--If the report of 
     the Congressional Budget Office referred to in section 202 
     projects a unified deficit in fiscal year 2003, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall request 
     that the President--
       (1) submit to the House a proposal to bring the unified 
     budget of the United States into balance by fiscal year 2003 
     and the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) into balance by 
     fiscal year 2007, or
       (2) submit to the House a request that the unified budget 
     of the United States for fiscal year 2003 be in deficit by 
     [INSERT SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT] if the President certifies 
     that such deficit amount is related to the costs of war or 
     recession.
       (b) Request if Deficit Projected for Budget Excluding 
     OASDI.--If the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
     referred to in section 202 projects the budget (excluding the 
     receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund) will be in deficit in fiscal year 2007, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     shall request that the President submit to the House a 
     proposal to bring the unified budget of the United States 
     into balance by fiscal year 2003 and the budget (excluding 
     the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund) into balance by fiscal year 2007.

[[Page 3684]]

       (c) Text of Proposal.--The proposal shall include--
       (1) specific legislative changes to reduce outlays, 
     increase revenues, or both; and
       (2) the text of a special resolution implementing the 
     President's recommendations through reconciliation directives 
     instructing the appropriate committees of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate to determine and recommend changes 
     in laws within their jurisdictions to reduce outlays or 
     increase revenues by specified amounts;
     sufficient to meet the balanced budget goals described in 
     section 201.
       (d) Introduction of President's Proposal.--Within 5 
     legislative days after receipt of the proposal referred to in 
     subsection (a), the majority leader of the House shall 
     introduce legislation to carry out such proposal.

     SEC. 203. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION REQUIRED IF BALANCED BUDGET 
                   AND SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION GOALS ARE NOT 
                   BEING MET.

       (a) Requirement for Legislation Restoring Balanced Budget 
     and Protecting Social Security Surplus.--Whenever the 
     President submits a plan to restore balanced budgets and 
     restore the social security surplus under section 202, the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House shall report, not later 
     than September 15, a revised concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2003 with instructions to committees 
     to achieve reductions in outlays or increases in revenues, or 
     both, sufficient to meet the balanced budget goals in section 
     201, and appropriately revised section 302(a) allocations to 
     the Committee on Appropriations.
       (b) Requirement for Separate Vote To Allow for a Unified 
     Deficit in Fiscal Year 2003.--If the resolution reported by 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House proposes to 
     eliminate less than all of the projected unified deficit in 
     fiscal year 2003, then that committee shall report a separate 
     resolution waiving the balanced budget goal for fiscal year 
     2003 and authorizing a deficit of a specific amount with a 
     finding that the deficit is a result of economic rescission 
     or costs related to the war on terrorism.
       (c) Procedure if House Budget Committee Fails To Report 
     Required Resolution.--
       (1) Automatic discharge of house budget committee.--If the 
     Committee on the Budget fails to report the resolution 
     required by subsection (a), then the legislation introduced 
     pursuant to section 202 (legislation implementing the 
     President's plan) shall be automatically discharged from 
     consideration by the committee or committees to which it was 
     referred and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       (2) Consideration by house.--Ten days after the applicable 
     committee or committees have been discharged under paragraph 
     (1), any Member may move that the House proceed to consider 
     the resolution. Such motion shall be highly privileged and 
     not debatable.
       (d) Application of Congressional Budget Act.--To the extent 
     that they are relevant and not inconsistent with this title, 
     the provisions of title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 shall apply in the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate to resolutions and legislation under this title and 
     reconciliation legislation reported pursuant to directives 
     included in those resolutions.

     SEC. 204. INCREASE IN DEBT LIMIT CONTINGENT UPON PLAN TO 
                   RESTORE BALANCED BUDGET AND PROTECT SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Temporary Increase in Statutory Debt Limit.--The 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House shall report a bill 
     as soon as practicable, but not later than March 25, 2002, 
     that consists solely of changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction to increase the statutory debt limit sufficient 
     to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     meet the obligation of the Government through, but not later 
     than, September 30, 2002.
       (b) Point of Order.--(1) Except as provided by paragraph 
     (2), it shall not be in order in the House to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 
     includes any provision that increases the limit on the public 
     debt beyond September 30, 2002.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the House if--
       (A) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House has made the certification described in section 201 
     that the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of 
     the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
     the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) will be in 
     balance by fiscal year 2007; or
       (B) the President has submitted a plan meeting the 
     requirements of section 202 and the House has voted on a 
     resolution meeting the requirements of section 203.

                TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CERTAIN LEGISLATION REDUCING 
                   THE SURPLUS OR INCREASING THE DEFICIT AFTER 
                   FISCAL YEAR 2007.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that includes any provision that first 
     provides new budget authority or a decrease in revenues for 
     any fiscal year after fiscal year 2007 that would decrease 
     the surplus or increase the deficit for any fiscal year.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     certifies, based on estimates prepared by the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, that Congress has enacted 
     legislation restoring 75-year solvency of the Federal Old Age 
     and Survivors Disability Insurance Trust Fund and legislation 
     extending the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     for 20 years.

     SEC. 302. CRITICAL DEFENSE NEEDS.

       This resolution includes $10 billion in new budget 
     authority requested by the President for fiscal year 2003 
     within functional category 050, and a corresponding level of 
     outlays that flow from this budget authority, without 
     specified purpose. Therefore, this $10 billion in new budget 
     authority shall be available for critical defense 
     requirements, including additional pay raises for military 
     personnel, military construction, readiness, naval 
     shipbuilding, and other procurement requirements not 
     originally included in the President's budget request for 
     fiscal year 2003.

     SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), in 
     the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means or the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that provides a 
     prescription drug benefit, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may revise the appropriate committee allocations 
     for such committees and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that 
     purpose.
       (b) Funds Available Contingent Upon Balanced Budget and 
     Protection of Social Security.--The chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget may only make revisions under subsection (a) 
     if--
       (1) the chairman has made the certification described in 
     section 201 that the unified budget is projected to be in 
     balance in fiscal year 2003 and that the budget (excluding 
     the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund) will be in balance by fiscal year 2007; 
     or
       (2) the President has submitted a plan meeting the 
     requirements of section 202 and the House has voted on a 
     resolution meet the requirements of section 203.

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), in 
     the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means or the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that provides for 
     reductions in revenues of not more than $4,431,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003 and $27,853,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2008, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives may reduce the 
     recommended level of Federal revenues and make other 
     appropriate adjustments for that fiscal year.
       (b) Funds Available Contingent Upon Balanced Budget and 
     Protection of Social Security.--The chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget may only make revisions under subsection (a) 
     if--
       (1) the chairman has made the certification described in 
     section 201 that the unified budget is projected to be in 
     balance in fiscal year 2003 and that the budget (excluding 
     the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund) will be in balance by fiscal year 2007; 
     or
       (2) the President has submitted a plan meeting the 
     requirements of section 202 and the House has voted on a 
     resolution meet the requirements of section 203.

     SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL FOR 
                   MILITARY ACTION AND HOMELAND SECURITY.

       If the Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint 
     resolution providing appropriations requested by the 
     President for military action and homeland security, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) for that purpose and if the request by the 
     President is accompanied by a list of rescissions to offset 
     some or all of its costs, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget shall make the appropriate revisions to the 
     appropriate aggregates, allocations, and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that 
     purpose, but the total adjustment under this section shall 
     not exceed the amount so requested by the President.

     SEC. 306. RESERVE FUND FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2003.--In the House, if the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides in excess of $7,529,000,000 in 
     new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 for grants to 
     States authorized under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may

[[Page 3685]]

     revise the appropriate allocations for such committee and 
     other appropriate levels in this resolution by the amount 
     provided by that measure for that purpose, but not to exceed 
     $1,000,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 
     and outlays flowing therefrom.
       (b) Fiscal Years 2004-2007.--In the House, if the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that reauthorizes 
     grants to States under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may revise the applicable allocations 
     of the appropriate committees to accommodate a total budget 
     authority and outlay level for such program not in excess of 
     the following: $9,587,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2004 and outlays flowing therefrom, $10,755,000,000 in 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2005 and outlays flowing 
     therefrom, $12,047,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2006 and outlays flowing therefrom, and $13,497,000,000 
     in budget authority for fiscal year 2007 and outlays flowing 
     therefrom (assuming changes from current policy levels of the 
     following: $1,752,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2004, $2,763,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2005, $3,894,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2006, and $5,180,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     fiscal year 2007).

     SEC. 307. RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHWAYS AND HIGHWAY SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that establishes an obligation limitation in 
     excess of $23,864,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 for programs, 
     projects, and activities within the highway category (under 
     section 251(c)(7)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985), the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget may increase the allocation of outlays for such 
     committee by the amount of outlays resulting from such 
     excess, but--
       (1) only if chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     determines that the bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, that establishes such 
     obligation limitation provides that the obligation limitation 
     is made available solely for programs, projects, or 
     activities as distributed under section 1102 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century;
       (2) only if the total amount of obligation limitation for 
     programs, projects, or activities distributed by such formula 
     for fiscal year 2003 exceeds $23,864,000,000; and
       (3) does not exceed $1,180,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2003.
       (b) Rule of Enforcement.--In the House, section 302(f)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be deemed to 
     also apply to the applicable allocation of outlays in the 
     case of any bill or joint resolution that establishes an 
     obligation limitation for fiscal year 2003 for programs 
     within the highway category, or amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon.

     SEC. 308. ADDITIONAL SURPLUSES RESERVED FOR DEBT REDUCTION.

       In the House, if after the release of the report pursuant 
     to section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     entitled the Budget and Economic Outlook: Update (for fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2012), the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget determines, in consultation with the Directors of 
     the Congressional Budget Office and of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, that the estimated unified surplus for 
     fiscal year 2003 and for the period of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2007 exceeds the estimated unified surplus for fiscal 
     year 2003 and for that period as set forth in the report of 
     the Committee on the Budget for this resolution, then the 
     chairman of that committee may increase the surplus or reduce 
     the deficit, as applicable, and reduce the level of the 
     public debt and debt held by the public by the difference 
     between such estimates for that period.

     SEC. 309. 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; and
       (2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments 
     to such levels to carry out this resolution.

     SEC. 310. USE OF CBO ESTIMATES IN ENFORCING THIS RESOLUTION.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     shall enforce this resolution based upon estimates made by 
     the Director of the Congressional Budget Office using the 
     economic and technical assumptions underlying the 
     Congressional Budget Office's report released on March 6, 
     2002, entitled ``An Analysis of the President's Budgetary 
     Proposals for 2003'', except as provided by title II.

     SEC. 311. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL 
                   HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) effective homeland security requires the coordinated 
     efforts of Federal, State, local, and private investment to 
     prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attack;
       (2) spending from each entity must proceed from a 
     comprehensive strategy outlining threats, vulnerabilities, 
     needs, and responsibilities for all aspects of homeland 
     security strategy;
       (3) there has been no comprehensive threat or vulnerability 
     assessment to guide the homeland security budget;
       (4) there has been no comprehensive national homeland 
     security strategy to match priority needs with Federal 
     spending; and
       (5) in the absence of a national homeland security 
     strategy, Congress will find it difficult to allocate funds 
     according to the prioritization and required level of need.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my extreme displeasure 
with the budget that is before us today. It can hardly be called a 
budget--that implies some logic and order to the document.
  In reality, the Republicans have filled this budget with ``funny 
math'' in order to say that it is balanced and fair. According to the 
Republicans, this budget protects our domestic agenda and allows for 
the nation to fight the war on terrorism.
  However, this budget is anything but fair. After pushing through $1.7 
trillion in tax cuts last year and the $43 billion in tax cuts in the 
so-called economic stimulus signed into law on March 9, 2002 which 
largely benefits the wealthiest Americans and corporations, our 
nation's financial situation has deteriorated at an alarming pace.
  Just over a year ago, many experts were estimating a 10 year, $5 
trillion surplus. However, under President Bush's watch and because of 
the tax cuts, $4 trillion of that surplus has disappeared. Over the 
next ten years we will have to dip into the Social Security surplus--to 
the tune of $1.8 trillion.
  To protect those tax cuts, President Bush and the Republicans in 
Congress have advocated a budget that cuts and slashes hundreds of 
millions of dollars from domestic programs. Programs that, up until 
recently, they have said are their highest priorities.
  For example, in the Budget Resolution Congress debated today, the 
Department of Education's budget is barely increased. In addition, the 
Republicans have underfunded elementary and secondary education by $4.2 
billion. Indeed, they do not even appropriate enough funding for 
President Bush's signature education legislation, Leave No Child 
Behind. The budget for that is underfunded $90 million.
  The President also campaigned on strengthening health care for all 
Americans. Since assuming office, he has repeatedly urged Congress to 
send him legislation that will help Americans with the burdens 
associated with health care. However, we do not have to look any 
further than his own budget to see what a low priority he and his party 
place on health care. While there seems to be a $1.5 billion increase 
to health care services programs, in reality, the House Republican 
Leadership has required the elimination or reduction of several 
important programs in order to achieve this increase. For example, they 
have eliminated the Community Access Program, which coordinates health 
care to the under-insured and uninsured offered by public hospitals and 
community health centers and other community providers. They have also 
eliminated State Planning Grants, which help provide access to health 
insurance coverage. Additionally, the budget provides absolutely no 
assistance to those individuals and families who do not have health 
insurance, and requires States to return expiring SCHIP (State's 
Children Health Insurance Program) funds to the US Treasury. This means 
that 900,000 children would lose their health coverage.
  I urge adoption of a budget that will protect the programs that 
millions of individuals depend on. A budget that will protect Social 
Security so that retirees can be assured that their benefits will be 
paid and that future generations will not be saddled with massive tax 
increases or reductions in benefits. Unfortunately, President Bush and 
his party have rejected this kind of budget. While I support the 
President in his efforts to combat terrorism

[[Page 3686]]

both here and abroad, I am concerned that we are neglecting our 
domestic responsibilities and putting intense strain on the nation's 
finances--a strain that will remain for generations after the war on 
terrorism has been won.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the 
rule and for fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities in 
Education Act (IDEA). I am pleased that the Fiscal Year 2003 budget 
includes $19.6 billion over 10 years for IDEA, however this amount is 
still a long way from providing states with the 40 percent funding 
level Congress committed to pay.
  Federal IDEA funding assists states in providing invaluable services 
and educational opportunities for children with disabilities. However, 
Congress has not fulfilled their financial commitment to the states, 
and has left states to determine how to pay for IDEA.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress should not mandate stringent federal programs 
without first determining how to fit these programs into the federal 
budget, and then providing states with the necessary funds to comply 
with those federal standards. States should not be left to fund 
programs that are not initiated at the State and local level.
  I support the IDEA program and realize the importance of providing 
disabled youth with the opportunity to gain an equal education. As the 
former Lieutenant Governor for the State of Idaho, and a former member 
of the state legislature, I also realize the budget constraints placed 
on states when federal programs are mandated without funding. As many 
states face severe deficit spending it is important for Congress to 
meet its commitments to IDEA, past and present.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 206, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     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, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     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
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     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
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blagojevich
     Gutierrez
     Riley
     Schaffer
     Shows
     Tierney
     Traficant

                              {time}  1457

  Mr. HINOJOSA and Mr. LUTHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Motion to Reconsider Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the previous question was ordered on the resolution.


                  Motion to Table Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
motion to table the motion to reconsider offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote followed by a 
5-minute vote on the resolution, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 206, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page 3687]]



                             [Roll No. 76]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     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, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--206

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     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
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     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
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Blagojevich
     Gutierrez
     Knollenberg
     Riley
     Shows
     Traficant

                              {time}  1507

  Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 206, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 77]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     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, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     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
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     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
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa

[[Page 3688]]


     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
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     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
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     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
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Blagojevich
     Boyd
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Shows
     Traficant

                              {time}  1518

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, a motion 
to reconsider is laid on the table.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object.


               Motion To Reconsider Offered By Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the vote.


                  Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to lay on the table the motion to 
reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 206, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 78]

                               YEAS--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     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)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     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)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     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
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     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
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blagojevich
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Doolittle
     Gutierrez
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Jenkins
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Saxton
     Shadegg
     Shows
     Traficant

                              {time}  1538

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was 
inadvertently detained and missed rollcall vote No. 78, providing for 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 353, Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 
2003.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 372 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. 353.

                              {time}  1538


                     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. 353) establishing the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2003

[[Page 3689]]

and setting forth appropriate budget levels for each of fiscal years 
2004 through 2007, with Mr. Simpson 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 text of H. Con. Res. 353, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 
372, is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 353

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2003.

       The Congress declares that this is the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003 and that the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 through 
     2007 are hereby set forth.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2007:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,531,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,626,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,747,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,837,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,927,213,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $4,431,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $5,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $6,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,555,000,000.
       (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 2003: $1,784,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,840,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,930,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,020,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,114,974,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,756,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,815,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,899,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,978,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,058,894,000,000.
       (4) On-budget deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the amounts of the on-budget deficits are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $224,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $188,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $151,243,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $140,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $131,681,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $6,414,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $6,762,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $7,073,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $7,371,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $7,661,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $3,495,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $3,505,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $3,448,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $3,369,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $3,270,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. HOMELAND SECURITY.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 
     2003 for Homeland Security are as follows:
       (1) New budget authority, $37,702,000,000.
       (2) Outlays, $21,860,000,000.

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2003 through 2007 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $375,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $401,640,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $422,740,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $409,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $444,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $466,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $439,181,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,683,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,043,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,467,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,398,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,055,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,667,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $526,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $454,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,932,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,851,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,474,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,032,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,307,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,015,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,405,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,361,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,068,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,302,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,668,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,961,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,295,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,548,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):

[[Page 3690]]

       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,259,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $223,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $219,931,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $295,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,035,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $237,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $237,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $245,612,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $292,173,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,667,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,791,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,538,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $332,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,039,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $341,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $348,019,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,170,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,063,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,062,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,012,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,473,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,401,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,246,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,642,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,320,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,550,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,426,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,334,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,227,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,788,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,546,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,524,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,366,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $286,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,769,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $294,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $302,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,678,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$689,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,791,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$631,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$678,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$56,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$56,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$57,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,180,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,155,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,155,000,000.

                TITLE II--RESERVE AND CONTINGENCY FUNDS

    Subtitle A--Reserve Funds for Legislation Assumed in Aggregates

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR WAR ON TERRORISM.

       In the House, if the Committee on Appropriations or the 
     Committee on Armed Services reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that provides new 
     budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) for 
     operations of the Department of Defense to prosecute the war 
     on terrorism, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall make the appropriate revisions to the allocations and 
     other levels in this resolution by the amount provided by 
     that measure for that purpose, but the total adjustment for 
     all measures considered under this section shall not exceed 
     $10,000,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 
     and outlays flowing therefrom.

     SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE MODERNIZATION AND 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on Ways and 
     Means or the Committee on Energy and Commerce reports a bill 
     or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or 
     a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides a 
     prescription drug benefit and modernizes medicare, and 
     provides adjustments to the medicare program on a fee-for-
     service, capitated, or other basis, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may revise the appropriate committee 
     allocations for such committees and other appropriate levels 
     in this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for 
     that purpose, but not to exceed $5,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $5,000,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2003 
     and $350,000,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $350,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2012.
       (b) Application.--After the consideration of any measure 
     for which an adjustment is made pursuant to subsection (a), 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make any 
     further appropriate adjustments.

     SEC. 203. RESERVE FUND FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2003.--In the House, if the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides in excess of $7,529,000,000 in 
     new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 for grants to 
     States authorized under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may revise the appropriate 
     allocations for such committee and other appropriate levels 
     in this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for 
     that purpose, but not to exceed $1,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2003 and outlays flowing therefrom.
       (b) Fiscal Years 2004-2007.--In the House, if the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that reauthorizes 
     grants to States under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education

[[Page 3691]]

     Act (IDEA), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the applicable allocations of the appropriate 
     committees to accommodate a total budget authority and outlay 
     level for such program not in excess of the following: 
     $9,587,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and 
     outlays flowing therefrom, $10,755,000,000 in budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2005 and outlays flowing therefrom, 
     $12,047,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2006 and 
     outlays flowing therefrom, and $13,497,000,000 in budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2007 and outlays flowing therefrom 
     (assuming changes from current policy levels of the 
     following: $1,752,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2004, $2,763,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2005, $3,894,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2006, and $5,180,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     fiscal year 2007).

     SEC. 204. RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHWAYS AND HIGHWAY SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that establishes an obligation limitation in 
     excess of $23,864,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 for programs, 
     projects, and activities within the highway category (under 
     section 251(c)(7)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985), the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget may increase the allocation of outlays for such 
     committee by the amount of outlays resulting from such 
     excess, but--
       (1) only if chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     determines that the bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, that establishes such 
     obligation limitation provides that the obligation limitation 
     is made available solely for programs, projects, or 
     activities as distributed under section 1102 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century;
       (2) only if the total amount of obligation limitation for 
     programs, projects, or activities distributed by such formula 
     for fiscal year 2003 exceeds $23,864,000,000; and
       (3) does not exceed $1,180,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2003.
       (b) Rule of Enforcement.--In the House, section 302(f)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be deemed to 
     also apply to the applicable allocation of outlays in the 
     case of any bill or joint resolution that establishes an 
     obligation limitation for fiscal year 2003 for programs 
     within the highway category, or amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon.

      Subtitle B--Additional Surpluses Reserved for Debt Reduction

     SEC. 211. CONTINGENCY FUND FOR ADDITIONAL SURPLUSES.

       In the House, if after the release of the report pursuant 
     to section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     entitled the Budget and Economic Outlook: Update (for fiscal 
     years 2003 through 2012), the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget determines, in consultation with the Directors of 
     the Congressional Budget Office and of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, that the estimated unified surplus for 
     fiscal year 2003 and for the period of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2007 exceeds the estimated unified surplus for fiscal 
     year 2003 and for that period as set forth in the report of 
     the Committee on the Budget for this resolution, then the 
     Chairman of that committee may increase the surplus or reduce 
     the deficit, as applicable, and reduce the level of the 
     public debt and debt held by the public by the difference 
     between such estimates for that period.

          Subtitle C--Contingency Funds for Accounting Changes

     SEC. 221. CONTINGENCY FUND FOR ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING.

       In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may make the appropriate changes in section 302(a) 
     allocations of the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee 
     on Armed Services, and the Committee on Government Reform and 
     aggregates, if appropriate, to effectuate and implement the 
     necessary authorizing and appropriation measures to charge 
     Federal agencies for the full cost of accrued Federal 
     retirement and health benefits.

     SEC. 222. CONTINGENCY FUND FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF STUDENT 
                   AID ACCOUNTS.

       In the House, if a bill or joint resolution is enacted that 
     amends the Higher Education Act to make student aid 
     administration subject to annual appropriations, the Chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may--
       (1) increase the section 302(a) allocation for the 
     Committee on Appropriations by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided by that measure but not to exceed 
     $797,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and the outlays flowing 
     therefrom; and
       (2) make the appropriate adjustment in the section 302(a) 
     allocation for the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     resulting from the enactment of the bill or joint resolution 
     making the student aid administration subject to annual 
     appropriations.

      Subtitle D--Implementation of Reserve and Contingency Funds

     SEC. 231. 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; and
       (2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments 
     to such levels to carry out this resolution.
       (d) Special Rule.--In the House, there shall be a separate 
     section 302(a) allocation to the appropriate committees for 
     medicare. For purposes of enforcing such separate allocation 
     under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     the ``first fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' 
     shall be deemed to refer to fiscal year 2003 and the total of 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2012 included in the joint 
     explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution, respectively. Such separate allocation shall be 
     the exclusive allocation for medicare under section 302(a).

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE 
                   HOUSE.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided--
       (1) for fiscal year 2004 for programs, projects, activities 
     or accounts identified in the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers accompanying this resolution under the heading 
     ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an 
     aggregate amount not to exceed $23,178,000,000 in new budget 
     authority; and
       (2) for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2003.

     SEC. 302. 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. 303. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
                   OFFICE.

       The report submitted by the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office on or before February 15 of each year pursuant 
     to section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     shall include the following information for the preceding 
     fiscal year--
       (1) a comparison of the different impact between forecasted 
     economic variables used to model projections for that fiscal 
     year and what actually happens;
       (2) an identification of the technical factors that 
     contributed to the forecasting inaccuracies for that fiscal 
     year;
       (3) a variance analysis between forecasted and actual 
     budget results for that fiscal year; and
       (4) recommendations on how to improve forecasting 
     accuracies.

       TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS AND SENSE OF HOUSE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. COMBATING INFECTIOUS DISEASES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has historically taken an 
     unparalleled leadership role in providing humanitarian 
     assistance and relief to the world's poorest people;

[[Page 3692]]

       (2) that role has included initiatives to expand trade, 
     relieve debt of countries pursuing structural economic 
     reforms, and provide medical technology to improve health and 
     life expectancy around the globe; and
       (3) good governance and continued economic reforms are 
     essential to eliminating poverty, encouraging economic 
     growth, and ensuring stability in developing countries.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the United States should continue to assist, through expanded 
     international trade, debt relief, and medical assistance to 
     combat infectious diseases, those countries that reform their 
     economies, promote democratic institutions, and respect basic 
     human rights.

     SEC. 402. ASSET BUILDING FOR THE WORKING POOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds 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 
     businesses.
       (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. 403. FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY.

       (a) Findings.--The House 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 2003 
     includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel.
       (4) The Office of Management and Budget has requested that 
     federal agencies plan their fiscal year 2003 budgets with a 
     2.6 percent pay raise for civilian Federal employees.
       (5) In almost every year during the past two 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.--It is the sense of the House 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. 404. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICARE+CHOICE REGIONAL 
                   DISPARITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) one of the goals of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was 
     to expand options for Medicare beneficiaries under the 
     Medicare+Choice program;
       (2) the funding formula in that Act was intended to make 
     these choices available to all Americans; and
       (3) despite attempts by Congress to equalize regional 
     disparities in Medicare+Choice payments in the Balanced 
     Budget Refinement Act of 1999 and the medicare, medicaid, and 
     SCHIP Benefits and Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, 
     rural and other low-payment areas have continued to lag 
     significantly behind their higher-payment counterparts in 
     average adjusted per capita (AAPCC) reimbursements.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a bill to reform 
     medicare, it should apply all new funds directed to the 
     Medicare+Choice program to increase funding to counties 
     receiving floor or blended rates relative to counties 
     receiving the minimum update.

     SEC. 405. BORDER SECURITY AND ANTI-TERRORISM.

       It is the sense of the House that this resolution assumes 
     $380 million in new budget authority and a corresponding 
     level of outlays in functional category 750 (Administration 
     of Justice) for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
     implement a visa tracking system as part of a comprehensive 
     plan to protect the United States and its territories from 
     threats of terrorist attack.

     SEC. 406. PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMON RECOVERY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Pacific Salmon are historically, culturally, and 
     economically important to the people of the Northwest;
       (2) the United States Government has negotiated treaties 
     with the Columbia River Indian tribes;
       (3) the National Marine Fisheries Service in December 2000 
     issued a biological opinion on the Federal Columbia River 
     Power System calling for greater efforts by the Federal 
     Government, to satisfy the ESA standards of section 7(a)(2) 
     of the Endangered Species Act; and
       (4) the citizens of the Pacific Northwest are committed to 
     salmon recovery and their hard work in communities throughout 
     the region to advance local solutions deserves Federal 
     assistance.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     this resolution assumes that the Pacific Northwest salmon 
     recovery program, administered by Federal agencies on the 
     Federal Columbia River Power System and Pacific coast, should 
     be made a high-priority item for funding.

     SEC. 407. 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 and emergency medical 
     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 and 
     emergency medical personnel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, 
     administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has 
     successfully provided financial resources for basic 
     firefighting needs since its inception; and
       (2) in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
     2001, the ultimate sacrifice paid by over 300 firefighters, 
     that as Congress makes funding decisions regarding the 
     proposed grants for first responders, local firefighters 
     receive at least as much funding as they did under the 
     Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.

  The CHAIRMAN. General debate shall not exceed 3 hours with 2 hours 
confined to the Congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 
hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 1 hour of debate on the 
Congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attention of my colleagues for what I 
think is a very important, very sober debate today that needs to occur 
about America's future.
  Mr. Chairman, the world changed on September 11. Boy, we have heard 
those words quite a bit lately from a number of Members in a bipartisan 
way. We are at war. America suffered a profound national emergency. Our 
pre-attack recession grew deeper, and any one of those challenges would 
have made putting a budget together very

[[Page 3693]]

difficult. But all three at one time, trust me, put a pretty difficult 
task before this Congress in trying to put a budget plan together. All 
three could have resulted in deficits for many years.
  But when the world changed on September 11, the President came 
forward with a plan. He provided leadership, and America saw the 
Congress come together in a bipartisan way. We provided, in a 
bipartisan way, resources to meet the national emergency, resources to 
prosecute the war, and about week and a half ago, bipartisan tax relief 
and job creation resources, as well as worker protection assistance. 
These were appropriate responses, but these appropriate responses 
eliminated the surplus.
  Americans out there, constituents of all of ours, are still 
wondering: Is America safe; will I have a good paying job; and what is 
my family's future going to look like?
  First on the question of is America safe, our budget secures our 
Nation, allows us the resources to win the war, secure the homeland, 
invest in future technology, and keep our promise to our veterans.
  With the budget plan that we put together and that we present to the 
Congress today, we secure our Nation's future, and we do it in a 
positive way.
  The second question that Americans are asking is will I have a good 
paying job? Our budget secures a growing economy. It funds job creation 
and worker protection, adopts a national energy strategy, invests in 
America's roads and infrastructure, provides for an agriculture safety 
net, promotes trade and access to our products, and, yes, provides 
additional tax relief and tax reform. We believe in short what this 
budget plan does, it creates jobs.
  With this budget plan, I believe we secure a growing economy. But 
Americans are still asking questions. They are asking, do my family and 
I have a secure future? We cannot forget while we are securing the 
economy, securing the homeland, that America's priorities must 
continue. We must secure the future for ourselves and our families, 
leave no child behind in education, fully fund and reauthorize special 
education, conserve and protect our environment, access quality and 
affordable health care. And finally, modernize Medicare and provide 
prescription drugs for seniors, and protect every penny of Social 
Security benefits, our pensions, and our savings for the future.
  With the plan that we put together, we believe we have better secured 
our future for ourselves and our families. Without our bipartisan 
response to the economy and to the war and to protect the homeland, 
this would have not only been a balanced budget, but even with this 
budget and even with the short-term borrowing that needs to occur to 
accomplish those important priorities, under our plan we begin to pay 
down the national debt again in 2004.
  So I believe our mission is undeniable. We must secure America's 
future. Our strategy is clear. We need security for our Nation, 
security for a growing economy, and security for ourselves and our 
families. I believe that our budget makes it happen, together with the 
fine work of the American people.
  We have a plan. There is no doubt that people can quibble with the 
fact that no plan is perfect in every regard. But the President 
proposed a plan, we made it better. We are providing positive 
leadership at this crucial time in American history, and it is time to 
get that job done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry) to talk about securing our Nation.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, every year during the debate on the 
budget, someone says it is about more than just numbers, it is about 
priorities. Certainly since September 11, the priorities of the country 
have changed.

                              {time}  1545

  National security is not just something that happens in a military 
base or in some far-off country. It touches every household, every 
workplace, every school and hospital in the country. National security 
is the first priority of the country, and it is the first priority of 
this budget.
  The first paragraph of the President's budget submission says that 
the war against terrorism is a war unlike any other in American 
history. We did not choose this war, but we will not shrink from it; 
and we will mobilize all the necessary resources of our society to 
fight and to win.
  That is what this budget does. It mobilizes the resources necessary 
to fight and win the war against terrorism. The budget provides $46 
billion, or a 13 percent increase, in defense. Some people think that 
is too much. Other people do not think it is enough. The committee 
decided to go with what the President recommended, giving him all of 
the resources he has asked for to fight this war. We also support the 
President in focusing on the troops with a 4.1 percent pay hike for the 
troops as well as an additional 2 percent for some specially targeted 
mid-career personnel. This budget will help give the troops the tools 
they need to do their job, with $69 billion in procurement and $54 
billion for research and development.
  It includes the largest operating and maintenance budget ever at $140 
billion; but it also keeps faith with those people who have already 
served our country, fully funding for the first time in a number of 
years military health care, expanding concurrent receipt for those who 
are most severely disabled, and also significantly increasing VA health 
care by about 12 percent.
  In addition to those categories, Mr. Chairman, the budget follows the 
President's lead in nearly doubling the spending for homeland security. 
There are some important initiatives here, such as significantly 
increasing the money for border security. So for the INS, Customs, 
Coast Guard, which may all be put together soon, there are significant 
increases in their funding. It improves funding to prepare for 
bioterrorism with money for hospitals, research for vaccines, 
strengthening our ability to detect attacks. Most significantly, it has 
a new program to assist the local policemen, local firefighters and 
emergency responders with $3.5 billion administered by FEMA so that 
those local first responders can have money to train, equip and get the 
things that they need to do.
  Mr. Chairman, it is fair to disagree about the spending on any 
particular program, but the overriding fact of this budget and the 
overriding fact of our time is that this country is at war against 
terrorism. It is a different kind of war. Sometimes we will be in a 
fierce military battle such as we have seen in recent days in 
Afghanistan. At other times there will be a lull in the military 
operations. Sometimes the memory of the attacks against innocent 
Americans are going to be fresh in our minds. At other times those 
memories will seem to fade, and we face the danger of drifting back 
into business as usual.
  But the truth is it is not going to be business as usual again for a 
very long time. We are at war. This budget supports the President in 
fighting and winning that war, it supports the soldiers on the ground 
in Afghanistan, it supports the people guarding our borders and the 
other people trying to protect our public health, it supports local 
policemen and firefighters; and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it 
deserves our support as well.
  This is the time to put our money where our mouth is. It is not the 
time for vague statements and assurances. We put our money where our 
mouth is with our votes. I suggest we vote for this resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), vice chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, when we set out to put together this 
budget, our goal was to put together a strong wartime budget, a budget 
that met the priorities laid out by the President during his State of 
the Union Address, to fund and win the war on terrorism, to fund our 
homeland security needs, and to get our economy moving again after the 
attacks on September 11 and the impact it has had on our economy and 
not just in Washington and New York but across the country.

[[Page 3694]]

  We worked hard to put together a budget plan that meets these 
priorities and in particular on the economy, putting together a budget 
that lays the groundwork for strong economic growth not just as we move 
forward in the year but out 2 years, 5 years and 10 years. We put 
together a budget that fully funded the worker protection act signed by 
the President earlier this year, extending unemployment benefits and 
giving businesses, large and small, incentives to invest in new 
technology, new productivity, accelerating the depreciation that they 
could take. We have got to remember that jobs are not created here in 
Washington by legislators. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs and risk-
takers and investors. In my home State of New Hampshire, over 60 
percent of the jobs come from small businesses. By giving them that 
incentive to invest, we give them the opportunity to create jobs for 
others.
  We made a commitment to implement a national energy strategy to 
reduce our dependence on oil imports from the Middle East and from 
overseas. We made a commitment to invest in roads and infrastructure, 
something that the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure spoke about with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
during a colloquy earlier. We made a commitment to pass a strong farm 
bill and included that in the budget. We made a commitment to expand 
opportunities to export American-manufactured products overseas, expand 
trade and strengthen our economy.
  We will hear and have heard a lot of criticism about this budget 
proposal, but let us remember a few things. If someone wants to change 
this bill, if someone is criticizing this bill, the spending levels and 
the priorities, you have got three choices: you can raise taxes to fund 
those priorities, and I do not think in this economy we should be 
raising taxes; you can cut defense and homeland security funding to put 
into a particular domestic initiative, and I think that would be a 
grave mistake in this environment as we have made a commitment to win 
the war on terrorism; or you can increase the deficits. Those are your 
only three choices.
  We will hear a lot of scare tactics about Social Security, but let us 
step back a little bit. The budgets that were opposed by the other side 
of the aisle over each of the last 4 years, let us look at what they 
have done. We have paid down over $450 billion in debt. Never have we 
put public debt as a percentage of our economy at such a low level. And 
the scare tactics on Social Security, let us look at where the Social 
Security trust funds are, with and without the tax relief legislation 
passed last year. The balances in the Social Security trust funds have 
not been changed one penny.
  Do we need to take up legislation to strengthen Social Security? I 
believe we do. Do we need to fund a prescription drug benefit for 
Medicare? Absolutely. And we have committed to doing just that. In this 
budget, there is $350 billion for a Medicare prescription drug benefit 
that is voluntary, that is affordable, that makes a difference for 
seniors around the country. We have increased special education 
funding, something very important to schools in New Hampshire, to a 
record level. And we have funded $2.6 billion in veterans health 
benefits and also funded concurrent receipt legislation.
  This is a budget that sets good priorities, that I think sets the 
right priorities; but that does not mean we have not had to make some 
tough choices. But in not presenting a budget plan, the other side has 
defaulted on their willingness to make those choices or to set 
priorities. We heard some discussion about a potential substitute 
calling for a mid-session review and better CBO scoring. That is not an 
alternative. That is not a different set of priorities. We need a 
budget and we need vision. That is what this committee has offered.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), vice chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget for yielding me this time and compliment him for his 
leadership in putting together a budget that is good for American 
families. All over America, families will ask, Is this a good budget 
for America's families? And it is. It is a balanced approach. It 
balances our national defense needs, our homeland security, economic 
needs, and the priorities for our families. It is a balanced approach. 
We have made the critical decisions and we have made the critical 
choices as to where we will invest the $2.1 trillion.
  Again, this budget will be criticized; but our colleagues on the 
other side have no Democrat substitute. In the Committee on the Budget, 
we got an idea as to what a substitute might look like if it were 
proposed. There was $175 billion to $200 billion of new spending. Zero 
of it would be used to reduce the national debt. Zero would be used for 
Social Security. Zero would be used for national defense. Zero would be 
used for homeland security. $175 billion of it, all of it, would be 
used to increase Washington spending. We do not necessarily believe 
that that is the best approach for America's families, because if they 
were not going to increase our national debt, what they would have had 
to have done is they would have had to have increased taxes. The last 
time they increased taxes on American families, let us take a look at 
what they did. They retroactively increased the death tax, they 
increased taxes on Social Security, they raised Medicare taxes, they 
raised the gas taxes, they raised personal income tax rates, and they 
raised the corporate tax rate. That is not a balanced approach for 
America. We have made the tough decisions that will secure the future 
for America's families.
  Let us take a look at some of the choices that we have made. Let us 
take a look at what we have done in the area of education. In the last 
6 years, we have doubled the investment in our children, the dollars 
that we have invested in education. This now will enable us to build on 
those results and continue moving forward in this critical area. The 
one that perhaps makes the most difference to our local school 
districts is what we have done for our children with special education 
needs. Not only do we focus on a priority, but every time we invest in 
special education we fulfill a commitment that we have made, that we 
made way back in the 1960s as to funding this and what the Washington 
commitment would be.
  Republican Congresses have tripled funding for IDEA funding in the 
last 6 years. We increase that by another $1 billion in this budget, 
and we put in place a plan so that within the next 10 years we will 
fully fund our commitment. It is our commitment to these special 
students, and it is our commitment to local school districts which will 
free up a lot of education dollars at the local district that they can 
then drive. We maintain our commitment to higher education by 
continuing to fund Pell grants at $4,000. We increase funding for low-
income school districts. We put an emphasis on reading first. We have 
committed to our families and to America that we will keep our focus on 
education.
  We also will ensure that we improve health care. We have set aside 
$5.9 billion for bioterrorism. We have set aside $350 billion to 
develop a Medicare prescription drug plan. We have carried through, and 
this is the final installment, of doubling funding over 5 years for the 
National Institutes of Health. We improve veterans health care. We 
improve community health centers and health center programs for rural 
areas. We are committed to continuing our focus on health care and 
retirement.
  This is a balanced, good approach that will secure the future for 
America's families.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a year ago I closed the debate on the budget by noting 
that it has taken us almost 20 years, $4 trillion in debt, to escape 
the fiscal mistakes that we made in the 1980s and to turn this budget 
around and finally move it out of deficits and into surpluses. But we 
did it. There is the record of the last 8 years of the Clinton 
administration: every year a better bottom line.
  I went on to say that today, if I had one priority, a year ago, one 
overriding

[[Page 3695]]

objective, it was simply this, to make sure that we did not backslide 
into the hole that we have just dug ourselves out of. That was my 
objective, I said. That is why I had a problem last year with the 
Republican resolution, because it left so little room for error. I went 
on to say I hoped that these blue sky projections that totaled 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. Mr. Chairman, here we are, back in 
that hole again. You listen to the other side talk, and you would not 
even think that we had a problem.
  I just pulled two pages out of various economic studies of the budget 
situation we have got on our hands. Here is CBO's most recent estimate 
of the deficit in the President's budget. This year it will be $248 
billion.

                              {time}  1600

  $248 billion. Next year, $297 billion in the red, in deficit. Over 
the next 10 years, 2003 to 2012, it will be $1.8 trillion in deficit, 
and that means $1.8 trillion into the Social Security Trust Fund, 
because that is how you make up that deficit.
  They act as if we do not have a problem. They talk about recovering 
surplus. Look at their own numbers. Next year, a deficit of $224 
billion on budget excluding Social Security. Over 4 or 5 years, $830 
billion.
  Here we are, Mr. Chairman. We have witnessed the biggest fiscal 
reversal in the history of our country. $5 trillion has vanished, 
disappeared, it is gone. We had $5.6 trillion last year. Looking at the 
President's own numbers this year, we have $0.6 trillion if we 
implement his budget. Last year we had for 10 straight years nothing 
but black ink on the bottom line, 10 straight years we had on budget 
surpluses last year.
  We talked last year about virtually paying off all of the Treasury's 
debt held by the public, over $3 trillion worth. This year, this year 
we have got on budget deficits for 10 straight years. And what are we 
talking about now? Raising the ceiling on the national debt 
immediately. The Secretary of Treasury says he needs $750 billion of 
additional debt ceiling because the national debt is going up, it is 
not coming down.
  Well, here we are, Mr. Chairman, and my problem with this Republican 
budget is that it presents no plan, no strategy, no way to get us out 
of this hole. It only leads to bigger deficits and greater debt.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) offered a process before the 
Committee on Rules and defended it on the floor. So did the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran). They at least had a way to back the budget 
out of Social Security, which is an objective we all profess at least 
to hold. It was not made in order. Nothing was made in order, except 
this resolution under the rule that was presented to us.
  So we have a Republican budget in name, but in name only, because it 
does not have a plan. Oh, it has a default plan, all right. In the 
absence of any kind of constructive concerted plan, it has a default 
plan. That default plan is to keep on borrowing and spending Social 
Security, to revert to the practice that we all foreswore and said we 
would never ever do again once we reached that summit and were able to 
get away from that onerous practice.
  Why do we have such little time then in the face of such serious 
matters to debate the most consequential vote that we will cast in this 
session? It is not because Republicans are eager to get home. It is 
because their budget will not stand scrutiny, not for long, and they 
know it. It will not stand scrutiny because it is just the tip of the 
iceberg. This is not the real budget. This is part of their budget.
  Let me give you an example. Last year, in order to shoe-horn the tax 
bill into the amount allocated for the total tax bill, they phased it 
in over time, and then in 2010 they did something dramatic, they 
actually repealed everything that had just been implemented. So we have 
a repealer in 2010 that undoes tax cuts that were done last year.
  We asked, with this 5-year budget, does it provide or anticipate 
anything with respect to the repeal of the repealer in 2010? We were 
told emphatically ``no.'' The next day the Speaker said absolutely, we 
will repeal the sunset provision in the Tax Code. Ari Fleischer at the 
White House backed him up. Those are pretty high sources.
  But you search this budget in vain for any trace whatsoever of the 
repeal of the repealer in the year 2010. It is not in here. CBO tells 
us if you put it in there, you have to make a $569 billion adjustment, 
deduction, to revenues. It is not in there.
  Nor is there any provision for fixing the AMT, nor is there any 
provision for extending popular tax provisions that will expire, nor, 
for that matter, is there any of the President's request for $675 
billion in additional tax relief. It has all been pushed forward into 
the second 5 years.
  This is not some policy wonk debate whether you should do a budget 5 
years or 10 years. This is a concerted strategy to shove everything 
forward and make the first 5 years as good as you possibly can by 
ducking the issue that will come just over the horizon.
  A budget is a plan, we all know that. We have household budgets, and 
if we had a plan here, if the Republicans had a plan in their budget, 
they would display it. They would roll it out. Because surely if they 
had a plan, one goal, one objective in that plan, would be to get the 
budget out of Social Security, to quit borrowing and spending the 
Social Security budget.
  One of the reasons we have a 5-year budget, one of the reasons that 
we have Social Security, one of the reasons that we have OMB as a 
scorekeeper for this budget instead of CBO, is right here. It is this 
chart right here. These bar graphs right here tell an awful lot.
  If you look to the far left axis, you see a little blue stub. That is 
where the Clinton administration got us. We were, for the first time in 
30 years, out of Social Security, out of Medicare. We had a surplus 
over and above both of those accounts.
  2001, you see a little stub below the line. That too is a partial 
Clinton year. The reason that stub is below the line is that the 
Republicans shifted a corporate tax payment, $35 billion worth, from 
September 15 to October 1 to shore up 2002 numbers. Back that 
artificial shift out and it too is right at the line.
  So this is the beginning baseline that the President inherited, the 
best fiscal situation any President has inherited in modern times. And 
these are the deficits that are entailed by his budget and these are 
the results to Social Security and to Medicare. Medicare, the yellow or 
orange line at the top. Fully consumes the Medicare surplus, $650 
billion over the next 10 years, every penny of it. Social Security, 70 
to 75 percent of the Social Security surplus is fully consumed over the 
next 10 years.
  The key thing is if you look in the year 2007, which is a terminal 
year in this budget, if you looked at their budget you might think, 
well, they have a plan. It looks like the amount of invasion of the 
Social Security surplus is about to diminish, they are about to turn 
the corner. But in truth, it keeps on keeping on. There is no plan. 
There is no result.
  This is not the kind of budget that will put us back on the path we 
were on. We have had some fundamental changes since this time last 
year, I will be the first to acknowledge it, and I will be the first to 
say the debate today is not about national defense or homeland defense. 
We support both, on the same terms and in the same amount.
  But we also support Social Security. We also thought we had a good 
thing going with our fiscal policy last year. We would like to get back 
on this path. This budget does not lead us back. This leads to more 
debt, more deficits, more invasion of the Social Security Trust Fund, 
and it has no plan for resolution of any of those things.
  Before this year is out, I hope, earnestly hope, having been here 20 
years and struggled and worked to put the budget on an even keel, I 
hope we will have some solution to this problem. But this is not a 
solution. This does

[[Page 3696]]

not lead us in the right direction and this budget should be 
emphatically defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is deceptive in at least three respects, 
and I and a number of colleagues are going to elaborate on that in the 
next few minutes.
  First, it uses a 5-year forecasting window instead of the customary 
10-year window; secondly, it bases the forecast on projections 
generated by the administration's political appointees at OMB, rather 
than the nonpartisan CBO; and, thirdly, it omits the cost of major 
initiatives that both parties agree must be enacted.
  Since the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, it has been customary to employ 
10-year projections in budgeting. Last year, when Republicans were 
pushing a major tax cut, they were eager to use 10-year projections 
that put the aggregate cost of their proposal in a more favorable 
light. Now, when it does not work that way, when it does not suit their 
purposes, Republicans are providing only a 5-year budget outlook.
  This budget further seeks to mask the effect of the Republicans' 
failed fiscal policies by using OMB projections instead of relying on 
Congress' official nonpartisan scorekeeper, the CBO. During committee 
markup, our budget chairman characterized this hat trick as a simple 
use of the remote control. ``If you don't like the weather report,'' he 
said, ``you might as well change the channel. That is what we are 
doing.''
  Yes, indeed, they have changed the channel. Remember, though, that 
shutting down the Federal Government in 1995 was undertaken by our 
Republican friends precisely to force a Democratic administration to 
use CBO estimates. Now House Republicans have decided that CBO's 
figures are, well, inconvenient. And they are. Just using CBO's 
baseline estimate of spending under current law exposes a $318 billion 
hole over 10 years.
  It sounds like the bad old days of ``rosy scenarios,'' and it goes 
straight to the resolution's bottom line and explains the majority's 
sudden affection for OMB figures.
  Finally, this budget omits and understates the cost of things that 
the Republican leadership has already stated its intent to do. The 
administration is about to request supplemental appropriations for 
defense and homeland security. Congress will honor these requests.
  The day after the committee markup of this budget, the Speaker 
himself announced plans to bring to the floor in April larger tax cuts 
than this resolution permits. The budget resolution accommodates none 
of this, nor does it provide for a workable Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, nor for natural disaster relief, nor for critical investments 
in education, nor for a fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  Mr. Chairman, the real Republican budget creates a huge permanent 
deficit. It spends at least 86 percent of the Social Security surplus 
and all of the Medicare surplus over the next 6 years, and it heaps up 
public debt for years to come. Smoke and mirrors cannot hide the fact 
that the Republican budget spends the Social Security surplus as far as 
the eye can see, and it has no plan to bring the budget out of deficit 
and back into surplus.
  Clearly, supporters of this budget do not want to reveal the ultimate 
consequences of their choices, and in the next few minutes my 
colleagues and I will further elaborate on the ways this budget cloaks 
its full cost.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, we are here on a historic day. This is 
the first time in 19 years we have had a totally closed rule on the 
budget; no amendments, no alternatives, one shot, Republican, that is 
it.
  Now, why is that? Well, you have come to the second annual meeting of 
the county fair where they play the three walnut shell con game. We are 
playing it again. We played it last year.
  The fact is that the first shell here is the budget estimates. Are we 
going to use OMB or CBO? These people closed the government down in 
1995 over whether or not we are going to use OMB or CBO. They said CBO 
is the only numbers. Now this year, it is OMB. Well, they moved that 
around.
  Then they said last year, we have a lot of money, oh, gosh, we have a 
lot of money. Look at them 10-year projections. Then things went to 
pieces. So this year they said let us just look at 5 years. That is 
enough. That is sufficient enough. That is a second shell.
  If you think about it, they have understated the cost of mandatory 
spending. They talk about the stimulus package we passed last week with 
$100 billion in it, and they ignore it, totally ignore it. And there is 
a budget coming within 2 weeks of our getting back here, we will have a 
supplemental budget out here for the military, and they act in this 
budget as though that does not even exist. It is like, well, it has to 
be that third shell. It is somewhere in there, I do not know.
  They do not cut the tax cuts they plan to offer. The President put a 
budget out and said we are going to repeal those tax cuts. And he says 
no, I want to repeal the repealer. They voted no in the committee on 
that issue. They are not going to do that, they say.
  Right now there are 3 million people paying the Alternative Minimum 
Tax. Within 5 years you are going to have 30 million people having to 
figure their income tax twice, and they are just closing their eyes to 
it. ``Do not show me.'' They just hide everything.
  Now, this is the slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am budget. It is going to go 
through here. It means absolutely nothing. It is a total sham. But what 
it really is is a generational mugging. It is a mugging of our kids. 
This shell game is trying to hide from our kids what we are doing to 
them.
  We are starting down the same thing we did in the Reagan years. It 
was 1983 with a closed budget, a closed rule, and we started down like 
a rocket. And it took us 20 years to dig out of it. And here we are 
today, going down that same road.
  Now, I hope the kids are watching, because they are playing a shell 
game on you. They are simply hiding what this costs. They do not want 
you to know. And they are taking it from Social Security. There is no 
plan in these shells for how you are going to get out of using Medicare 
and Social Security.

                              {time}  1615

  Everybody here knows that 40 million people are coming down the road 
toward Social Security and Medicare, and there is nothing.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for demonstrating that these 
arguments about 5 versus 10-year budget numbers and switching to OMB 
estimates are not just budget wonkery. They have real consequences for 
our fiscal solvency and for the welfare of future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, there is so much chicanery in this 
Republican budget resolution that it would make even an Enron auditor 
blush.
  Our Republican friends are not happy with the estimates produced by 
the Congressional Budget Office. They say, we will just write a budget 
using the administration's far rosier estimates. Did not House 
Republicans demand 7 years ago that the Clinton administration use CBO 
estimates? My, what a difference.
  Nor is the GOP happy with what the 10-year budget projection would 
reveal: A stunning loss of $5 trillion in projected surpluses, largely 
due to last year's tax cut. No problem, we will just write a budget 
with a 5-year projection. It just disappears like magic.
  Everyone in this Chamber knows that the shorter projection is an 
attempt to conceal the cost of making last year's tax cuts permanent, 
an estimated $569 billion.
  This resolution includes one purposeful evasion after another. But 
there is

[[Page 3697]]

one thing our Republican friends cannot hide: The fact that their 
budget will raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds every 
year for the next 10 years, for a total of $2 trillion.
  Last year, the majority leader offered these reassuring words: ``We 
must understand that it is inviolate to intrude against either Social 
Security or Medicare, and if that means foregoing, or, as it were, 
paying for tax cuts, then we will do just that.'' They did not. They 
are not. That promise has turned out to be as empty as the GOP's 
lockbox.
  This budget resolution, Mr. Chairman, is as irresponsible and as 
dishonest as were the Enron financial statements. And, tragically, the 
consequences of its adoption could be as negative. Let us reject this 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, there's so much chicanery in the Republican budget 
resolution that it would make even an Enron auditor blush.
  Our Republican friends are not happy with the estimates produced by 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  They say, ``We'll just write a budget using the administration's far 
rosier estimates.''
  Didn't House Republicans demand seven years ago that the Clinton 
administration use CBO estimates?
  Nor is the GOP happy with what a 10-year budget projection would 
reveal--a stunning loss of $5 trillion in projected surpluses largely 
due to last year's tax cut.
  No problem, they say. We'll just write a budget resolution with a 
five-year projection.
  Everyone in this chamber knows that this shorter projection is an 
attempt to conceal the costs of making last year's tax cut permanent--
an estimated $569 billion over 10 years.
  This resolution includes one purposeful evasion after another.
  But there's one thing our Republican friends cannot hide: the fact 
that their budget will raid the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds every year for the next 10 years for a total of $2 trillion.
  Last year, the majority leader offered these reassuring words:
  ``We must understand that it is inviolate to intrude against either 
Social Security or Medicare and if that means forgoing or, as it were, 
paying for tax cuts, then we'll do that.''
  That promise turned out to be as empty as the GOP's lockbox stunt.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is as irresponsible and as 
dishonest as were the Enron financial statements. And the consequences 
of its adoption could be as negative.
  Let us reject it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the reality behind this budget is that we 
are going to be spending Social Security cash on functions other than 
Social Security for the next decade.
  The second reality is that most of that reflects budget choices that 
have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan, the war our brave 
troops are fighting against the scourge of global terror. I believe the 
majority does a terrible disservice to our troops to try and hide 
behind their valor in selling budgets that raid Social Security.
  The ultimate effect of the raid on Social Security will in all 
likelihood be higher taxes for the very men and women fighting this war 
as they are forced to support baby boomers in retirement years, because 
the baby boomers passed budgets that ran these terrible deficits.
  Reject the majority budget and stop the raid on Social Security.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when this debate started, the 
chairman referred to this as a wartime budget. We are united in the war 
on terrorism.
  What exactly are we fighting for? We are fighting for a democracy. We 
are fighting for the right to have an open and honest debate on the 
floor of the House of Representatives about our Nation's priorities. We 
are failing that standard miserably today, because there was absolutely 
no response whatsoever to the fact that we are using a faulty set of 
numbers to have this debate.
  For years, there has been universal support for using the 
Congressional Budget Office, which has been widely referred to as a 
nonpartisan, apolitical office, so we can discuss how spending 
proposals and how tax cut proposals affect our ability to have a 
balanced budget and pay down the massive Federal debt, which influences 
interest rates and has a lot to do with the solvency of Social Security 
and Medicare.
  Instead of using those numbers, we are left with the flippant 
comment, ``If you do not like the weather, change the channel.'' Also, 
we are using the politically-charged Office of Management and Budget 
numbers. No one disputes that fact. So we are not going to have an 
honest road map, an honest blueprint with which this body can judge how 
our spending and tax cut proposals affect our ability to get back to a 
balanced budget, to keep interest rates low, and to begin to prepare 
Social Security and Medicare for the solvency of the baby boomers.
  We are failing one of the most fundamental tests of our democracy 
today. For that reason, we should reject the budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important day because we are 
debating a budget that is a very important budget.
  It is amazing to me that the other side is arguing, stop the raid on 
Social Security. When they were in the majority for 40 years, they took 
the surpluses of Social Security and spent them on big government 
programs. We are the ones that stopped the raid on Social Security and 
paid down over $450 billion on the debt on our children.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a choice to make today. We can stand with the 
President in funding the war on terrorism, defending our homeland, and 
balancing the budget, or we can align ourselves with those who offer no 
budget for national defense, no budget for homeland security, and no 
budget for Social Security.
  The other party has come here not to praise any budget but to bury 
it. They are demonstrating the height of fiscal irresponsibility 
because they offer no budget at all for our country.
  These charts offer a very clear picture of the Democrats' budget. 
This is the Democrats' budget on national security. This is the 
Democrats' budget on homeland security. This is the Democrats' budget 
on Social Security.
  Republicans, though, Mr. Chairman, strike a very responsible balance. 
Our budget gives the President the resources he needs to wage a war 
against international terrorism and bolster our homeland defenses. It 
also puts us on the path to a balanced budget, and puts us on track to 
pay down more than $180 billion in debt over the next 5 years.
  Republicans are committed to returning to a balanced budget. We are 
the ones who balanced it in the first place. This is what our budget 
does: It returns us to a balanced budget so that we can protect the 
Social Security trust fund and pay down the debt on our children.
  For decades, the Democrats have raided the Social Security trust 
fund, and for years Republicans, by fighting for a balanced budget, 
have protected seniors.
  The attacks on September 11 and the recession forced a short-term 
wartime deficit spending, but as our economy rebounds and as we 
demonstrate fiscal restraint, we will move back into a surplus. That is 
why it is important to hold the line on spending right now.
  So from the other side of the aisle we hear a chorus of criticism, 
but they offer no answers. Democrats all voted to raid Social Security 
just last year, and they have not offered a budget this year.
  We know what they are against, but where is their solution? If they 
had the courage of their convictions, they would be forced to answer 
the question that they have been ducking all year

[[Page 3698]]

long: Do they want to raise taxes, or raid defense and other priorities 
to pay for more spending?
  The Democrats need to tell us whether they are raisers or raiders. 
Support this budget, and let us go forward for fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) be allowed to control 10 minutes of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I 
rise in very strong support of this budget resolution. I want to thank 
the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for crafting a resolution 
that has the largest increase in veterans' affairs spending, especially 
discretionary spending, for our veterans.
  There is a $2.8 billion increase for health care in this budget. Let 
me just point out to my colleagues, it is needs-based. This is not 
something that was just ``let us add it for the sake of adding,'' but 
it is needs-based.
  Next year, there will be about 700,000 new, unique veteran patients. 
Veterans are flocking to our outpatient clinics and our community-based 
outpatient clinics and the like because they are getting good health 
care, 700,000. The budget would provide, like I said, about a $2.8 
billion increase.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that other important programs 
will be funded as a result of this. Last year, we passed historic 
legislation to help the homeless veterans. That is accommodated by this 
budget.
  We have passed an increase in the G.I. bill, a 46 percent increase in 
that college education benefit. That is accommodated by this budget.
  I believe the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) deserves our 
thanks. He sat down with my staff and I and we spent hours going line 
by line over why this budget needed to be added to, and he met those 
needs.
  I hope that every veterans' service organization, and I have spoken 
to virtually every one of them, they are happy with what we are doing. 
It is real, and I would hope my friends on the Democratic side would 
look at this provision and realize that we are doing justice to our 
veterans.
  It is a good bill and a good resolution. I urge strong support for 
this.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  If we look across the array of defense requirements, what our men and 
women in uniform need in terms of ammunition, spare parts, equipment, 
pay, this budget starts to turn the corner from what I call the Clinton 
era.
  If we look specifically at modernization, at the idea that we need 
more new trucks, tanks, ships, planes, good equipment for our people, 
we are spending about $11.9 billion more than we were in the last year 
of the Clinton administration.
  With respect to the ammo shortages, we are going to still have an 
ammo shortage, but we are cutting that shortage down. We are coming 
into it with about $2.2 billion extra.
  With respect to operations and maintenance, we are coming in with an 
extra $3 billion or so.
  Across-the-board, and we are coming in also with a 4.2 percent pay 
raise, to follow the minimum 6 percent pay raise of last year.
  So we are starting to rebuild national security with this budget. We 
have a long way to go. I would like to have an extra $50 billion or so 
in this defense budget, but on the other hand, at least we are starting 
to turn the corner from some very tragic days of the past 10 years or 
so, and I very strongly support this budget.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who has been a 
leader on the issue of concurrent receipt.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this budget. 
For over 17 years, I have been working to eliminate the current offset 
between military retired pay and VA disability, which unfairly 
penalizes more than 500,000 military retirees nationwide.
  The last Congress took the first steps towards addressing this 
inequity, and took an additional step towards eliminating the offset by 
authorizing my repeal legislation, H.R. 303.
  I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the budget resolution earmarks 
over $500 million to fund concurrent receipt as a first step in fiscal 
year 2003, with increasing amounts over the next 5 years, providing a 
cumulative total of $5.8 billion.
  While this falls short of the funding needed to completely eliminate 
the current offset, it will provide for a substantial concurrent 
receipt benefit. And I am very, very thankful, on behalf of all of our 
veterans out there, to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and 
other members of the committee, especially the gentlemen from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Bass and Mr. Sununu, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  The major veterans organizations support this. Let us vote for this 
budget so we can help our veterans and our military out there.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services and the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for this 
outstanding budget.
  As we can see from the chart, this budget keeps the promises made to 
our military families. For so many years, promises have been made and 
remain unfulfilled, but the buck stops here.
  We are funding a military pay raise. Our men and women in uniform are 
grossly underpaid for the services they provide to this country. We 
have a 4.1 percent pay increase in this budget.
  We are delivering on our promise to improve living standards by 
increasing pay. In addition, we are improving the living standards for 
our military families by funding over $4 billion for improving current 
military family housing, as well as for building brand new housing.

                              {time}  1630

  It is unacceptable that we require military families to live in 
substandard housing facilities. We must support military families by 
supporting the budget. Finally, we are fulfilling the century-old 
promise of funding concurrent receipt for our disabled retired 
veterans. As a retired Naval officer, I believe the delivery of this 
promise is long overdue. This budget funds concurrent receipt for our 
veterans, those who need it most. It will send home a real check with 
real financial benefits. This year we are providing over $500 million 
for this program and 5.8 billion over the next 5 years.
  Our retired veterans desperately need our help. They dedicated their 
lives to the defense of our country, and it is time we show them how 
much we appreciate that.
  This is a solid budget. It funds programs to improve the quality of 
life for our military families, and it keeps the promises to our 
veterans that were made long ago. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this budget. It is unacceptable for individuals to attack this budget 
when they do not offer a plan of their own.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

[[Page 3699]]

Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, the events of September 11 have certainly 
highlighted the challenges of border security. This budget makes a 
commitment to the Customs Service, increasing their budget by $619 
million; substantially increases the Coast Guard as they meet the 
challenge of protecting our seaports; and takes a dramatic step towards 
reforming the INS, as has been so painfully clear that they are in need 
of reform in the past several days.
  This budget keeps its commitment to veterans. It maintains our 
homeland security, and it reduces the burden of taxation on the 
American families. This budget is a responsible plan. Where is the 
other budget? It has been called chicanery. It has been called 
irresponsible. Where is your plan? Where is the alternative? If these 
things are so bad, if investing in defense, if investing in homeland 
security, if reducing the burden of taxation is so bad, where is the 
alternative? Where can the American people go to read your budget? They 
can get it online. They can call the Government Printing Office to get 
ours. Where might they go to read your budget? Where might they see 
what the alternative is to our plan? Where might they find those?
  The Budget Resolution for FY2003 is a balanced, wartime budget that 
provides and prioritizes three fundamental securities of the United 
States: national security, economic security, and personal security.
  Recently, there has been some discussion on the implications of using 
CBO's numbers over OMB's numbers. I believe that the use of OMB's 
number is the right choice and that our wartime budget will secure the 
future of every American family by making America safer and our economy 
stronger.
  The bulk of the difference between CBO and OMB arises from 
differences in the starting point. The OMB baseline underlying over the 
President's budget projected a surplus of $51 billion for the FY2003, 
increasing to $109 billion in 2004, and totaling $764 billion over the 
5-year period 2003-2007. The CBO baseline projects a surplus of $6 
billion in 2003, and $61 billion in 2004 and $489 billion of the next 5 
years.
  There are two principal reasons for the baseline differences between 
CBO and OMB: (1) different treatment of emergency spending in response 
to the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and 
(2) different expectations of the future path of the economy and their 
implications of tax collections and spending.
  By adjusting CBO's surplus estimates to treat emergency spending 
increases as a one-time occurrence affords us the opportunity to make 
CBO's baseline estimates project $16 billion for 2003, $77 billion for 
2004, and $584 billion over the 2003-2007 period. Thus, the difference 
in baseline projections amounts to $35 billion for 2003, $32 billion 
for 2004, and $180 billion over 5 years.
  The principal difference between CBO and OMB is how the proposed 
increase in discretionary spending is portrayed. CBO measures from a 
baseline that assumes that last year's emergency response spending will 
recur. CBO also asserts that nondefense discretionary budget authority 
will be $51 billion below baseline levels over the next five years. The 
President's policies for nondefense spending would actually exceed the 
baseline by $34 billion over the next five years, under a baseline that 
treats the emergency response spending as a one-time event.
  The difference in FY2003 between CBO and OMB is attributable to 
different revenue estimates. Over the next 5 years, slightly more than 
60 percent ($110 billion) of the $180 billion difference is largely due 
to revenues. OMB expects that wages and salaries and corporate profits 
will constitute a larger share of GDP than does CBO. In addition, OMB 
projects that the average tax rate on corporate profits will be higher 
than CBO.
  CBO estimates the costs of the President's policy proposals are quite 
similar to those of OMB. The cost of revenue policies are the same as 
OMB's for 2003 and 2004, and $1 billion lower than OMB over the next 5 
years. Similarly, mandatory policies are estimated to have the same 
cost for 2003, but are $9 billion higher over the 2003-2007 period. 
Outlays for discretionary spending are slightly different because CBO 
assumes higher outlays from defense appropriations.
  Our budget provides all the necessary resources to accomplish our 
three main national security goals: winning the war, strengthening 
homeland security, and modernizing the armed services. The wartime 
budget resolution makes the tough choices that are necessary to meet 
the nation's top priority of winning the war and strengthening our 
national defense, while continuing to invest in the modernization of 
the armed forces for 21st century combat. The top priority of the House 
budget is to provide all the resources necessary to ensure that 
Americans are free from terror. This budget resolution achieves this 
objective.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just highlight two areas 
that demonstrate what a sound budget this is in dealing with national 
defense and homeland security. First of all, there is $3 billion here 
for what I call ``force security.'' That is to make sure that we 
protect our men and women in uniform and their families, whether they 
are here or whether they are abroad anywhere in the world. A lot of 
that money is going to go for physical assets that you can see and 
touch, just, for instance, to reinforce an entrance gate to a military 
installation, to provide fencing to make sure it is off limits, to make 
sure unauthorized vessels cannot enter our military ports.
  And then there is $3.5 billion that goes to FEMA, that will go down 
to State and local governments, to let the State and local government 
spend the money as they see fit to equip or train or to hire more 
policemen, more firemen, more rescue workers, whatever they think is 
best. Maybe it is to use the money for increased, enhanced 
communications that we found we needed after a terrorist attack. But I 
think these are two points that make this a very sound budget. I urge 
my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Budget, who has also been a leader on the issue of concurrent 
receipt.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I rise in strong 
support of the House budget resolution and particularly for the 
provisions that it addresses in the issue of concurrent pay for 
veterans.
  For over 100 years, soldiers disabled in the line of duty have had 
their retirement pay offset by disability payments. This is the only 
group of individuals that suffers from this tragic inequity, and now I 
am pleased to report that we have included in this budget provisions 
that will provide over half a billion dollars to start addressing this 
offset issue, a total funding over 5 years of over $5.8 billion.
  In the 7 years that I have served on this committee, 8 now, we have 
never been able to do this and we do now for the first time in that 
period of time that I have been on the committee.
  I would also note that these provisions have the strong support of 
the American Legion, the VFW and these other national VSO's.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a ground-breaking provision in this budget. I 
urge that the Congress support the pending budget resolution.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, this budget funds critical national security 
programs that will allow the United States to respond, not just to 
prosecute this war, but to respond to future threats. As this chart 
shows, the North Korean missile threat to the United States has grown 
enormously, originally from a scud missile, now to the taepo dong 
missile, which is able to deliver a weapon of mass destruction against 
the United States.
  More worryingly, North Korean missiles are now being sold to the 
government of Iran, and these missiles are not only aimed at U.S. Armed 
Forces in the Persian Gulf but also our allies in Israel which can now 
be well hit with the no dong and taepo dong systems. Likewise, the 
Syrian missile threat has grown, especially to our allies in Israel. If 
you are concerned about the security of U.S. allies, if you are 
concerned about responding to the missile threat, then you should 
support

[[Page 3700]]

this budget. I wish the other side had produced a budget which would 
outline their program to respond to these threats to America and its 
allies. Our budget does that, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the other side has said repeatedly in 
committee and on the floor that they support the President and his 
efforts to prosecute the war and to defend the homeland. But the fact 
is, without the specific budget alterative to compare, we do not know 
what trade-offs they would make. We do not know how they would achieve 
it. So what we are left with some verbal assurances without any numbers 
to back them up.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand the political frustration 
which bubbles up to the fore, particularly when you are facing a very 
popular President prosecuting a war which touches every American and 
has the support of the American people. But I would suggest that that 
frustration is no excuse to fall back on the old tactics of trying to 
scare people on Social Security. It is no excuse to fail to put forth a 
budget and only try to take pot shots at the President and this 
committee's budget.
  I would suggest that this is a good budget. It supports the President 
100 percent in his efforts to prosecute the war and defend the 
homeland. And it does it with more than just verbal assurances. It puts 
hard dollars, hard numbers behind those promises. I think we can all 
safely support it, and I suggest that Members vote for the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say there is no difference between us when it 
comes to national defense or homeland defense. Republicans are 
supporting $383.3 billion for national defense. So do we as Democrats. 
When it comes time to vote on appropriations bills that really put that 
money into play, we will be there. We will support it because we 
support the President in the war on terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for the purposes of 
control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are considering a budget resolution. A budget is a 
document where our Nation tells us what priorities are real to our 
Nation. It tells us who the winners and who the losers are. It is an 
area where we should consider our defense and our nondefense. It is an 
area where we should consider all people, and we should not put people 
who are vulnerable at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, when we think about all the older citizens who are now 
getting their social security, we know they will now get their Social 
Security. So this issue is not about those who are getting their Social 
Security. No, this issue is about senior citizens who are fearful that 
they would not get their Social Security in the future. This issue is, 
indeed, putting those senior citizens at risk.
  So when people are saying I am wondering, please, do not raid my 
Social Security, they are also talking perspectively because this 
budget is a 5-year budget. Furthermore, when you consider our budget 
last year at April 2001, we had a surplus of $5.6 trillion. It was 
August, August, not September 11 that we had found that we had spent 
down to 3.1. The surplus had gone. Indeed, when we began this year in 
February, we had less than $1 billion, $661 million. Indeed, we are 
raiding the Social Security trust fund, and they say we are not? We 
are.
  We have now spent all of the unified surplus that is available. The 
only surplus, I heard my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu), say that what we should do and we would challenge each 
other, the only thing we can do is go to the surplus or raise taxes. 
Well, we are indeed spending a surplus. What surplus are we spending? 
We are spending the Social Security surplus.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, very simply, all day long we are going to 
hear a lot of talk about billions and trillions of dollars. I like to 
make things simple for myself and for my constituents at home. If you 
take an average worker or maybe a married couple together making 
$50,000 a year, over the 6 years this budget deals with, both this year 
and the 5 years projected, they will spend, they will pay $37,200 in 
Social Security taxes, $37,200. However, under this budget plan, 
$11,328 of that money will not go into the Social Security trust funds.
  They think they are paying taxes for Social Security. It does not go 
there. What will they get in return for that $11,000? They will get an 
IOU put in. They will get a bill for interest to pay on the money that 
is being used to spend; and they might, I am not sure yet, they might 
get a promissory note sent to them by this Congress. Some people are 
proposing to send them a little note saying, Trust us; your Social 
Security taxes are okay.
  My constituents do not trust us. They should not trust us. We should 
leave their Social Security taxes alone in the trust fund that they 
wanted to have their money put into that they have been told. Working 
people deserve the truth. They are not getting it today. They will not 
get it with this budget. We should vote no.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I was reading the committee report in the resolution, 
and there is a comment here about the real meaning of balance. It says, 
``The principle of a balanced budget is more than simply a numbers game 
in which spending and revenue match up. It reflects the sense that 
Members of Congress are controlling the budget, not being controlled by 
it.''
  Now all these Members on the other side got up and said, we increase 
spending for this and we increase spending for that. And believe me, I 
am for most of the stuff that you got up and said. But the fact is you 
are acting like it is being done for free and it is balanced. But this 
is where it costs. We are having to borrow against the Social Security 
trust fund money. That is not free money. That money costs today about 
6.5 percent over a 20-year period. That money costs. Who is going to 
pay that back? Well, not the taxpayers today, but the taxpayers 20 
years from now and the taxpayers 30 year from now. I hope to be around 
doing that. I know the chairman hopes to be around. Our kids will be 
paying for that as well.
  That is the real macroeconomic picture of this budget.
  Now this Member will say, I think the mistake we made was last year 
when we said we bet the ranch on 10-year numbers and the numbers did 
not pan out, and they did not pan out because of the recession, and 
they did not pan out because of the war. Many of us said at the time 
that is why you could not trust 10-year numbers because we did not know 
what the economy was going to do, and God forbid we might have a war or 
a flood or something else, and we had all three.
  That is why we are in this situation now. This money will have to be 
paid back before, before we do anything about fixing Social Security 
for the long run. And that is what is wrong with this budget because 
the other Members are saying we are going to put more money in this, 
more money in defense, more money for customs, more money for veterans. 
We are all for that, but we are acting like it is free money. And there 
is nothing free about this. It is going to cost the taxpayers. If it 
will not cost them today, it will cost them tomorrow; and we will be 
back in the hole that we were in for

[[Page 3701]]

20 years beginning in the 1980's. And the taxpayers, unfortunately, 
myself being one and every Member here being one, will have to dig out. 
And I think that is what is wrong with this budget.

                              {time}  1645

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, with today's vote on the Federal budget we 
have a clear choice. We can go back to deficit spending, raiding Social 
Security and increasing this Nation's debt or we can choose to travel 
down the path of fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget, saving 
Social Security and paying down our debt.
  Our Republican friends suggests this is a wartime budget and it 
should be, but is it right to ask young men and women in uniform to 
fight this war and then come home and ask their generation to pay for 
it? I think not.
  On at least four occasions since 1999 this House has voted 
overwhelmingly to put the Social Security Trust Fund in a lockbox, 
pledging never to use it again to cover the other expenses of 
government. If any corporate officer in America raided their employee's 
retirement fund they would be guilty of a felony and locked up for a 
very long time, but here in Washington, after promising never to do it 
again, the Republican leadership has presented us a budget that, 
without apology and without remedy, raids the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  This is the wrong choice for America and I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on this irresponsible budget.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  What we have seen, indeed we have no other choice, they say, other 
than to raid Social Security, and indeed we had a choice. We had a 
choice. We could have paid down the debt. Paying down the public debt 
would have allowed to us to protect Social Security and the Medicare 
Trust Fund.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes 
of my time to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) for the 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have worked in the Committee on the Budget to put together a 
budget that funds the priorities laid out by the President in his State 
of the Union address, funding the war against terrorism, funding 
homeland security and getting the economy moving again, and what we 
have heard over the last 10 minutes here are a lot of scare tactics.
  First and foremost, the suggestion that Social Security taxes paid 
are not credited to the Social Security Trust Fund. That simply is not 
true and it is outrageous to scare the American people, let alone to 
scare someone who is on Social Security today, by suggesting otherwise.
  We have heard a lot of discussion about the Social Security surplus. 
Well, let us look at the budgets that the minority voted against in 
past years, setting aside the Social Security surplus, paying off $450 
billion in debt, and that is one of the reasons we start from a strong 
foundation.
  The suggestion that the Social Security Trust Fund balances are 
changed one iota because of any tax relief legislation that was passed 
last year is completely false and misleading. We have put together a 
budget that funds our economy, encourages investments for small 
businesses and technology and equipment, strengthens agriculture, funds 
our highway priorities and keeps the economy moving forward, and I 
think those are the right priorities.
  To criticize the budget without offering any alternative, without 
offering any other proposal is simply wrong, and those on the other 
side that voted against the tax relief package last year that would 
want to repeal it this year in increased taxes, I think are headed in 
the wrong direction. Those on the other side that would want to cut 
defense spending are headed in the wrong direction. We funded the right 
priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), someone who has worked hard and probably understands Social 
Security better than anyone else in this Chamber.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) for yielding this time to me.
  Sitting here listening to this debate, I find it absolutely 
outrageous. Either the speakers that have been up talking about raiding 
the trust fund do not have a clue as to how it works or the debate has 
been absolutely dishonest. Anyone who says that there are dollars in 
the Social Security Trust Fund that we are raiding, it is not true. It 
is absolutely not true.
  The whole question with regard to the Social Security Trust Fund from 
1970 right up through 1997, every bit of that surplus was being spent 
yet the dollars were in the trust fund exactly the way they were 
before. They go into the trust fund. They are replaced by Treasury 
bills that are put in the trust fund. There are no dollars in the trust 
fund. There is no way we can go in and raid the trust fund unless we 
are grabbing Treasury bills out of there.
  To listen to the argument that anyone tries to use as a scare tactic 
I think is below the dignity of this House of Representatives, and I 
think that this scare tactic is absolutely the low point that I have 
ever seen in this House of Representatives.
  We have a once great party that is now bankrupt of ideas. They have 
no budget to bring to us. They have no plan to save Social Security. 
All they can do is throw stones. Sit in the bleachers, sit on the other 
side and throw stones to us on this side. This is absolutely, I think, 
outrageous. It is below the dignity of this House.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in early October of last year this House passed a new 
approach for farm legislation in a very strongly bipartisan manner and 
in a margin of over two to one. It was the intent of our committee at 
that time to have hopefully a conference report that we could bring 
back to this body and have signed into law a new farm bill sometime 
last year so that we would begin to be able to deal with the problems 
that have been confronting the agricultural economy for the last 4-plus 
years. Unfortunately, there was no item with which we could conference.
  However, in February, on Valentine's Day, we finally had that item 
that we could conference. We are in conference now, and it is this 
Member's hope that early in April upon our return we will be able to 
provide to the body a conference report.
  We, however, have lapped over into a new budget cycle. What made it 
possible for us to be able to write that farm bill last year was the 
strong commitment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget, and the good work of the Committee on 
the Budget in providing $73.5 billion in last year's budget and 
providing $73.5 billion in this year's budget to allow us to continue.
  While much of the focus may be on the Committee on Agriculture as 
those farm bills are being written, the American farm family owes a 
great deal of gratitude to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and to 
the Committee on the Budget for holding their commitment to provide a 
strong agriculture because where we are today, Mr. Chairman, would not 
have been possible without that support.
  I appreciate it very much. I commend the committee for the work they 
have done.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu) for yielding me the time.
  We have before us today a wartime budget. The fact is that is a 
difficult task to put together. We have done the

[[Page 3702]]

responsible thing of assembling just that. It fully funds our national 
priorities with significant increases in defense spending because we 
need that for the war that is underway. Huge increases in homeland 
security, we need that so people will be more secure in their homes. 
Increases in education, increases in veterans health care, fully 
funding a prescription drug benefit and, quite importantly, in my 
judgment, by limiting the growth in the rest of government, but for the 
extension of unemployment benefits that we all voted for a couple of 
weeks ago, this budget for fiscal year 2003 is balanced.
  We have done the hard work of putting together a wartime budget, and 
my Democratic friends who are throwing stones, feigning horror, have 
done so without a single substantive alternative. Are not my colleagues 
just a little bit embarrassed that they do not have the courage to 
propose a budget of their own? The only idea frankly that we have heard 
from the left, although without the courage to put it to a vote, is to 
repeal last year's tax cut, raise taxes and spend more money.
  What would that do for Social Security? Not much. Let me suggest that 
the idea of raising taxes, while the economy is as weak as it is now, 
is a terrible idea. We in Congress have a responsibility to be helping 
people get back to work, to help get this economy moving again, to help 
people get greater job security, increase the likelihood that people 
will get raises and improve their standard of living, and the best way 
to do this frankly is to tear down the barriers to economic growth, 
tear down the barriers that prevent job creation, and lower taxes do 
that.
  Look at this chart. In the year 2000, as my colleagues can see from 
this chart, taxes had reached a postwar record high. Not since 1944 had 
the Federal Government imposed such a huge tax burden on our economy 
and there is no doubt that many economists agree that that huge tax 
burden helped to contribute to the economic slowdown, and the fact is 
we passed tax relief just in time, and this budget accommodates the 
continued phase-in, gradual though it is, of the tax relief that we 
passed last year, and that has got to be part of the reason that this 
slowdown has been relatively mild and it is going to help us get out of 
this economic decline that we have been in, lessen the severity of it.
  The last thing we can do is go back and turn the clock back and go 
back to those record high taxes. For the sake of job security and 
economic security for our families, I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues should 
be ashamed of themselves, trying to scare the American people on Social 
Security, making them believe they are not going to get a check. The 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, came to 
the floor and he said, ``We should be talking about another budget.'' 
The problem is my colleagues do not have a budget. He does not have a 
budget.
  Last week in the markup in Committee on the Budget all my colleagues 
presented were 40 amendments. Had we accepted the 40 amendments, we 
would have spent $225 billion more than we are spending. Yet my 
colleagues accuse us of wasting Social Security moneys.
  He said, ``It shows deficits as far as the eyes can see. We have 
squandered $4.5 trillion surplus, gone in the flash of an eye.''
  My colleagues like CBO numbers. So let us see what they say. We 
should have had a $283 billion surplus this year, but because of a 
recession and a bad economy we are down $197 billion. Because of 9/11 
spending, we are down $54 billion, and yes, we gave the American 
people, hardworking families, $40 billion of their own money to keep, 
to prosper their own families. That is minus $9 billion.
  He said, ``Our prescription program is paltry.'' Actions speak louder 
than words. Where is my colleagues' prescription drug program? They 
have none. At the same time he comes out and he says, by saying it is 
paltry, he wants us to spend more money, but my colleagues accuse us of 
spending the Social Security Trust Fund. Then he gave this sweet story 
about his mother, and she said what if I do not get my Social Security 
check next month or next year, what will I do, implying that somehow 
people are not going to get their Social Security check. That is 
criminal. This self-righteous hypocrisy on this floor is outlandish.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate and 
watching back in my office, and I have to say it has not been a very 
proud day for our friends on the left. Here they are, they have got all 
kinds of complaints about our budget, but they have no budget of their 
own.
  The other thing that came through as I watched this debate in my 
office on television, and I think it probably came through to the 
American people as well, what this is is a classic debate between those 
people who believe in America and those who do not, those who believe 
our brightest days are yet to come and those who think our brightest 
days are behind us. It is a debate between optimists who believe in 
America, who believe that we can fight a war, that we can strengthen 
our economy, that we can meet the legitimate needs of the American 
people with this budget, and those who believe we cannot.
  I have not given up hope on the American people. I have not given up 
hope that we can have a brighter day. I believe that the economy is 
going to get stronger. I believe the tax cuts that we have passed were 
exactly the right medicine at exactly the right time, and I believe 
that there is better than a 50-50 chance that we not only will have a 
balanced budget next year, we are going to actually have a surplus.
  That is what the American people want. They want responsible 
government. They want a responsible budget, and they want people who 
step up and take that responsibility and pass this budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for the purposes of 
control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, President Bush started with a balanced budget and 
budget surpluses as far as the eye could see, but today the GOP budget 
plan has squandered that surplus, and we will have to borrow $1 
trillion from Social Security over the next 5 years and $2 trillion 
from Social Security and Medicare over the next 10 years just to pay 
their bills.
  The lockbox that we all talked about a year ago has been smashed and 
the contents have been looted.

                              {time}  1700

  This budget does, indeed, represent a generational mugging. The 
majority is demanding spending programs and tax cuts for themselves, 
paid for by borrowing Social Security and Medicare dollars from seniors 
and leaving the bill for our children. This budget is putting money in 
the form of spending programs and tax cuts into the left-hand pocket of 
the taxpayer, but taking out money from their right-hand pocket where 
the trust funds are located.
  The Social Security trust fund surplus is estimated to be $2 trillion 
over the next 10 years. This budget spends $1.5 trillion of those 
dollars by borrowing that money, plus all of the surplus, $556 billion 
of the Medicare trust fund, in order to pay these bills. If we take 
Social Security and Medicare out of the mix, as we all agreed to last 
year, this year we will have a $244 billion on-budget deficit with 
similar deficits of that size each year for the next 10 years.
  Last year, the CBO, Mr. Chairman, estimated that we could pay off our 
entire debt by 2011. In just 1 year, after the tax cuts, 9-11, and a 
short recession, we are now projected to have a

[[Page 3703]]

debt of $2.8 trillion by 2011. The impact of debt, Mr. Chairman, is 
higher interest payments by the government. One year ago we were facing 
$709 billion in interest payments over the next 10 years. Now we are 
facing $1.8 trillion of interest payments, a $1 trillion increase.
  This budget plan alone for the 2003 budget year requires us to pay 
$220 billion in interest payments, 11 percent of our Federal budget. 
The impact of higher debt and more borrowing is also higher interest 
rates paid by consumers. When we borrow in Washington, we drive up the 
long-term rates and the consumer costs for purchases, such as homes and 
cars and college tuitions.
  We need reduced government borrowing, Mr. Chairman, lower government 
debt, lower interest rates, and increased savings to continue the 
growth of productivity and the recovery of our economy. This budget 
plan will do none of these things and should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, when you find yourself in a hole, the wise man says, 
stop digging; stop making the problem worse. Stop the renewed 
borrowing, stop the return of deficits. Vote ``no'' on this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we were just asked to raise the 
statutory debt ceiling to almost $7 trillion. Why? Because of this 
budget. This budget increases the interest costs on our debt by over $1 
trillion over the next decade. We are going to increase the debt held 
by the public to over $3 trillion.
  The question is, Who pays off this debt? It is not going to be us. 
Most of us will be retired. We are going to retire with the baby boom 
generation. We are going to join those 77 million people that will 
double the number of people on the retirement rolls. We are going to 
leave it to our kids to pay off this debt and at the same time pay for 
our Social Security and Medicare costs, and that is not right.
  That is why this budget is not right and why it should be defeated. 
Our kids deserve better.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, we face some clear challenges. We are in 
a recession, and we have a war on terrorism to fight. I have to say 
that some of the aspects of this budget are things I certainly agree 
with. I appreciate the commitment to our veterans; I can appreciate the 
commitment to defense spending and homeland defense.
  The issue about the long-term plan, about how we get away from 
deficit spending, that is something we have to work on. And whether or 
not we pass this budget today, that problem is not going to go away. I 
would like to call on my colleagues to work together in a more 
bipartisan way in the future.
  We do need to address this issue. It is important to us. Our 
constituents expect us to work together. We have not done that yet, but 
I hope we do so sooner than later.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a very distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This budget is a cash-flow management plan for fiscal year 2003 and 
for 4 years beyond. It is a cash-flow plan that is, in many ways, 
similar to the cash-flow plans that individuals must manage for 
themselves, those which families plan while sitting around the kitchen 
table and small businesses establish when determining how many 
employees they will hire or how many equipment purchases they will make 
in the coming year.
  In fact, there are over 1 million families today, due to the tragic 
events of last September, who are planning their finances to weather 
the emergency situation they are facing in their lives: loss of a job, 
slowing business revenues, and so forth. Many of these families will 
borrow or have borrowed from their savings or retirement, life 
insurance or home equity to ride out the storm.
  Mr. Chairman, it is from the cash flow of the taxpayer all across the 
country that the Federal Government receives its income. When 
individual family and business budgets are healthy and strong enough to 
make the necessary and often the discretionary purchases, when they are 
thriving enough that they are adding jobs to the workforce and 
expanding business opportunities, the Federal Government's budget is 
the strongest. Today, we have a deficit cash flow. It is from the lack 
of consumer confidence caused by the lack of job confidence.
  Mr. Chairman, we must examine what has eroded consumer and job 
confidence. The 7 o'clock news reports tally the market and the 
unemployment numbers. In February of 2000, the NASDAQ began to plunge 
from almost a high of 4,700 points; ``dot coms'' were folding at a 
rapid pace. In February, the Dow Jones began to fluctuate and plunged 
in November of 2000. Unemployment numbers began to rise in November of 
2000. With such numbers, is it no wonder that job confidence and 
consumer confidence were eroded?
  This decline in confidence, coupled with the significant and 
unexpected expenditures of the last months, are the major reasons we 
find ourselves working to establish a responsible budget plan. How has 
this administration and Congress addressed this decline in confidence? 
The Congress passed the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act for 
American workers, extended taxpayer cash flow, where our cash flow 
comes from, by $74 billion in 2001, by over $60 billion in 2002, and by 
over $90 billion in 2003, plus the stimulus package of $43 billion that 
we just passed.
  In 3 years, Mr. Chairman, the Congress will leave over $300 billion 
in cash flow to the taxpayers. So, let us look at what has happened 
when we have had major tax relief over the last few decades. In the 
1960s, revenues increased; 1961, $92 billion in revenue for the Federal 
Government; in 1970, it doubled, $196 billion; in the 1980s, 1981, we 
had revenues of $599 billion. In 10 years, it increased to over $1 
trillion.
  Mr. Chairman, the same will happen with the tax relief package that 
we passed yesterday. This budget is evidence that the Congress trusts 
the people at home, the people we live with, the people we work beside, 
the people who are our neighbors running the small and large businesses 
that are the engine of our economy. And as a reminder, my colleagues, 
they supply the money we spend here each year.
  I trust them and I want them to have more money to spend, to invest, 
and to use as they see fit. That is why I support this responsible 
budget, and I urge others to.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I want to recognize first off the excellence with which he 
has dealt on this budget, and commend him, the members of his 
committee, and the staff for their excellent work.
  Mr. Chairman, today we should have had the opportunity to be engaged 
in a debate over our Federal budget. This budget debate should reflect 
the professional judgment and our most imaginative thinking to create a 
budget for America's future. We do not all agree on every issue, but we 
should have been able to have a debate about those issues. Instead, we 
are faced with a closed rule which forecloses some of that debate; and 
we are, instead, faced with a budget from the Republican side which is 
a sham.
  It is a sham because it hides from view the billions and billions of 
dollars the Republicans are draining from the Social Security trust 
fund. It is a sham because it disguises the inadequate prescription 
drug benefit for seniors as it drains the Medicare trust fund. It is a 
sham because it ignores the cost of the

[[Page 3704]]

supplemental appropriations that we know President Bush will be sending 
to the Congress.
  When we review the Republican budget, we have to wonder what happened 
to all of the budget deficits on the Republican side. Have they become 
an endangered species? Indeed, I think they have become extinct. For 
such a long time they fought so fiercely to reduce the Federal deficit 
and eliminate the national debt, and now they are extinct.
  And where did all the Republicans go who voted five times, five 
times, for a lock box to prohibit using Social Security trust funds for 
anything but Social Security? Those same Republicans have broken 
promises to the American people by an all-out raid in this budget on 
the Social Security trust fund.
  In addition to being a sham, this Republican budget is a shame, 
because it misses an opportunity to create a fiscally sound balanced 
budget which invests in America's future and grows our economy by 
creating jobs and lowering interest rates.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our Federal budget should be a 
statement of our national values. I ask my colleagues if it is a 
statement of their values to raid the Social Security trust fund and 
decimate the Medicare trust fund; is it a statement of their national 
values to undermine the ability of Americans to retire in dignity; is 
it a statement of their values to put our children into oppressive debt 
to bolster a failed Republican economic plan?
  The Republican leadership's budget is a desperate attempt to cover up 
the total failure of their economic plan. In an attempt to cook the 
books, the Republicans used the more optimistic OMB estimates, even 
though they shut down the government in 1995-96, if my colleagues 
remember that, to insist on CBO estimates.
  One year ago, the Republicans promised to protect Social Security, 
provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and pay down the Federal 
debt. But their budget fails to balance the budget, fails to protect 
Social Security, fails to provide adequate funding for prescription 
drugs, and fails to fund the education promises signed into law by 
President Bush. The request from Treasury Secretary O'Neill to raise 
the debt limit by $750 billion to finance the government past the 2004 
election is an ultimate symbol of the failure of the Republican 
economic plan.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' a billion, billion, billion 
times no, on the Republican sham budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) involving 
Social Security.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for 
yielding to me.
  Social Security is one of our Nation's most successful anti-poverty 
and retirement programs. Currently, 45 million seniors, their spouses, 
and their dependents receive Social Security benefits. The strength and 
viability of this program is a priority for all Members of Congress, 
Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike. Our Democrat colleagues, 
however, claim that this budget will somehow endanger Social Security 
and erode the ability of the Social Security trust fund to pay 
benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this budget will not have 
any impact on the status of the Social Security trust funds whatsoever; 
is that correct?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is totally 
correct; and I want to thank my colleague for not only his concern but 
his leadership in the brief time he has been here in the House.
  I would also like to reiterate my own personal commitment to the 
strength and stability of the Social Security program. Social Security 
is a promise that neither I nor my Republican colleagues around here 
take lightly.
  The gentleman is correct in his understanding that the budget in no 
way alters the financial position of the Social Security trust fund. 
The status of the Social Security trust funds is unchanged by this 
budget.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
is it true that under this budget the Social Security trust funds 
continue to grow throughout the 5-year budget horizon?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Yes. In fact, we add about $1 trillion to it over the 
next 5 years after this budget is in effect.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this budget 
provides full funding for Social Security benefits and cost of living 
adjustments for all recipients; is that correct?

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina made a comment earlier about how somebody was concerned 
whether they would get their benefit check. There is not a senior in 
America that is not going to get their benefit check under Social 
Security. Nothing in this budget changes that. I wish Members on the 
other side would stop that scare tactic.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman guarantee me that my 
grandmother, Katherine Boudreau, will continue to receive her Social 
Security benefits next month and the months to come for the rest of her 
life? Also, will the gentleman guarantee me that my constituent, Daisy 
Burris, with the AARP of Tulsa and the people she represents, will 
receive her Social Security benefits in the next month and the years to 
come?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Not only are the Social Security benefits of the 
gentleman's grandmother safe, but all of our Social Security benefits 
are safe under this budget. By voting for this budget resolution, 
Members will honor their commitment to their constituents and to the 
seniors of America. Certainly there are concerns about Social Security 
on the horizon that we need to be concerned about, but this budget does 
not change the trust fund whatsoever. Every senior will get those 
benefits.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for purposes of 
control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that I hear most about 
is the high cost of prescription drugs and the incredible struggle that 
senior citizens have to pay for them. It is clear that this is a major 
source of worry and distress for seniors and their loved ones. It is 
time for Congress to listen to our greatest generation and make 
affordable prescription drug coverage a priority. Unfortunately, a 
prescription drug benefit that is affordable for all Medicare 
beneficiaries is not a priority in this Republican budget.
  This budget replaces the President's inadequate proposal with its own 
inadequate proposal. What they are calling a Medicare reserve fund, 
using numbers from the OMB, this budget claims to increase Medicare 
spending about $89 billion over 5 years, and $350 billion over 10 
years. However, if we used the CBO numbers rather than OMB, this is 
drastically reduced. Like the rest of the budget, using OMB numbers 
makes their increase in Medicare spending appear higher than it 
actually is.
  And if this were not enough, the budget also holds the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit hostage to Medicare reform and a provider 
payment adjustment. The Medicare reserve fund can only be tapped when a 
proposal that includes modernization, prescription drugs, and provider 
payment adjustments is before this House for consideration.
  All three issues must be addressed before we can assist our seniors 
with their prescription drug crisis. A detailed plan for Medicare 
reform has not yet even been proposed. Meanwhile, seniors have to 
continue to struggle and wait for prescription drug help. In addition, 
an independent commission which advises Congress about Medicare 
provider payments estimates that the

[[Page 3705]]

adjustments that are coming will consume half of this Medicare reserve 
fund that has been set aside for all three purposes.
  How long must American seniors wait to see a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit? I believe that this is not the way to treat the retirees 
of the greatest generation who worked hard, lived through a depression, 
won a war, raised their families and created the strongest economy in 
the world. They deserve access to the affordable drugs that they need 
to stay healthy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my Democratic colleagues in opposition 
to the budget on the floor today. I would like to talk about how 
unfairly this budget treats the senior citizens in our country.
  Last year the President and House Republicans went on record saying 
that the Social Security and Medicare surpluses should be protected and 
pushed several ``lockbox'' bills. However, this year their budget 
spends more than 86 percent of the Social Security surplus in the next 
five years and spends the entire Medicare surplus for the foreseeable 
future.
  While the Republicans want to send ``certificates'' to seniors 
guaranteeing that Social Security checks will keep arriving, they are 
raiding the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. Then they try to 
hide the extent of their invasion of these funds by using Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) numbers and obscuring from view the effects 
of their tax policies after 5 years. Seniors are not going to be swayed 
by this sham budget, especially when it puts their future and their 
health at risk.
  When I'm home in Wisconsin, one of the issues I hear about most 
(whether in the grocery store on main street or in listening sessions) 
is that middle class seniors cannot afford to pay for their 
prescription drugs. It is clear that this is a major source of worry 
and distress for seniors and their families.
  It is time for Congress to listen to our greatest generation and make 
affordable prescription drug coverage a priority. Unfortunately, a 
prescription drug benefit that is affordable for all Medicare 
beneficiaries is not a priority in this Republican budget.
  This budget replaces the President's inadequate proposal with its own 
inadequate proposal: What they're calling a Medicare reserve fund. 
Using numbers from the OMB, this budget claims to increase Medicare 
spending by $89 billion over 5 years, and $350 billion over 10 years. 
However, if we use the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) rather than 
OMB numbers, this increase is drastically reduced. Like the rest of the 
budget, using OMB numbers makes their increase in Medicare spending 
appear higher than it actually is.
  But if this were not enough, this budget also holds a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit hostage to Medicare ``reform'' and provider 
payment adjustments. The Medicare reserve fund can only be tapped when 
a proposal including ``modernization,'' prescription drugs, and 
provider payment adjustments is before the House for consideration. All 
three issues must be addressed before we can assist our seniors with 
the prescription drug crisis. A detailed plan for Medicare reform has 
not yet even been proposed. Meanwhile, seniors will have to continue to 
struggle and wait for a prescription drug benefit.
  In addition, an independent commission that advises Congress about 
Medicare provider payments, estimates that provider payment adjustments 
will consume half of the Medicare reserve fund that has been set aside 
for all three purposes.
  How long must American seniors wait to see a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit? I believe that this is not the way to treat the retirees 
of the greatest generation who worked hard, lived through the 
depression, won a war, raised their families and created the strongest 
economy in the world. They deserve access to the affordable drugs they 
need to stay healthy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed 
budget.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are with another variation of the three shell 
game. This budget purports to offer a prescription drug benefit. Now if 
we take the numbers of last year's program and look at how much the 
Congressional Budget Office says they will cost, it is $400 billion. Do 
we have $400 billion? No, we have $350 billion. But in Sunday's New 
York Times, many doctors say they are refusing Medicare patients 
because they are not being paid enough. Out of that $300 billion, we 
are going to pay for drug benefits, and we are going to pay for 
provider reimbursement. We are going to give more money to doctors and 
hospitals.
  If we use the Congressional Budget Office figures, we have only $124 
billion. So the reason the other side uses the OMB figures is because 
it is $350 billion. Which number would Members take? Of course the 
other side would take the $350 billion.
  If we look at this chart, we can see if we pay back the providers 
what we said we are going to give them, it costs $174 billion out of 
that $350 billion. If we are using the $124 billion, we cannot even 
cover the providers. The doctors alone cost $128 billion. So there is 
not enough money under this one to provide even for the doctors.
  Now, let us say we take the $350 billion and we say we are going to 
do only the doctors, so we are going to do $128 billion. That gives us 
what, 225, 222. Now, is that enough for a drug benefit? Remember, I 
said it was $400 billion to do a decent benefit? That is a benefit 
where seniors pay 50 percent and the government pays 50 percent. Do 
Members think that is an adequate benefit?
  There are 9 million widows in this country who live on Social 
Security. They make less than $10,000 a year off Social Security. They 
are supposed to come up with half the drug benefits. If they just have 
a few things, that is fine. But where are they going to get $1,000 or 
$2,000 to pay while the government pays the other $2,000?
  This simply is an inadequate benefit that they are talking about. Yet 
the other side tells the people, the President said in the campaign, we 
will have a prescription drug benefit. The President stood in this well 
twice and said we are going to have a prescription drug benefit. But 
there is no money. It is a shell game. They are hiding it and confusing 
people with statements, but the figures do not lie. Vote ``no'' on this 
thing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pence) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________