[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6874-6895]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

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

                              {time}  1340


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 and 
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 
2005 through 2013, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 3 hours, with 2 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on the 
subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and controlled 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 1 hour of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to begin by thanking our staff from the Committee on the 
Budget. They have worked enormously hard to bring us to this point in 
time where we are able to come to the floor to talk about the budget. 
Usually we reserve this to the end of the debate, but I just want to 
thank them because we are at a very unique time in our history. It 
requires some difficult choices. It requires us to analyze the 
situation very

[[Page 6875]]

carefully. We have good people that work for us in both the majority 
and minority. I want to thank them for the work that they do. They have 
been asked to do a job, they do it, they do it well, and we find 
ourselves on the floor ready to debate the bill on time and ready to 
debate the budget within the procedure that we laid out at the 
beginning of the year.
  Similarly, we ask young men and women overseas to do a job today. 
They are doing it in fine fashion. They represent us well. They 
represent our hopes and our dreams. They represent our freedom. They 
represent America. We are proud of our troops. We are proud of the job 
that they do, and we are proud that they do the job without blinking an 
eye, without any hesitation.
  I believe they would ask the same of us here today, that while there 
are certainly trials and tribulations that confound us around the world 
today, that we do our work, that we are not distracted by a tyrant in 
Baghdad, and we are not distracted by terrorism around the world. It 
would be very easy to be distracted by that. It would be very easy to 
suggest, let's maybe wait for another day. But I think what America 
demands is that we continue the work of freedom, we continue the work 
of democracy. That is what they are fighting for, and that is what we 
need to do as well.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at war. I did not have to practice that part of 
the speech because we were at war even before last night. We are at war 
against international terrorism. The President determined that soon 
after September 11, 2001. That war continues. The fact that we opened 
up another front last night and that we will continue to pursue that 
front should not deter us, and we need to plan for it within our 
budgets. We need to take that into consideration as we debate this 
budget here today. So we are debating a wartime budget at a time during 
very difficult economic challenges and at a time when we face deficits 
for this foreseeable future.

                              {time}  1345

  None of us, at least most of us, do not want deficits. In fact, I 
said in my very first opening statement at the committee this year that 
I do not like deficits, I do not want deficits, and I will not pretend 
to this body, to my colleagues, to the President, to the Senate, or to 
my constituents at home that deficits do not matter. However, we are 
faced with that; and all of the yelling and screaming and all of the 
finger-pointing in the world and all of the things that might go on 
here today will not change that fact, and in fact no one today is 
bringing forth a budget that balances today or even this year or even 
next year.
  In fact, none of the budgets before us balance, and there is a 
reason. Because this did not just happen overnight. While there are 
some who will come here today and blame and finger-point and suggest 
that the surpluses disappeared because of tax cuts, I would suggest 
that there are many reasons, many reasons why we face deficits here 
today.
  It is true that just 2 years ago we faced surpluses and we decided to 
do something about that. We made a very deliberate decision that when 
Washington has more resources than it needs to meet those challenges in 
peace time at that time, that it is appropriate to say let us get the 
economy going again. Remember where we were, the economy was sluggish. 
President Bush came into office facing a recession. So we decided we 
were going to reduce taxes and certainly the tax reduction did reduce 
the surplus. That is represented by this blue amount.
  But spending and the economy took most of the surplus and spending on 
what? An emergency. September 11, 2001, the emergency facing New York, 
the emergency facing the Pentagon, the emergency facing the airlines, 
the emergency facing homeland security. In an appropriate bipartisan 
response, every one of us came to the floor and said it is time to 
increase spending for those very appropriate purposes. And in addition 
to that in a bipartisan way, we came to the floor and said we need to 
cut taxes even further in order to stimulate the economy because the 
preattack recession got worse. So cheerfully, as a body, we decided it 
was time to spend a little bit more, stimulate the economy; and as a 
result, the tax cut took part of it, the spending took part of it, but 
the economic changes, the economy, the gut punch that each one of us 
faced whether it was home savings, whether it was increased prices 
around the kitchen table we had to deal with, whether it was just 
balancing our own budget around our kitchen table with our family, each 
one of us was affected by what happened in September of 2001, and 
certainly it affected our budget.
  So we can finger-point, and we can talk about the past, and we can 
talk about Reagan and Clinton and Bush and, I do not know, maybe 
somebody even mentioned Roosevelt here today. The fact of the matter is 
that we are in deficit and we have to do something about it. But we do 
not start behind the eight ball. We build upon some huge amounts of 
spending.
  Let me show what we have been doing the last 10 years around here. 
Cheerfully, and again oftentimes in a bipartisan way, look at the 
spending, each year increasing. In 1993 when President Clinton took 
office, we had a $1.4 trillion budget. What are we proposing today? 
$2.1 trillion, a 50 percent increase just since 1993, 4.5 percent each 
year. So when people go home and they start talking about how kids are 
going to be thrown out in the street and education is going to be cut 
and health care is going to be ruined, please remember that before we 
even talk about this year's budget, we have been increasing spending 
steadily during that period of time, and I will tell my colleagues when 
it really took off. When it really took off was when we got to balance 
in 1998.
  Let me show what I mean by that. If we take the spending that we 
control every year, called discretionary spending or the spending from 
the appropriation bills, discretionary spending was holding its own, 
holding its own as we tried to get to balance since we became the 
majority, and then at 1998 all of a sudden look at it take off. In 1998 
we had about $511 billion spent on discretionary spending, and just 
this last year in the bill that we just finished a month ago, we were 
at $768 billion, or an average of 7.7 percent each year since we 
reached balance. So when people talk about how, oh, boy, this cut is 
going to be tough or there might be ways that this could hurt folks or, 
boy, there is not a lot of waste, fraud abuse or excess, please 
remember that we build upon a huge base of spending in discretionary.
  Let us look at some of the individual programs. I have heard a lot of 
talk lately about how Medicare is being devastated by this budget, 
budgets that were proposed, budgets that we will vote on here today, 
and budgets that we will consider. Since 1995 when the Republicans took 
the majority of Congress, we have increased spending for Medicare 56 
percent. Was that appropriate? Yes. No one is suggesting it was not, 
but when people talk about how Medicare is being devastated, it is not 
because of the spending that Medicare is in trouble. It is because the 
way the program operates. I can tell you in Iowa people are very happy 
with Medicare; so to suggest that all we need to do is add more money 
into Medicare and everything will be fine does not recognize that Iowa 
does not get a fair shake from Medicare. Many other States, Wisconsin 
and others, do not get a fair shake from Medicare. So to suggest that 
all we need to do is pile more money on to Medicare, do not touch the 
program, just add more benefits and everything will be fine is sticking 
our heads in the sand. It will not work. But again we build upon some 
huge increases.
  I have heard Governors suggest that Medicaid is in trouble and how 
the Federal Government has not done its fair share with regard to 
Medicaid. Look at the Medicaid budget since we became the majority in 
1995. It was $89 billion of our budget. Today it has increased 77 
percent since we became the majority. We have supported the health care 
for the poor and the disabled in this country to the point now where 
again we will continue in this budget to increase Medicaid.

[[Page 6876]]

  Let us look at education because oftentimes education is used in a 
partisan way to suggest we do not care about children. Education 
spending under the Republican majority has doubled. It has doubled. 
Special education has tripled as a result of the Republican majority 
again as we move into this budget. This is what we build upon. There 
are accomplishments that we should be proud of. But when people whine 
and complain and suggest we are not spending enough, can we ask the 
question, what did we get for this? Which is why last year we said we 
need some accountability within our system and not just pour more money 
into it.
  I have a number of very important constituents in my district who are 
veterans who before last night did their part to defend America and 
give us the ability to stand here today in peace and freedom in this 
country and debate issues of importance. And what have we done for 
them? Again, we build upon some important accomplishments. Spending has 
grown 40 percent since we reached balanced budget, an average of 6.9 
percent each year. This budget will continue that trend with a 7 
percent increase for veterans healthcare spending.
  So let us look at what the budget is going to do. First of all, I 
want to put it into context. There is no question that we have three 
important issues as we come to the table today to discuss the budget, 
and some of these are even bipartisan, believe it or not. Number one is 
protecting America. There is not a person who is going to come to the 
floor today who does not feel that that is the most important thing 
that we do, and I compliment all of the budgets with regard to that 
issue. When it comes to homeland security, when it comes to national 
defense, certainly there will always be those who say we can do more. 
In fact, there has even been a few who have suggested that there is a 
lot of waste within the Pentagon, and I would concur with that. But at 
this time in our history where our men and women are in the 
battlefields of Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we need to make sure 
that we support them; and each one of the budgets that comes here today 
does just that. It also supports homeland security.
  The second most important issue that we have is making sure the 
economy gets growing again, making sure folks have a job. Because while 
we are going to talk a lot today about the Federal budget, we all know 
that the most important budget to each and every one of us is the one 
that I debate with my wife around my kitchen table and that my 
colleagues may debate with their families around their kitchen table 
and our constituents debate with their families around their kitchen 
table when they are trying to figure out how to pay the phone bill and 
the light bill and the college tuition and buy the clothes for their 
kids and the washer that breaks down or whatever it might be. That is 
the budget that matters; and if one does not have a job and if the 
economy is not growing in their household, it does not matter what we 
are debating.
  Get a fancy chart. It does not matter what the fancy chart says if 
one's checkbook does not balance. So unless our budget puts as a top 
priority getting the economy to grow and create jobs, we have failed, 
in my estimation, and that is why the most important second issue that 
we put forth today is getting the economy to grow. It used to be a 
slogan. I remember hearing it a few years back: ``It's the economy, 
stupid.'' Maybe that was not an appropriate way to say it, but the 
point of the matter was important. Make sure the economy is taken care 
of.
  The third issue, and it is an important one as we look forward into 
the future because again I think there is bipartisan support for this 
as well, and that is fiscal responsibility. We have all given 
spellbinding speeches about how the government cannot spend more than 
it takes in. But do my colleagues know what? There are some times when 
that has to happen, and by and large we agree when those times are. 
When there is a war, I do not think anybody begrudges anybody to borrow 
some money to do that. We have got to take care of business, and we 
will spend anything it takes to make sure we win and our folks have the 
right equipment and the right training. The second time we do it is 
when our country is under attack. Homeland security, again, each and 
every one of us came down here and cast a vote in support of homeland 
security spending even though it caused deficits. And there is another 
time we would do it, and that is when we have a recession or an 
economic downturn, and both parties during their histories have had to 
make that challenge. So while we are faced with those challenges, we 
still want to keep our eye on that fiscal responsibility.
  So how do we do it in this budget? We ask a simple thing. We say out 
of the billions of dollars that we spend around here, do the Members 
think we could find a penny on the dollar? Most people back home in 
Iowa tell me I bet we could find a nickel on the dollar. In fact, we 
have heard amazing stories of people who are deceased getting checks 
from the Veterans Administration. We have even heard of Social Security 
recipients who are overseas that we send a check to. We have heard 
about food stamps that have been stolen. We have heard about all sorts 
of crazy things involving credit cards at the Pentagon where people 
have been using it for their own personal expenses.
  Tell me there is not a penny on the dollar. Tell me that the earned 
income tax credit has not been abused. Tell me that Medicare, according 
to the General Accounting Office, has not had overpayments and 
erroneous payments. Tell me that at the end of the year bureaucrats do 
not run in to their boss and say, You know what? We have got extra 
money in our budget. We had better use it or we are going to lose it. 
And what we do in this budget is we say each and every committee can 
find that, and is it not now the time to find it when every State and 
every family and every business is doing the exact same thing? The 
Federal Government cannot do that too?
  So fiscal responsibility is an important part of it. But we are still 
going to hear people come to the floor today and talk about deep and 
devastating, ``excruciating'' was a word I have heard recently, deep 
and excruciating cuts. Let me show the Members what our budget does. 
First of all, total budget, here is our budget. This is where we 
actually are, and look what happens under the budget. It goes up every 
single year in total spending. So the total budget is not cut.
  Let us look at another area. Let us look at non-Social Security 
mandatory spending. What is that? That is Medicare and all the other, 
what we call, entitlements or automatic spending. Does that get cut? 
Every year it has been going up. Every year under the budget it 
continues to go up.

                              {time}  1400

  All right. Well that is not cut.
  Let us look at Medicare maybe, see if Medicare is cut. Under our 
budget, every year it goes up. In our budget it continues. In fact, we 
say let us modernize it and put in, for the fourth year in a row, a 
Republican version of a prescription drug package. We are the only body 
that has passed one, and we will do it again this year, to make sure we 
modernize the program and make sure that reimbursements and other 
modernizations for the Medicare program help ensure its seriousness as 
a health care delivery program for years into the future. So Medicare 
is not cut.
  Well, all right, let us look at total discretionary spending, which 
includes defense and homeland security. No, that is not cut. Every year 
it has gone up. In fact, look what happens here. Huge increases. It 
looks like it slows down here.
  Why does it slow down? Because this is where the budget asks for some 
relief. It says this first year, outside of defense and homeland 
security and veterans, we just want to look for a little bit of waste, 
just a little bit of waste.
  If there is a Member of Congress that goes home to tell their 
constituents that there is not any waste in Washington, I want you to 
ask them if they have read the volumes of General Accounting Office 
reports that indicate billions of dollars of waste, or the inspector 
generals that work for the departments that have identified billions

[[Page 6877]]

of dollars of waste, or if they have talked to the Congressional Budget 
Office or held hearings on this in committees, because until they do 
that, do not tell people that there is not wasteful Washington 
spending. We know there is. For the first time in quite a while, we go 
after it.
  Are we looking to cut some spending there? Yes. But do not believe 
that we are going to throw people out on the street. You do not have to 
do that in order to find the waste within the program. Everybody has 
heard about the $500 hammers and the toilet seats in the Pentagon and 
all those kinds of crazy programs that we hear about all the time. That 
is what we are asking people to go find, a penny on the dollar. That is 
not that much to ask, when we are at the same time running the kinds of 
deficits we find ourselves in.
  So protecting America, that is first; getting the economy to grow, 
that is an important second thing to do; third, let us do it in a 
fiscally responsible way. I believe if we build on those three 
functions, without raising taxes, without huge spending increases, I 
think we can get this under control, support our troops in the Gulf 
right now and around the world defending our freedom, and do so in a 
way that is fiscally responsible, and gets us back to balance in a very 
reasonable time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague calls this a wartime budget, but everyone 
should understand there is nothing in this budget to pay for the war in 
Iraq that is now underway. There is not even anything in this budget to 
pay for the war against global terrorism which is being waged in places 
like Afghanistan.
  The administration deliberately omitted any provision for those costs 
in this budget for various reasons. They claim that they could not 
estimate accurately what those costs are likely to be, but we all know 
that there will be what we call in this House a supplemental 
appropriation coming, and it will run into billions of dollars, maybe 
50- to $100 billion for the war in Iraq itself, and after that the 
postwar occupation will cost, the CBO says, between $1.8 billion a 
month and $3.8 billion a month.
  We have a huge, huge cost item that is not included here. I say that 
because everyone should understand that there is no surplus left in 
this budget. My friends, proposing a tax cut now that is as large as 
the last tax cut we undertook in 2001 will only drive the bottom line 
of the budget deeper and deeper by the proposals they have made here.
  Two years ago, we had the happy circumstance of a budget that was 
$5.6 trillion in surplus, or so we were told by our forecasters at the 
Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration. Two years 
later, we open this budget season on a somber note, not just being at 
war, that is a grave situation, but that $5.6 trillion surplus, 
according to the Office of Management and Budget, is gone.
  First of all, they said we overstated the surplus by at least $3.2 
billion. The real surplus was not $5.6. We are now told it is about 
$2.4 trillion over the time period 2002 through 2011. Of that $2.4 
trillion, OMB tells us $2.5 trillion has already been committed, mostly 
to tax cuts undertaken in 2001, and, to some extent, to defense 
spending increases and other spending increases. But, in any event, the 
surplus is gone.
  We are actually in deficit as we stand here, and everybody is on 
notice that every dollar of additional tax reduction that you decree in 
this budget resolution will go straight to the bottom line. It will go 
straight into the deficit and add to the deficit, dollar for dollar. 
Knowing this, there is no way around it. What our Republican colleagues 
propose is they propose another $1.35 trillion in tax reductions, tax 
cuts, which will go straight to the bottom line and add to the deficit.
  Here is the situation: This is the first table in CBO's analysis of a 
couple of weeks ago of the President's budget, which was sent to us 
about a month ago. Strikingly, if you add from 2002, the first fiscal 
year that the Bush administration was in office, through 2013, which is 
the last year in our 10-year budget time frame, the total amount of 
deficits that the Bush administration's fiscal policies will yield is 
$5.158 trillion. That is what they propose to add to this national debt 
under the Bush administration.
  Now, my Republican colleagues, and I will give them part credit, saw 
this number, and I think they could not stomach it themselves, $5.158 
billion under the Bush administration's fiscal policies. They undertook 
to provide some offsets. They did not give up the tax cut. No, they 
went with the full tax cut, or slightly less, but they undertook to 
come up with some offsets.
  The first thing they proposed to do was to tell the Committee on Ways 
and Means, which has jurisdiction over Medicare, and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, cut $372 
billion out of those two programs.
  They have now relented and backed off their own proposal. They 
reduced the instruction to the Committee on Ways and Means from $262 
billion to about $62 billion, and they have reduced the instruction to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce from $110 billion to $107 billion. 
But both of those cuts could come out of the two health care 
entitlements that we have in this country that so many people, maybe 
from 50- to 60 million to 80- to 90 million people, are dependent on. 
That is what they propose to do.
  This budget says a lot about priorities. What happens with the rest 
of the budget in order to make room for this tax cut?
  In saying it is a wartime budget, they attempt to make room in the 
rest of the budget, at least partially, to offset this enormous tax cut 
of $1.350 trillion. What does that mean? That means they cut with 
abandon, left and right. They cut our young, our children, in terms of 
education; they cut our seniors in terms of Medicare and Medicaid; and 
they cut some of the most worthy citizens in our society, the sick and 
disabled veterans. They put an instruction in this budget, which I 
cannot believe, and neither can any veterans' organization in America, 
to cut $15 billion out of veterans' disability compensation and some 
$12 billion to $13 billion out of veterans' health care facilities. 
They cut education by $40 billion below what is necessary just to keep 
it level with inflation. They cut Medicaid, as I said.
  All of this is necessary to accommodate their tax cut. It is not 
necessary because of the budget circumstances we find ourselves in. 
This is self-inflicted pain. Yes, it will be painful if these cults are 
made, you had better believe it, but they are not necessary. You do not 
have to make them.
  To prove it we have come up with a budget resolution about a better 
bottom line. We get to a surplus in the year 2010. It takes them until 
2012 to get to a surplus. In the process of getting there, we have a 
lower deficit every year than they do, we accumulate $851 billion over 
10 years less in national debt than they do, and we adequately provide 
for education. We do not eviscerate Medicare, we do not cut Medicaid, 
because it is already strained as it is, and we certainly do not cut 
our veterans in a time of war, or any time, for that matter, by $30 
billion in just mindless cuts.
  So there is an alternate way. There is a better budget. It is a 
fiscally more responsible budget, and it meets the obligations we have. 
Members of this House today have a stark choice, a clear choice, in 
terms of values, in terms of fiscal responsibility. The right vote is 
our budget resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The 
Federal budget reflects our priorities. It demonstrates our values, our 
commitments to those less fortunate in our society, and our ideas for 
building a better America for our children and our grandchildren.
  The Republican budget resolution before us today makes a mockery of

[[Page 6878]]

these ideals. It would not spur economic growth, it would underfund the 
country's critical challenges, and it would lead to chronic deficits 
for the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say I find it incredulous that this resolution 
is before us today. Just last night hostilities began against Iraq. We 
are asking our men and women in uniform to make incredible sacrifices, 
including leaving their families behind, to serve their country. Sadly, 
we worry that some may make the ultimate sacrifice. But where is the 
sacrifice from those who benefit from these tax cuts? Many of them are 
the wealthiest in our society. This is shameful.
  The Republican resolution embraces the administration's irresponsible 
tax cut package that will not encourage economic growth, and this 
country simply cannot afford it. These provisions are ill-considered 
and so unfair to the vast majority of working American families. They 
should be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I say this as one who has often voted for tax cuts, 
including the last tax bill. I believed then and I believe now there 
were many excellent provisions in that measure, but we were also in a 
very different time.
  The huge surpluses have morphed into huge deficits, and we are now in 
a war on terrorism and in Iraq, both of which will have huge mounting 
costs. The cost of the war in Iraq is not even mentioned in this 
budget. And our domestic challenges, prescription drugs, education, 
veterans' health care, are still unmet.
  We should not proceed with more tax cuts while we face chronic 
deficits and critical unmet domestic and international challenges.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to my moderate Republican 
friends. Many of you have spoken convincingly on this floor about the 
dangers of unchecked deficit spending and the irresponsibility of 
passing these costs on to our children. We have worked together on 
countless issues, like funding for schools, protecting our environment 
and addressing rural health care issues. I know you are all deeply 
committed to meeting the needs of this country, and doing so in a 
fiscally responsible manner.
  I do not see how you can support this budget. The tax cuts called for 
in this budget will bring endless deficits, robbing us of our ability 
to meet our country's needs now and for the foreseeable future.
  We can do better. We need to reject this Republican budget today.
  I believe that the Spratt substitute meets the priorities that our 
country values. The tax cuts are targeted to those which will jump-
start our economy. Programs are funded, education and veterans' health 
care and the environment, that the people of this country need and 
demand, and this is done in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to reject the Republican 
budget and to vote for and support the Spratt substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, now that the military campaign to disarm 
Saddam Hussein has begun, our thoughts and prayers go out to the young 
men and women in uniform as well as to their families. May they 
complete their mission quickly and decisively so they can return home 
soon and safe.
  Yet here we are today in this Chamber to consider a fantasy budget. 
It is ludicrous for the House leadership to move forward with this 
budget debate by ignoring the issue of the day, Iraq, and the cost of 
that campaign, merely to lock in huge tax cuts and offer unrealistic 
spending cuts to health care, education and veterans' services.

                              {time}  1415

  We know the proposed Draconian cuts will not happen, but we also know 
that the President will send an emergency supplemental spending request 
for Iraq shortly to us and demand that a check be sent back 
immediately, and it will be, because we all do support our troops 
during this time.
  But this is the classic recipe for exploding budget deficits as far 
as the eye can see; it's the height of fiscal irresponsibility 
occurring at exactly the wrong moment during our Nation's history when 
80 million of our Americans, the so-called baby boomers, are rapidly 
approaching retirement age, a demographic time bomb ready to explode. 
That is why the Republican budget proposal, in effect, constitutes 
taxation without representation, because it will be our children and 
our grandchildren who will be asked to pay for this fiscal mess. I 
couldn't think of doing anything more unfair to them.
  As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to 
leave a legacy of debt for them or future generations to climb out of. 
Our Democratic alternative, however, anticipates this demographic time 
bomb by achieving balance by 2010, while offering an economic stimulus 
plan now, which is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our 
troops, but it also supports our Nation's veterans, our seniors, and 
our children's education programs.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute. I would 
call on the leadership in the House to pull their budget resolution so 
that we can have an honest debate with honest figures, factoring in the 
cost of the Iraq operation. I encourage my colleagues to support the 
substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is a failed 
economic plan.
  Fourteen months ago, this body passed a tax cut worth $1 trillion, a 
little over $1 trillion; and the net result has been 2.5 million 
Americans without work, 4 million Americans without health insurance, 
nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, 
and 2 million more Americans have left the middle class for poverty. 
That is the net economic result and the economic effect felt by 
America's families.
  In this budget resolution, Members of this body will be asked to vote 
for only 5,000 new units for affordable housing here in America. Yet, 3 
weeks from now, 4 weeks from now in the reconstruction budget for Iraq, 
we will provide 20,000 units in Iraq. This budget calls for no new 
spending for health care for the uninsured who work full-time in 
America, yet the Iraqi reconstruction will call for $13 million, half 
the population of Iraq, to have basic health care, 100 percent 
maternity coverage; yet we cut Medicare and Medicaid in this budget 
resolution. In the area of education, the Iraqi reconstruction calls 
for 25,000 new schools to be rebuilt, yet we zero out 40 programs here 
in America.
  I will support and work towards the reconstruction and funding for 
the reconstruction of Iraq because it is the right thing to do after 
this war when it is over, and we will win it successfully. But I want 
that same commitment, that same emphasis for here at home. Iraq 
matters; Illinois matters and the people there.
  We need an economic plan that invests in America, our education, our 
health care, and puts our fiscal house back in order. That is what the 
proposal from my good colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt), has, is an economic plan that is balanced. It seizes the 
future by investing in the right areas of health care, education, and 
the environment, puts our fiscal house back in order so we can meet the 
needs of our retirement and our plans for the future.
  What we are about to do today is the wrong choice for America's 
future. We will be asked in the next 3 weeks to do right by what we 
need to do in Iraq. Let us be balanced in our approach.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I would like to thank the gentleman for all of 
his hard work and his leadership during these very trying times.
  Mr. Chairman, when we as a House pass a budget, we are outlining our 
priorities as a House and a Nation. Sadly, this irresponsible budget 
fails to accurately reflect the priorities of my constituents or of 
this Nation.
  This is an irresponsible budget that passes on our problems and our 
deficits

[[Page 6879]]

to our children and our grandchildren while, at the same time, failing 
to invest in our children and grandchildren by underfunding education.
  Last Congress we were all speaking about the importance of children 
and education. We said, we do not want to leave a child behind, and yet 
that is exactly what this budget does. We cannot shortchange this 
priority; we must invest in our children.
  This budget also shortchanges our veterans. Our veterans have made 
great personal sacrifices, and we have a responsibility to serve our 
retired military personnel, just as they served our country. At a time 
when we have sent our men and women into harm's way, what better way to 
honor their service and to show them how valued they are than by 
treating their predecessors with respect and dignity. Not one soldier 
who puts his or her life on the line should have to worry about whether 
he or she will get health care when he or she returns from battle.
  Finally, this is a budget that fails to adequately protect our 
homeland security. Our first responders, our police, our fire, our 
emergency personnel should be our priority; but they are not a priority 
in this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
stand up for our children, to stand up for our veterans, and to stand 
up for the safety of our communities. Show us what your priorities are. 
Support the Spratt amendment and oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, today we have before us one of the most 
irresponsible budgets I have seen. Republicans have made their 
priorities crystal clear. Their number one priority in this budget is 
making room for a $1.35 trillion tax cut that will benefit the very 
wealthiest of Americans. They are doing this at the expense of programs 
that constitute the very safety net of this country and on the backs of 
hard-working Americans.
  This careless Republican budget will have dire ramifications for 
many. Republicans cut most education programs by 8.3 percent. They 
reduced the maximum Pell grant award. They do not provide enough money 
for a meaningful prescription drug benefit. They cut funding for the 
National Institutes of Health by over $3 billion, and would reduce 
Medicaid spending by $163 billion. This is irresponsible.
  To make matters worse, at this very moment, this country is at war. 
We have nearly a quarter million servicemembers deployed near Iraq. 
Despite this, Republicans have proposed $14.6 billion in cuts to 
veterans programs. We must stop neglecting the health care needs of our 
veterans. We promised to eliminate the VA case backlog that is 
currently at a point near crisis. We must deliver the quality health 
care that was promised to those who have served to protect American 
lives and interests around the world.
  For far too long, the Federal Government has turned its back on our 
Nation's veterans and the promises made to them. The cuts proposed in 
the Republican budget for essential veterans programs are 
unconscionable. The Democratic alternative addresses the rising demand 
for veterans health care by providing more funding than the President's 
budget and the House Republican budget in each of the next 10 years, a 
total of $4.3 billion above the President's budget and $16.2 billion 
more than the House Republican budget.
  It is clear that the Republican budget in no way honors our 
commitment to the health of our veterans. Today's men and women in the 
service, today's men and women in uniform, today's men and women in 
Iraq are tomorrow's veterans. Will the promises we made today be empty 
tomorrow?
  When the government makes promises to ensure the health of our 
veterans, it ought to keep them. For that reason, we should vote ``no'' 
for this Republican budget resolution and ``yes'' for the Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget 
resolution, the most irresponsible budget in our Nation's history.
  The budget is antijobs, antigrowth, antifamilies. It adds almost $3 
trillion to the public debt. It undermines our Nation's savings, 
investment, growth, jobs, and retirement security, and will do serious 
long-term damage to our economy, compromising our ability to address 
the most serious challenges that face us.
  And it does this all in the name of $1.4 trillion in tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans and corporations, two-thirds of which would flow 
to people who have an income above $350,000. These tax cuts are paid 
for on the backs of disabled veterans, nutrition programs, children 
participating in the school lunch program, college loan assistance, 
$670 billion in cuts vital to services that people in this country are 
interested in.
  This administration also seriously endangers the public health by 
starving agencies that are responsible for protecting our environment, 
funding that is needed in order to enforce our environmental laws. It 
cuts Superfund cleanup, water quality, clean air, water funding, cuts 
of $3.1 billion in all.
  This administration continues to undermine the credibility of our 
environmental statutes by failing to enforce vital environmental 
requirements. Penalties for violations of environmental laws have 
decreased precipitously since the Bush administration took office, with 
the amount of the average penalty dropping by more than half.
  Mr. Chairman, asthma is currently the most common chronic disease in 
children. The EPA conservatively estimates that 15,000 premature deaths 
occur each year due to the exposure to air pollution. The National 
Resources Defense Council puts the number at 60,000. That tells us that 
environmental protection matters, that this budget and these cuts have 
real consequences for every American family and child. By putting a 
$1.4 trillion tax cut ahead of the public health, this budget will have 
catastrophic effects on pollution enforcement efforts. It does not 
reflect our values as a Nation and our priorities as a people. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, as I said, we built our budget upon three 
principles, the first of which is protecting America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry) to discuss that issue.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and commend him 
for the amazing job he is doing in a difficult situation.
  Mr. Chairman, today, of course, our thoughts and our prayers and our 
admiration are with those young men and women who are in the Middle 
East, risking their lives to help make us and the rest of the world 
more secure. We have absolutely the finest military in the world, and I 
have no doubt that they will make the most of the tools that we help 
provide them to do their job.
  Part of our job today is to begin to work to support them for the 
fiscal year 2004. Now, that is not an easy thing to do, because 
obviously, there is a lot going on in the world. We continue to fight 
the war on terrorism on several different fronts; and of course, we 
have the military activity in Iraq today.
  So for us to predict ahead exactly what the military situation is 
going to be or what the homeland security situation is going to be in 
2004 is not an easy thing to do. But what this budget does is to fully 
support, completely support the request of the President for defense 
and homeland security.
  Now, it may be that extra funding is required for homeland security 
or defense when we get there. We have heard folks on the other side 
talk a lot about supplementals for 2003, but what we are focused on now 
is what is the appropriate amount in this budget to help keep America 
secure for 2004, given what we know now.

                              {time}  1430

  This budget supports the President. It is important to say that no 
amount

[[Page 6880]]

of money can guarantee absolute safety. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that 
there is sometimes a tendency for us in Congress to spread money around 
liberally.
  However, part of our responsibility, particularly with homeland 
security, is to make sure that money can be used well and effectively 
and really makes us safer; not just replacing one dollar with another 
dollar, but really makes us safer. So that is what this budget tries to 
do. It tries to advance three important goals with national security: 
to win the war on terrorism, to protect America's homeland, and to help 
prepare for future challenges.
  First, of course, the war on terrorism is on the forefront of our 
minds with the operations in Iraq and the continuing efforts to deal 
with terrorists all around the world. This budget makes a clear 
commitment supporting the President to make sure that we provide our 
Nation with the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective military 
force anywhere in the world.
  It allocates $380 billion for the Department of Defense. That is an 
increase of $15 billion over this year. It includes a substantial pay 
raise for our military. It includes substantial increases for operation 
and maintenance. It includes substantial increases for the weapons 
systems we buy. As a matter of fact, it is the highest procurement 
budget ever in the history of the country. It includes nearly $10 
billion to help us develop and deploy defenses against ballistic 
missiles.
  We have already seen in the Iraq conflict missiles of various ranges, 
and the threat that that can pose. Of course, there are other places in 
the world where that is important.
  As pointed out, this budget does not include the direct operational 
costs of military engagement in Iraq because this is the 2004 budget. 
We will probably have a supplemental to deal with the 2003 costs here, 
but this is giving us the baseline for 2004.
  A second goal is to help protect America's homeland. There is more 
than $40 billion here to help do that. It includes things like programs 
to buy vaccines for smallpox and anthrax and other sorts of biological 
warfare.
  It includes $1.7 billion to help improve our border safety, which is 
absolutely critical to homeland security. It continues to put money 
into the Transportation Security Administration for air travel and 
other things, to make sure that our air travel and other transportation 
systems are safe.
  It includes $3.5 billion in first responder training and equipment. 
There are other programs not included in the $3.5 billion, for example, 
in the Department of Justice, in the Centers for Disease Control, that 
also help local folks be ready to make our country safer. Again, this 
budget supports the President's request to try to use money smartly to 
make sure that we are really safer.
  Thirdly, it helps to prepare for future challenges. With all that is 
going on in the world, we have to remember that there are other 
challenges ahead. We cannot see them clearly, but we know we have to do 
the research and development and training and testing and joint 
exercises for the military that help us prepare for that future day. So 
there is $61.8 billion for military research and development.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, for today and tomorrow, this budget helps make 
America safer.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we, too, fully fund homeland security. By the best of 
our reckoning, we are providing at least $24 billion over and above the 
increase that the President is providing. It is allocated among lots of 
different functions: community and regional development, the Justice 
Department. We have identified and also specified in a sense of the 
Congress that we have $24 billion there.
  In addition, we have put into our budget resolution the stimulus 
proposal that we made on January 6 of this year. If it were adopted, 
there would be $10 billion for the States to undertake homeland 
security projects in places like seaports, which were woefully 
underprovided for.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to everyone that in 
doing our budget, we have left a contingency reserve of $54 billion. It 
could be used for lots of things; but it could be used, among other 
things, for homeland defense and for national defense generally, if and 
when a supplemental comes.
  I want to make it clear there is very, very little difference between 
us when it comes to national security, not at a time like this. We are 
fully providing for homeland security, and then some, in particular.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina for yielding time to me.
  I am acutely aware, Mr. Chairman, that we are debating a budget at a 
time when the attention of this country is diverted thousands of miles 
abroad. It is a reality that much of what we say here today will be 
drowned out by the drumbeat of attention around the war.
  However, it is my opinion that what we do and say today will not 
permanently go unnoticed. There will be a time when the attention of 
our constituents comes back home to the shores of the United States of 
America. When that time comes, I would submit to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, they will not understand what it is that this 
budget seeks to do.
  They will not understand that this budget asks us to cut a quarter 
billion dollars from Medicare at a time when the health of our seniors 
requires that Medicare be strengthened and not weakened. They will not 
understand cutting $100 billion from Medicaid at a time when our States 
are crying out for relief. They will not understand a budget that 
breaks a promissory note to our children by cutting funding for No 
Child Left Behind. They will not understand a budget that breaks faith 
with our veterans in a time of war by cutting $15 billion for veterans 
programs. They will not understand a budget that cuts the thread of the 
safety net at a time when millions of Americans are struggling through 
economic anxiety.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, in a climate when so many of our people would 
have us do more to relieve their struggle, this budget would have us do 
less. There are undoubtedly some who think a wartime budget is 
incapable of being generous to the American people, but I would say in 
response that the forcefulness of our international will must be 
matched by the force of our commitment to the needs of our own people.
  Our constituents will not reward this body if the reconstruction of 
another country is allowed to crowd out the pressing need to 
reconstruct this country and to make it whole.
  There are reasoned arguments, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all the 
Democratic alternatives today, but I would submit in conclusion that 
there is no argument that reflects this country's values that can fully 
be made on behalf of the Republican majority budget today. It is wrong, 
stunningly wrong, in its lack of ambition for the American people. It 
is wrong in its lack of compassion for those who are struggling in our 
society. It is wrong at wartime, just as it is in peacetime.
  This budget leaves far too many Americans behind. It leaves far too 
many Americans, it leaves far too many States, who are struggling to 
fend for themselves. I would say this, Mr. Chairman: no country can be 
truly strong when too many of its people are weak. That is the 
obligation of this Congress today.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, in Washington sometimes people define cuts not as less 
money than the year before, but as decreases in anticipated increases. 
The gentleman who just spoke has issued yet a new one, that is, if we 
used to have a draft of a budget that possibly found some savings, now 
we can come and claim that as a cut. We are not cutting Medicare; we 
are increasing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Ryun) to continue the discussion on national defense.

[[Page 6881]]


  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his hard 
work on this budget.
  I rise in support of the Republican budget passed by the Committee on 
the Budget because this budget has the right priorities. Every dollar 
spent by the Federal Government during these challenging economic times 
should be very carefully evaluated. When times are tight, we must 
prioritize, rooting out waste and abuse of government spending.
  This budget holds the total spending increase to 3.1 percent. This is 
a modest increase that leads back to balance in 9 years. While I 
believe we could root out even more waste in Federal spending to 
maintain greater fiscal discipline, this budget takes a responsible 
step to keep us from passing even more debt to our children and to our 
grandchildren.
  Especially at this time in our Nation's history, we are all too aware 
that a strong defense is necessary for the survival of our freedom. Key 
to our defense are the brave men and women who serve in our Armed 
Forces. We must retain our most experienced personnel and compensate 
them accordingly. This budget provides $98.6 billion for pay and 
benefits. It will allow for pay raises ranging from 2 percent to 6.5 
percent, targeted by rank and years of experience.
  As we are becoming aware of new threats to the safety here at home, 
we must ensure that new defenses are developed. This budget meets the 
President's request for $9.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency to 
begin the development of defenses against long-range ballistic missile 
threats. This would provide a near-term defense against North Korean 
missiles.
  Why is this critical? North Korea has already threatened our 
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and resumed 
missile testing. The CIA has reported that the Koreans are working on a 
missile that could hit the west coast of the United States, and they 
are widely suspected of beginning the process of taking the spent fuel 
rods from the reactor to extract plutonium.
  It is clear that the need for missile defense is no longer in the 
realm of hypothetical. Developments like these missiles make a missile 
defense system critical to ensuring and securing our future. The 
Republican budget puts us on path to develop a missile defense system 
for next year.
  I urge my colleagues to support this fiscally sound policy and 
support this particular bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
his hard work on this budget this year. I know it was a difficult time 
to have to face the budget restraints at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget on veterans 
affairs for fiscal year 2004. As a member of both the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to lend 
my support to a budget resolution that fulfills America's promise to 
her veterans. There are currently 26 million veterans living in this 
country. This budget clearly reflects our solid commitment to them.
  This resolution on the budget accepts the President's increase in 
funding providing an increase of $1.6 billion or 6.1 percent over last 
year. This represents the largest annual increase ever proposed by a 
President.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest direct health 
care delivery system in the country. Managing the large increase in the 
demands for veterans' health care services has consistently been the 
Department of Veterans Affairs greatest challenge. This budget meets 
the challenge as it accepts the President's request of $25.2 billion, 
an increase of $1.3 billion, or an increase of 5.6 percent in funding 
for veterans health care benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not let the other side of the aisle lead us 
to believe that we are leaving our veterans out. The number one 
commitment for my service in Congress is to look after the veterans and 
their families.
  To achieve primary care access standards that compliment the quality 
standards of veterans health care, this budget allows for a sharper 
focus in the veterans health care system. Waiting times for an 
appointment at a VA medical clinic are as long as 1 year in some areas. 
Secretary Principi has pledged that this backlog for medical care will 
be eliminated by 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, let us give the Secretary an opportunity to bring 
accountability to this organization.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Brown), that this resolution on the floor calls for $15 
billion in cost reduction of the veterans health care system. It also 
calls for a $15 billion decrease in mandatory programs, which means 
veterans' disability compensation.
  We can argue over what is an increase or decrease, but every veterans 
organization in this town thinks that they are being hit and hit hard 
by this budget resolution. There is no doubt about it; it is still 
about a $28 billion or $29 billion hit after the minor modification the 
gentleman made to make this resolution presentable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget for his tireless work 
in putting together a responsible budget.
  We did not have a lot to work with, Mr. Chairman, because the other 
side has already taken nearly $2 trillion off the table in the tax cuts 
they have already enacted. That is why we could not come up with a 
budget that was responsible last year. We have come up with a budget 
this year that is the best that America can do under the circumstances.
  Let me compare the two budgets. In the first place, in our budget, 
the Democrats achieve a balanced budget by 2010, 2 years earlier than 
the Republican budget. More importantly, Republicans incur $821 billion 
more of public debt than the Democratic budget. Which is the party of 
fiscal responsibility?
  The Democratic budget has a fair, a fast-acting, and a fiscally 
responsible stimulus. None of these criteria is true for the Republican 
so-called economic growth package. In fact, less than 5 percent of the 
Republican economic growth package even occurs this year, when we are 
in a recession, when we need the stimulus. It does not happen. Yet our 
budget costs one-sixth as much as the Republican so-called economic 
growth package. We have $136 billion going straight into the economy 
this year, as opposed to only $42 billion from the Republican budget.

                              {time}  1445

  This is what people want to know. What is the budget going to do for 
me and my family? How is it going to help me get a job and be able to 
contribute back to this economy?
  The Bipartisan Joint Economic Committee says that, in fact, the 
Democratic economic stimulus package, at one-sixth the cost, would 
generate 1,122,000 more jobs; the Republican budget half as much. For 
one-sixth the cost we generate twice as many jobs.
  Many people have talked about the Medicare prescription drug issue. I 
think as people look at the Republican plan, they are going to see this 
is not an acceptable plan. We have a plan that, in fact, will provide 
prescription drug benefits to people who truly need them at a cost they 
can afford.
  The last major area where we have a vastly different budget policy is 
in what we call nondefense domestic discretionary spending. That is the 
American people would take the big hit under the Republican budget. The 
President's budget already cut over $100 billion from the current 
services level over the next decade. This budget comes in and doubles 
that, $265 billion coming from the current services level right now. 
What does that mean? Let us go beyond the numbers. Let us look at the 
faces, the faces of the people that deserve and need help, veterans, 
poor mothers and kids on Medicaid, students' loans, retirees' pension 
cuts. This is what we are going to hear about in the debate. This is 
what is important. Pass the Democrat's budget proposal.

[[Page 6882]]


  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the committee.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
budget. The Committee on the Budget has passed a resolution that 
strikes the balance between the needs and the desires of this House and 
of the people of this country to provide for a better quality of life 
for all of us.
  Since September 11, we have realized the threat of terrorism, a 
threat that is so great and so different than any before us. It knows 
no boundaries with regard to where it will strike and what time, and it 
certainly places no value on human life, and today, for that reason, we 
must step forward and address that threat.
  After the vicious attack of September 11, we realized that we had to 
take immediate action to close the gaps in our homeland defense. We had 
to unify our efforts from the national to the State, county and local 
efforts, and this budget resolution takes a long step in getting that 
job done.
  What this resolution does do is fully funds the President's request 
to defend our Nation against further terrorist attack. What this 
resolution does do is provide $41 billion in total homeland security 
funding.
  As part of that effort, what the resolution does is provide in the 
budget $3.5 billion in funding. That is a $3 billion increase to ensure 
that every first responder is trained and has the equipment necessary 
to get the job done. More specifically, in the resolution it provides 
$500 million in grants to first responders so that they will have the 
equipment necessary should they have to respond to a terroristic 
threat, and the bill would also provide $500 million for State and 
local law enforcement with regard to terrorism prevention initiatives 
as well.
  Moving closer to home, in New Jersey, we have just 10 miles from 
Bergen County a nuclear power plant. This resolution provides us with 
$619 million in an effort to protect our nuclear power plants across 
the Nation because we know there are nuclear power plants, if they were 
ever struck, would have a devastating impact on all citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just in closing say that we must move ahead on 
this resolution. Support this resolution. Protect the quality of life 
and homeland security for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the House budget resolution for 
fiscal year 2004. Last week, in the early morning hours, I along with 
my fellow colleagues on the House Budget Committee passed a resolution 
that strikes a balance among America's competing demands, weigh desires 
against needs and sets a plan to fund programs that improve the quality 
of life for all Americans.
  Since September 11, our country has realized the threat of a new wave 
of terrorism. A threat so great that it knows no boundary to whom or 
where it strikes and places no value on human life. And today, we are 
still at risk to this new and changing threat. This is a war, the likes 
of which no nation has ever faced before.
  To protect our communities and neighborhoods, we must continue to 
take the necessary steps to develop a national, State, and local 
strategy for homeland security. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2004 
budget that is before us is committed to making our homeland safe.
  Homeland security is an important priority and our budget fully funds 
President Bush's request to defend our Nation against further terrorist 
attacks. By providing $41 billion in total homeland security spending, 
this budget provides the newly created Department of Homeland Security 
and related agencies with all the resources necessary to protect our 
homeland from terrorist attacks.
  As part of our continued commitment to America's First Responders, 
our budget proposes $3.5 billion--a $3 billion increase over fiscal 
year 2003, to ensure every first responder is properly trained and 
equipped. Mr. Chairman, this budget provides a significant increase for 
the nearly 3 million State and local First Responders who regularly put 
their lives on the line day after day to protect the lives of others 
and make our country safer.
  More specifically, we have provided $500 million in grants to 
firefighters for health and safety equipment and vehicles as they 
prepare to respond to possible future terrorist incidents. And we have 
also included an additional $500 million for State and local law 
enforcement terrorism prevention initiatives. Finally, there is $181 
million for the Citizen Corps initiative to engage individuals in 
helping communities prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters of 
all kinds, including terrorist attacks.
  Our nuclear power plants if struck would also prove devastating to 
all citizens. This budget provides $619 million in an effort to protect 
our nuclear power plants across the country, including Indian Point 
Nuclear Plant less than 10 miles from Bergen County, NJ.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget also provides the Coast Guard with $5.7 
billion--an increase of $503 million to ensure that they have the 
adequate resources necessary to better protect our ports, cargo, and 
coastal areas. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to securing our homeland, 
the Coast Guard serves a vital and significant mission. In this post-
September 11 world, where only 2 percent of the cargo that enters our 
ports is actually screened, we have created a budget that fully 
supports our Coast Guard as a component of the National Strategy for 
Homeland Security.
  Specifically, this budget provides $65 million to deploy six new 
Maritime Safety and Security Teams to respond to terrorist threats or 
incidents in domestic ports and waterways and $20 million to hire 
additional personnel for search and rescue and shore based command 
centers.
  Mr. Chairman, for all of the cargo that enters the Ports of Newark 
and Elizabeth, in New Jersey, the third largest in the United States 
and the premier port on the eastern seaboard, I strongly urge my fellow 
colleagues in the House to support this budget.
  As we continue to be engaged in the newest and most difficult war of 
the 21st century, it has become a day to day responsibility that we are 
ready on a permanent basis to protect our country. And we owe it to 
every national, State, and local homeland security employee, as well as 
ourselves and our families that we give them the support they need to 
protect America.
  After the vicious attacks of September 11, 2001, we realize we had to 
take immediate action to close the gaps in our defenses on land, sea 
and in the air. We had to unify our homeland security efforts under one 
roof and under one chain of command. To meet the ever changing threat, 
we had to be able to immediately deploy the men and women of the 
homeland security department wherever and whenever they were needed.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget does just that. There is no doubt in my 
mind that by working together, demonstrating courage and a strong moral 
character we will prevail in this war against terror.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to yield blocks of time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
for the time, and for his good work on this budget. It is a matter of 
economic security.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the easiest way that we can ensure 
economic security to this Nation is to pass a budget that actually 
balances. The other side will argue that theirs does, but we know that 
it does not, not unless we use the Social Security Trust Fund to pay 
down the debt, and that is not really balancing. It is breaking a 
promise to the American people and raiding a priority to pay for a 
select tax expenditure.
  In this time of sacrifice, we are debating the passage of a budget 
that increases the debt and takes money away from programs that help 
our most deserving, our seniors and our veterans.
  This budget cuts almost $107 billion from the Medicaid program and 
$62 billion from the Medicare program, and in this time of war, this 
budget cuts our veterans programs by $30 billion.
  I received a letter today from one of my constituents, Florence 
Newton from Humboldt County, California, a retired marine, who sent me 
an article that talks about the 7-month wait for veterans to get an 
appointment with the VA, and she asks is there not something we can do 
about this? She describes the situation with one word, unconscionable, 
and she is right. It is unconscionable that we are slashing these 
critical programs, and it is even

[[Page 6883]]

more unconscionable that we are doing so to finance a $1.6 trillion tax 
expenditure.
  Today, the Blue Dogs will introduce an alternative that does balance 
the budget and does so without raiding Social Security. It adopts the 
spending level in the President's budget proposal, reserves money for 
the Medicare prescription drug program, provides immediate and targeted 
tax relief to all taxpayers, particularly those middle-class families, 
and it has $1.35 trillion less debt than the Republican budget, 
reducing the amount of money we spend on paying interest on the debt, 
which currently costs us $1 billion a day, reducing it by $250 billion.
  It acknowledges the fact that we are a Nation at war. It pays for the 
war, and it provides funding, $24 billion for our veterans programs. 
This means funding for discretionary veterans programs like the VA 
Health Care Program, the service-connected disabilities and burial 
benefits, all of which are cut drastically by the Republican proposal 
that is on the floor today.
  The Blue Dog budget responds to the concerns of constituents like 
Florence Newton, who are finding our financial affairs and the 
resulting shortage in services to be unconscionable. I am proud to 
stand behind the Blue Dog alternative which provides this Nation with 
the economic certainty it needs in these uncertain times and into the 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott), a distinguished new Member of the House that spent 20 years on 
the appropriations committee in Georgia balancing their budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate those kind 
words that the gentleman had to say.
  It is very important for us to understand exactly where we are right 
now, and let me start by setting the stage of my remarks by sharing 
with my colleagues the words of William Shakespeare, who said in Julius 
Caesar, when Julius Caeser was being stabbed, he said, ``O, Brutus, 
yours is the meanest cut of all.'' That is what these veterans are 
saying today.
  To my friends from the Republican Party and their alternative in 
their budget, it is the meanest cut of all, to cut our veterans at this 
time, at this day, at this hour when we are watching television and we 
see over in the Middle East where our men and women in uniform are 
putting their lives on the line, and what are we doing here? What is 
the Republican answer to that, to our military veterans? To cut them by 
$15 billion. Indeed, the meanest cut of all.
  My colleagues talk about conservative compassionism. I am here to 
tell my colleagues, this is not conservative compassionism. This is 
downright conservative meanness. It is mean to cut our military and our 
veterans, by any amount. They need help.
  Fifteen billion dollars is going to eliminate 200,000 of our veterans 
off the rolls. It is going to fold and close up 400,000 hospital beds. 
That is meanness. We need to turn it around and follow our Blue Dog 
coalition budget, which is very responsible. We are not cutting the 
budget for Veterans Affairs by $15 billion. No. We are adding to that 
by $24 billion. That is what the American people want, and at no time 
is it better to send the right message.
  I conclude my remarks by simply saying, what better time is there to 
stand and give our veterans respect than at this important moment in 
our history?
  Mr. Chairman, the Nussle budget focuses on fiscally irresponsible tax 
cuts, while failing to address priorities and commitments to working 
families, the elderly, and veteran. What concerns me is that future 
generations will pay for the deficits created by this budget, while our 
veteran's will pay now.
  On Monday the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the 
Disabled American Veterans called on Congress to scrap proposed budget 
cuts in disability compensation, pensions, and healthcare to offset the 
costs of tax breaks and huge spending increases on defense and homeland 
security.
  The Nussle budget cuts approximately $15.1 billion from veterans 
programs, of which $844 is cut from veterans health care programs. This 
could eliminate enrollment for 168,000 veterans, necessitate 400,000 
fewer hospital bed days of care, or reduce the number of nurses by 
8,700.
  Further, according to the VA's own national data, over 200,000 
veterans are waiting 6 months or more just to get in the VA Medical 
System and it can take over 18 for certain types of specialty 
treatments.
  Our Nation cannot commit men and women to fight overseas while 
reducing the health care and benefits that our veterans have earned 
risking their lives serving their country.
  It is unbelievable that the Nussle budget cuts funding for veterans' 
programs to offset the costs of tax cuts for the wealthy.
  The Blue Dog budget, which I support, contains $24 billion more 
funding for veterans programs than the Nussle budget. It contains $9 
billion more for discretionary veterans programs such as VA health 
care, and does not require the Veterans Affairs Committee to reduce 
spending on veterans benefits and other mandatory veterans programs by 
$15 billion as the Nussle budget would do.
  I support the President and his efforts to oust Saddam Hussein from 
power. I want to give him as much support as possible to help pay for 
this conflict. This budget resolution contains no funding for a 
military conflict with Iraq or the post-conflict occupation and 
reconstruction costs that will follow.
  The costs of the war with Iraq will largely be borne by the United 
States taxpayer and prudent fiscal policy requires that these costs 
must be included within the budget resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) for the magnificent job he has done in putting this budget 
resolution together.
  Mr. Chairman, the House Republican budget recognizes that the single 
most important defense investment we can make is in our military 
personnel, the men and women of our Armed Forces. That is why our 
budget includes initiatives to allow the Department of Defense to 
continue to recruit, train and retain the highest-quality personnel in 
the world.
  Our budget assumes $98.6 billion for paying benefits. The increase 
funds a range of military pay increases from 2 percent to 6.5 percent 
targeted by rank and years of service. This initiative is intended to 
retain DOD's most experienced personnel. For our Green Berets and other 
elite units who play a critical role in the war against terrorism, our 
budget provides $4.5 billion, which is a 47 percent increase.
  Our budget also provides for full funding of health care benefits for 
Active Duty members, retirees and their dependents.
  Our budget provides for an array of quality-of-life initiatives for 
our military personnel, including improving military housing. For many 
years military housing has been one of the trouble spots in the defense 
budget with inadequate housing and substantial out-of-pocket costs to 
our service personnel, but our budget continues the efforts that the 
administration has made over the past 2 years to improve conditions by 
providing for $1.2 billion to build and renovate 44 barracks with 
13,000 living spaces.
  There is $167 million to construct and modernize seven medical 
treatment centers and $87 million for two new elementary schools for 
dependents, as well as for school renovations.
  Our budget also reduces out-of-pocket housing costs from 7.5 percent 
to 3.5 percent for personnel living in private housing, and last, these 
costs are scheduled to drop to zero in fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), an esteemed Blue Dog colleague and 
former first lieutenant with the 101st Airborne in Vietnam.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague from 
California for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget 
and in support of the Blue Dog alternative. I would like to discuss 
three major problems with the Republican budget that we have before us.
  First of all, I want to talk about Medicaid. I think most of my 
colleagues have seen this chart. These are reconciliation instructions 
included in the Republican budget which would require the Committee on 
Energy and

[[Page 6884]]

Commerce to cut $107 billion, $107 billion over the next decade out of 
Medicaid.
  I have talked to some of my hospital folks and began to ask questions 
about where these cuts may come from, and they believe that the major 
portion of those cuts will have to come out of an account we call the 
disproportionate share for hospitals, that is, DSH payments, which are 
payments made to our hospitals who are providing the major portion of 
indigent care.
  There are 86 hospitals in Florida which receive DSH payments for a 
total of $221 million. Many of those are rural hospitals, 27 of them. 
All 27 of those rural hospitals in Florida, for the most part, are in 
financial trouble, and I believe and the hospitals believe that that 
account will have to be cut by some 80 percent to meet these 
reconciliation instructions.
  If that is not bad enough, let us look at the farm bill that this 
Congress just enacted last year. We are telling farmers now and 
consumers, forget what we did last year, let the farm bill debate begin 
again. This budget requires the House Committee on Agriculture to cut 
about $18.6 billion out of programs that were enacted last year in the 
farm bill. What will be cut? Nutrition programs that provide food for 
those less fortunate, or will we cut it out of the record low margins 
that the farmers are getting in the marketplace now?

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, we are trying hard in this country to keep a viable 
agricultural industry so we can produce our own food and fiber and not 
put ourselves in the situation that we are in with oil. That is what 
will happen if we abandon this farm bill.
  Third, what we are doing to veterans is not acceptable. Many of my 
Republican colleagues have said we are just slowing down the growth. 
That is malarkey. That would be true if the number of people being 
treated in the veterans hospitals was not going to explode in the next 
decade, but we know it is. Today, within 24 hours of the time our 
troops have invaded Iraq, we are standing on the floor with a budget 
that cuts billions of dollars out of current veterans programs. It is 
unconscionable. I ask Members to reject the Republican budget and 
support the Blue Dog budget, which is responsible on the spending side 
and gets us into balance by 2009.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to scratch my head and wonder out loud how, when 
we increase the veterans budget in our budget 6.1 percent, the other 
side of the aisle can call that a cut, yet that is what Member after 
Member comes to the floor and says.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to discuss the 
second important plank of our budget, and that is economic growth and 
job creation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) 
and I have spoken about the fact that this budget protects our country, 
our national defense, and our homeland security. And nothing is more 
important this afternoon, as this is a very critical time in the 
Persian Gulf. Our troops are committed, and we are committed to them.
  However, this budget meets another challenge, and that is the 
challenge of strengthening the American economy and creating new jobs. 
Promoting growth in this economy and getting people back to work is a 
top priority of ours, and it is reflected in this budget. That is why 
it provides for policies that create an economic environment for 
boosting both long-term and short-term growth. In particular, the 
budget leaves room for President Bush's jobs and economic growth plan 
to strengthen the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to help 
struggling American workers and by laying the groundwork to promote 
long-term, sustainable growth in our Nation's economy.
  A Member on the other side of the aisle called this growth package 
irresponsible. We do not think it is irresponsible to bolster household 
finances or encourage consumer spending. We do not think it is 
irresponsible to promote investment because it leads to job creation, 
and we do not think it is irresponsible to help the unemployed get back 
to work. That is what this budget does.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago we passed tax relief that not only put 
money back in people's pockets, but it slowed an advancing recession 
that President Bush inherited. The 2001 tax relief plan made that 
recession the mildest in history, and it created 1.5 million new jobs. 
Without the leadership this Congress showed on a bipartisan basis and 
this President showed, the recession and the job loss would have been 
far worse when America came under attack on September 11, 2001.
  Now in this budget we provide for the President's economic growth 
package which will create new jobs and sustain growth. The plan 
accelerates the reductions in personal income tax rates, the marriage 
penalty relief in the 2001 tax cuts. It accelerates the child tax 
credits from 2001. It increases small business expensing, and it 
eliminates the unfair double taxation of dividend income.
  Experts generally agree that this proposal will boost stock prices 
dramatically. Some say 7 percent, some say 20 percent. The fact is, we 
are going to add significantly to the value of our stock market, which 
helps all of us as Americans, including half of all American families 
now invested in the market. It helps the economy in general.
  Economists also say it is going to lower unemployment rates for the 
next several years. In fact, the average of private forecasters' 
estimates show the President's plan will result in more than 1 million 
new jobs by the end of next year. It goes without saying that America 
is still dealing with the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist 
attacks and with the continued uncertainty on the international front, 
including in Iraq today. Our economy is not performing as it should, 
and too many Americans are out of work.
  This budget resolution is responsive because it helps get the economy 
going again; and when that happens, revenues grow. It happened in the 
1960s under the leadership of President John Kennedy, and it happened 
in the 1980s with President Reagan's tax relief plan because it was 
pro-growth.
  Here is a chart which indicates the Reagan-era revenues. Look at 
this, from 1982 until 1989, the dramatic increase in revenues. Again 
1960s, 1980s. That is what we are trying to replicate now.
  Mr. Chairman, with the growth package, we are also going to be able 
to be sure we can afford these tax cuts. I have heard Members say we 
cannot afford them; it is good to have growth tax packages, but we 
cannot afford it. This is an interesting chart. This is a static 
analysis, meaning it shows absolutely no impact of the tax relief, 
which has countered everything we have seen in history.
  When we provide that incentive for job creation, it increases 
revenue. It helps the budget, but this assumes none of that happens. 
Just to have the tax relief in place, this is the difference. The red 
on the chart shows what the budget would be like with the tax relief 
taken out altogether. No tax relief at all. The green shows the impact 
of all this pro-growth tax policy, again on a static analysis. As 
Members can see, it is a very small difference. The tax relief is not 
crowding out additional spending, it is growing the economy so we can 
get people back to work and grow our revenues.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage Members on the other side of 
the aisle to listen to one of their former colleagues, currently a 
Governor in the State of New Mexico. Bill Richardson, who was also a 
member of the Clinton cabinet, has a plan for his State that restrains 
spending; and, yes, it reduces tax. Why? Because he knows it is going 
to help his State's economy and in the end help in terms of revenues. 
He has said and he offers this as free advice to his fellow Democrats. 
He

[[Page 6885]]

said, ``We Democrats need to stop talking about class warfare and 
distribution of wealth. We need to start talking about economic growth, 
and reducing taxes puts us on the road to economic growth.'' I think he 
is right. I always liked Bill Richardson, and now I know why. Well put.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible budget because it protects our 
country and because it grows the economy, gets the economy back on 
track and creates jobs.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The national chairman of the Disabled American Veterans wrote the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and he said, ``Has Congress no 
shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government 
that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and 
rob our programs, health care and disability compensation, to pay for 
tax cuts for the wealthy?''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop), who represents a number of veterans at Fort Benning, Georgia.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Blue Dog budget, a fair and balanced alternative to the harsh and 
misguided priorities of the Republican budget. The Blue Dog budget is 
fiscally responsible, combining spending restraint and budget 
enforcement to balance the budget and set us on a path to growth. The 
Blue Dog budget is balanced, protects Social Security, contains less 
debt than the Republican budget, and includes a reserve fund for the 
war in Iraq.
  Make no mistake about it, the Blue Dog budget gives Americans more 
than the Republican budget, and it does so responsibly. It gives $10.4 
billion more for discretionary programs in fiscal year 2004; $130 
billion more for non-Medicare health care programs, primarily Medicaid; 
$30 billion more for education and training programs; more agriculture 
spending for commodity programs, conservation, crop insurance and 
nutrition programs; and $24 billion more for veterans programs than the 
Republican budget. All this with reasonable and fair tax cuts that cost 
only half as much as the Republican budget. For example, it speeds up 
the child tax credit, eliminates the marriage penalty, exempts $6 
million per couple from the death tax, delays cuts for the two highest 
tax brackets.
  The Blue Dog budget helps Americans with substantially less debt than 
the Republican budget without the deep cuts in important programs that 
help Americans and strengthen our position in these uncertain economic 
times. I urge Members to support the Blue Dog budget. It is a better 
budget. Reject the Republican budget. It is not good for America, and 
it is especially not good for America today in these uncertain economic 
times.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the points on the veterans' issues. 
First of all, we increase discretionary spending 6.1 percent on 
veterans, we increase the mandatory spending 7 percent, and they call 
that a cut. They ask us to honor veterans. In fact, in this country we 
honor veterans so much that we paid 5,500 of them benefits after they 
were dead. That is how much we honor veterans. That is why we need to 
look at every program for waste and abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as part of this budget, 
the President's job and economic growth plan is designed to strengthen 
the economy and allow Americans to keep more of their own money to 
spend, save, and invest. And I know my constituents in my district know 
how to spend their money better than we do in Washington.
  The President's plan also calls for speeding up the tax relief passed 
in 2001 so families get the benefits of those tax cuts today, ending 
the unfair double taxation on dividends, giving small businesses 
incentives to grow, and providing help for unemployed Americans.
  Let me read some statistics on the President's growth plan that has 
been dynamically scored. In this budget, the economy would enjoy an 
annual average of 837,000 new jobs from 2004 to 2013, with 997,000 and 
1.03 million jobs in 2004 and 2005 respectively; an annual average of 
$69 billion in additional GDP from 2004 through 2013, with an increase 
of $84 billion in GDP in 2004 alone; an average of $120 billion in 
additional disposable income from 2004 through 2013. And also in 2004 
through 2013, if we talk about the dividend plan alone, we are talking 
about 69 percent in job growth, a 72 percent increase in GDP growth, 
$50 billion, and a 64 percent increase in additional disposable income.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is the right budget for the country and 
this stimulus package is the right package for growth and economic 
prosperity.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Committee on Rules for 
making in order the Blue Dog budget alternative, and I urge Members on 
the other side of the aisle to take this opportunity to support a 
responsible budget. By allowing the Blue Dogs to offer our budget 
substitute, the Republican leadership has finally acknowledged that the 
House needs to have an honest debate on a sensible alternative to the 
majority's unrealistic and irresponsible budget resolution.
  The Republican budget operates under the fiction that our country can 
afford a tax cut of $1.35 trillion as the United States embarks upon a 
necessary mission to liberate Iraq. The attempt to proceed with new tax 
cuts during a time of war is without precedent in American history, and 
for good reason.
  The Republican budget resolution does not take into account our 
country's current economic and military situation. It is stubbornly 
stuck in the past. In their delusional attempt to provide new tax cuts 
while fighting a war and simultaneously attempting to balance the 
budget, the majority will succeed only in a failed attempt to balance 
the budget on the backs of our Nation's senior citizens, our veterans, 
our students, our farmers, our economically disadvantaged. How in the 
world the majority can propose spending cuts in veterans health care 
during a time of war is beyond me, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and 
the Paralyzed Veterans of America share my amazement.

                              {time}  1515

  Our good friend indicated that they were doing everything for 
veterans. It is very funny that the veterans organizations do not agree 
with it and do not adopt that posture. The Blue Dog substitute will 
balance the Federal budget in 10 years without relying on the Social 
Security surplus and without sacrificing our Nation's veterans and our 
seniors. At the same time, the Blue Dogs provide both immediate and 
long-term tax relief to American taxpayers. This relief consists 
largely of an acceleration of cuts already scheduled. Further, the Blue 
Dogs are committed to sticking with the President's overall funding 
levels for defense and nondefense discretionary spending.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join the Blue 
Dogs in our effort to support the President and support his total 
funding levels. I urge every Member of the House to support the 
reasonable, responsible Blue Dog budget alternative.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget 
resolution. Let me commend the gentleman from Iowa for his hard work in 
developing this budget. The product of his effort is bold and 
innovative, and it deserves our support. Economic growth is the 
cornerstone of our Republican budget. Too many Americans, too many of 
my constituents in south Alabama, are struggling to make ends meet. 
This budget works to grow our economy and to get unemployed Americans 
back to work.

[[Page 6886]]

  We assume the President's jobs and economic growth package because it 
provides an immediate boost to our struggling American workers, and it 
lays the groundwork for the long-term, sustainable growth of our 
Nation's economy.
  The President's tax cuts were always intended to promote long-term, 
sustainable growth. Our budget calls for accelerating these tax cuts, 
because taxpayers and the economy deserve this extra support now. These 
tax cuts would allow workers to keep more of their hard-earned money to 
spend as they see fit. With more disposable income, it will be these 
workers who will propel our economy back to a state of sustained health 
and growth.
  I am particularly glad to note that the 2001 tax cuts would be made 
permanent, allowing us to avoid a de facto tax increase in the year 
2010.
  Mr. Chairman, there are plenty of reasons to support this budget. I 
think one of the most compelling reasons, however, is that it provides 
the right medicine at the right time to create jobs and get our economy 
growing again.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I am guessing that most Americans are 
watching events unfold in Iraq on their television sets. These are the 
events they should be watching, not this debate on a budget that does 
not even include expenses for the war and the reconstruction effort in 
Iraq. If I had my way, we would be talking about that war all day 
today, or if we were debating a budget, we would be debating a wartime 
budget that called on us to make real sacrifices. That is not what we 
are doing. We are debating a set of resolutions, the best of which by 
far is the Blue Dog resolution, and I rise to support it.
  I represent smart constituents. They know that money does not grow on 
trees. They do not want a tax cut, and they are not asking for it. They 
do not want trillion-dollar budget deficits, and they certainly are not 
asking for them. Indeed, in contrast to the yawn of a response the 
administration gave to projected deficits, my constituents understand 
the serious fiscal consequences of hemorrhaging red ink.
  Rather than punt this issue to future generations as the Committee on 
the Budget proposes, families in my district, like families everywhere, 
expect Democrats and Republicans to sit down together and make tough 
choices on what our government can afford now and what we must defer.
  That is where the Blue Dogs come in. Frankly, the Blue Dogs are one 
of the few groups around this place that have the integrity and 
expertise to present a credible budget alternative. The Blue Dog budget 
makes reasonable and fiscally prudent assumptions about spending and 
tax policy and achieves a budget surplus by 2009. It is fair and 
fiscally responsible, and I am very proud to support it.
  The Blue Dogs have long been leaders in the fight for a balanced and 
fiscally responsible budget. They have made the hard decisions expected 
of policymakers, and we have the welts to show for it. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget proposal which will be 
offered later in this debate.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the committee.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, we cannot quantify the cost of our 
freedom; however, in passing a budget we must calculate the cost of our 
homeland security and our household security. To fulfil this duty, we 
are best guided by the verities of our history. A war runs a deficit, 
and, with determination, we retain our freedom and inevitably regain 
our prosperity. Truly our Nation's homeland security and household 
security are best served by budgetary balance born out of fiscal 
discipline. But sadly there come moments when time connives and fate 
conspires to preclude us from budgetary balance, and we must sacrifice 
in the present to strengthen our future.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation has been at war since September 11, a war on 
terror of which Operation Iraqi Freedom is the most recent theater. It 
has been, is and will continue to be a struggle of momentous sacrifice, 
yet we will prevail, and we will prosper.
  This budget, which restores us to balance in 9 years, will speed our 
path to peace and prosperity. For after each year of this budget, our 
deficit diminishes, our homeland security increases, and our household 
security increases. Yes, this is a difficult budget for these difficult 
times because it is a war budget in a time of war. Mr. Chairman, to 
preserve and promote our Nation's security, opportunity and prosperity, 
I urge its passage.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I just want to reiterate my support for the Blue Dog budget, a budget 
that is balanced, it reduces the debt, and provides a reasonable level 
of services to our veterans and our seniors. Unlike the majority 
budget, it does it without robbing from Social Security, Medicare and 
the veterans programs. I urge everybody on both sides of the aisle to 
vote for the Blue Dog budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, today in Northampton, Massachusetts, they are having 
problems funding a homeless shelter for veterans. As we watched the 
morning headline and the evening newscast, we are struck by the brave 
commitment of our men and women on the borders of Iraq and perhaps, as 
I speak, within the borders of Iraq as they prepare for an all-out 
invasion of Iraq. At a moment like this when we are watching this 
commitment, it is important to think of the significant and personal 
sacrifices these brave men and women are making. But at the same time 
that we are creating hundreds of thousands of new veterans through 
their distinguished service, the Congress today debates a Republican 
budget that mandates cuts in veterans programs.
  I talk to these folks at the Northampton VA, I meet with them 
regularly, and they point out there simply is less money every year in 
the VA for honoring the commitment we made to our soldiers.
  I know that the Republicans today through another manager's 
amendment, only because when they went back to their membership, the 
membership said to them, ``what are you thinking of,'' that they have 
added in this amendment a few more dollars in an attempt to ameliorate 
some of their cuts. But the compelling truth is that this nominal 
increase will quickly be overcome by more than 2 percent in annual cuts 
in the years following. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
their spending on veterans' health care and benefits is not enough to 
maintain purchasing power, which simply means real cuts in veterans 
programs.
  As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans said of 
this budget being proposed by the majority Republican Party in this 
Congress, ``This budget dishonors the service of millions of service-
connected disabled veterans, including combat-disabled veterans, and 
seriously erodes the Nation's commitment to care for its defenders.''
  Stand strong today for the Democratic proposal. Honor the commitment 
we made to our veterans and vote down this Republican budget proposal.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2003.

       American Legion Declares Spratt Budget ``Better Approach''

       Dear Colleague: The Republican budget that will be 
     considered on the floor today cuts discretionary funding for 
     veterans health care below the level needed to maintain 
     purchasing power at the 2003 level by a total of $14.2 
     billion over ten years. Their budget also directs the 
     Veterans' Affairs Committee to cut $14.6 billion from 
     mandatory benefit payments to veterans, including

[[Page 6887]]

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

                                                   March 19, 2003.

                         The Independent Budget


                   A Budget for Veterans by Veterans

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



                                          The American Legion,

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

                                              Steve Robertson,

                                                         Director,
     National Legislative Commission.
                                  ____


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

                Changes at VA Vex Advocates for Homeless

                           (By Edward Walsh)

       John F. Downing doesn't understand why he was turned down 
     for federal funds.
       Eighteen months ago, he took over a successful program that 
     every night provides shelter and counseling to as many as 120 
     homeless veterans in western Massachusetts. When United 
     Veterans of America, where he is the executive director, 
     applied last year for renewal of a federal grant that 
     subsidizes the cost of half of the 120 beds at the facility, 
     he thought it would sail through. It didn't, leaving Downing 
     angry and perplexed.
       ``The whole thing is preposterous to us,'' he said.
       Peter H. Dougherty understands why Downing is miffed. As 
     director of homeless programs at the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, Dougherty is positioned at the other end of the 
     bureaucratic process that decides such matters. But while 
     Dougherty has sympathy for the complaints from Massachusetts, 
     from where he sits in Washington, the VA's program for 
     homeless veterans is doing just fine.
       ``I don't blame them, but in the meantime thousands more 
     homeless vets are getting service,'' Dougherty said. Recent 
     research suggests that veterans account for about 23 percent, 
     or 460,000 of the 2 million adults who experience 
     homelessness over the course of a year.
       These competing perspectives--one from the nation's 
     capital, the other from Northampton, Mass.--are the result of 
     policy decisions that had nothing to do with the 60 beds that 
     Downing is fighting to preserve. The private facility on the 
     grounds of a VA medical center in Northampton was not so much 
     rejected for renewed federal funding as it fell victim to 
     vastly increased competition for a limited amount of money 
     that the VA made available for the homeless veterans program.
       The key step that threatens the federal subsidy to half of 
     the beds at the facility was the VA's decision to merge two 
     programs for homeless veterans into one. Two years ago, the 
     VA received 67 requests for the operating subsidies, known as 
     the ``per diem only program,'' and approved 53 of the 
     applications. The grants provided $19 per bed per night to 
     help run homeless shelters.
       But in the most recent round of awards of operating 
     subsidies, announced in December, 252 private agencies, 
     including United Veterans of America, sought help from the 
     VA, but again only 53 were approved. More than one third of 
     the applicants had previously operated with help from the 
     other VA homeless program that was merged with the per diem 
     only program. There was also a sharp increase in interest in 
     the program, with 125 new agencies for the first time seeking 
     a VA operating subsidy.
       More than half of the homeless shelters that applied for 
     renewal of existing VA subsidies were turned down in the 
     latest round. This has led to suspicions among some that the 
     administration gave preference to shelters run by ``faith-
     based'' organizations, furthering President Bush's goal of 
     boosting the role of such organizations. The VA added to this 
     impression by boasting, in its announcement of the new 
     awards, that more than 40 percent of the recipients were 
     faith-based organizations.
       But Dougherty and other VA officials deny that faith-based 
     organizations were given any advantage.
       ``What we're doing is what the administration asked for, 
     and that is to have a level

[[Page 6888]]

     playing field,'' Dougherty said. When per diem only subsidies 
     were awarded in 2000, faith-based organizations accounted for 
     35 percent of the recipients, he said.
       But the ``level playing field'' meant that homeless 
     programs already operating with VA subsidies also did not 
     receive any special consideration, although Dougherty said 
     the panels of VA officials who made the selections would be 
     aware if an application was for a renewal and would probably 
     factor that into their decisions.
       VA officials defend the decision to merge the two homeless 
     programs. Under the second program, known as Health Care for 
     Homeless Veterans, VA medical facilities contracted with 
     local residential facilities to take in homeless veterans. 
     But officials said that program was more expensive, costing 
     an average of $39 per day per veteran, than the per diem only 
     subsidies and essentially served the same population.
       ``We looked to see if there were any distinctions between 
     veterans in both programs,'' said Gay Koerber, VA's associate 
     chief consultant for health care for homeless veterans. 
     ``There was no difference in their health problems, substance 
     abuse problems; they were about the same age. Based on that, 
     it seemed much more cost-effective to shift resources into 
     the per diem program.''
       Koerber and Dougherty also note that, under a variety of VA 
     programs, the number of beds available continues to grow and 
     that the operating subsidy is scheduled to increase from $19 
     to $26.95 a day. The other 60 beds at the Northampton 
     facility, for example, continue to be supported under a VA 
     program designed to enlarge the number of beds available 
     nationwide.
       Downing and others have complained that not a single 
     application from Massachusetts was approved by the VA in the 
     latest round, but, according to Koerber, the agency is 
     helping to operate 247 beds for homeless veterans in the 
     state (not counting the 60 that will lose the subsidy at the 
     end of this month), the fourth-highest total among the 50 
     states.
       All of this is scant comfort to Downing, who views the 
     program from Northampton, not Washington.
       ``I have a commitment to veterans and to this facility to 
     keep as many people safe and sober as we can,'' he said. 
     ``Our issue has been we don't want to put anybody back on the 
     streets.''

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

                              {time}  1530

  Because of the deficits we are cutting education. The 12 percent 
increase over the past few years, this budget is a cut in education. We 
are talking about cuts not only in the veterans benefits that we had 
but also cuts in education, cuts in safe and drug-free schools, after-
school programs, education for homeless children, vocational education, 
28,000 Head Start students not being educated under the Head Start 
program.
  At a time when States are increasing their tuitions, we are cutting 
Pell grants. We are cutting student loans and school lunches. We are 
also not funding No Child Left Behind. The President went all over the 
country talking about No Child Left Behind and the amount of money that 
was authorized to be spent. Unfortunately, we are not even spending on 
No Child Left Behind what we spent last year.
  Look at the difference in what we are spending. In order to take pay 
cuts for the wealthy, we have run up a huge debt, cut veterans 
benefits, cut education. That is the wrong priority. We should fund 
veterans and education first and then consider tax cuts second. We have 
got the wrong priorities. Education is the right priority.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Iowa has 
11\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, that sounds pretty close. It is about as 
balanced as any of the budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, today as we embark on a new chapter in the 
war against terror, I want to return to a crucial theme for this 
budget, which is homeland security. That goes to the heart of national 
security, and it also goes to the heart of economic security since by 
far the biggest setback we could have to our economy, for another 
setback, which would be another major terrorist attack.
  This budget includes a substantial increase for the protection of our 
Nation's infrastructure, $829 million, for instance, a more than 300 
percent increase for the Department of Homeland Security's Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection which will provide new 
capabilities in the war against terror by mapping intelligence and 
threat information about the Nation's potential vulnerabilities. That 
includes $500 million to assess the Nation's critical infrastructure 
and to ensure that our highest-priority vulnerabilities are properly 
addressed. This is important everywhere, including my home State of 
Louisiana. We have a vast amount of critical infrastructure there, 
including some of the most active ports in the world and a large 
portion of the strategic petroleum reserve, infrastructure that

[[Page 6889]]

transports a huge percentage of the Nation's oil and gas needs and so 
much more. Terrorist attacks to any of these facilities would be 
devastating to my State and, indeed, the entire Nation.
  So in this time of war, in this time of threat, providing for our 
military and protecting our homeland first and foremost are top 
priorities. This budget does both of those. It protects our economy 
also as a result, and I urge my fellow Members to support this strong 
budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Unfortunately, this Republican budget is likely to force the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to slash the pensions of 
34,000 Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their 
dependents and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of 
September 11.
  Who in this House believes that we should cut the September 11 
Victims' Compensation Fund to finance tax cuts for the rich? As a 
Nation at war, who believes that the men and women of the Coast Guard 
protecting our shores, ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in 
the Persian Gulf should be worrying that Congress might cut their 
retirement?
  This budget shows a callous disregard for the families of the victims 
of September 11, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad 
retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country.
  The budget resolution directs the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion for mandatory programs over the 10 
years and to find savings from waste, fraud, and abuse and produce 
greater efficiency. Those platitudes may make for good rhetoric, but 
the policies will have devastating effect on the retirees and on the 
families of the victims of September 11. The Congressional Budget 
Office says 90 percent of the programs of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure's mandatory accounts include the 
September 11 Victims' Compensation Fund, Coast Guard retirement pay, 
railroad retirement pensions, and unemployment compensation for 
railroad workers. Is that where we are supposed to find waste, fraud, 
and abuse?
  The Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the victims who were 
injured and the families of those who were killed in the September 11 
attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this Chamber can possibly ever forget 
the tragedy of September 11, and I hope the families are beginning to 
put their lives back together again. How in good conscience can we 
retreat from the solemn commitment made on this floor to help them 
rebuild their lives?
  I commit to them that I will oppose this Republican budget plan that 
will cut their funding. Similarly, the 36,000 Coast Guard officers and 
their enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast Guard retirees, we pledge 
to them on our side that we will oppose this budget resolution and its 
cuts in Coast Guard retirement pay.
  Coast Guard cutters, as we debate this budget resolution, are on 
combat patrol with the U.S. Navy, securing the shipping lanes and the 
safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. 
At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and our ports. 
Just this week the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated Operation 
Liberty Shield, increased security at our ports, protect 
infrastructure, key assets. The Coast Guard under Operation Liberty 
Shield is increasing its patrols of waterways, escorts of ferries and 
cruise ships, sea marshals on board vessels of high interest. We get 
more out of our investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other 
agency of the Federal Government. Why should we make them worry about 
this Republican effort to cut retirement pay?
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 95, the 
FY2004 Budget Resolution. Regrettably, this Republican Budget is likely 
to force the Transportation Committee to slash the pensions of 34,000 
Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their 
dependents, and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of 
September 11th. Who in this House believes that we should cut the 
September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund to finance more tax cuts for 
the rich? With the Nation now at war, who in this House believes that 
the men and women of the Coast Guard, who are protecting our shores and 
ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, 
should be worrying that this Congress may cut their retirement? This 
Budget displays a callous disregard for the families of the victims of 
September 11th, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad 
retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country.
  Section 201 of the Republican Budget Resolution directs the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion from its 
mandatory programs over the next 10 years. We are told to find these 
savings from ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' and to produce greater 
efficiency in our programs. While these platitudes of ``waste, fraud, 
and abuse'' make for good rhetoric, these policies will have a 
devastating effect on these retirees and the families of the victims of 
the September 11th attack.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that 90 percent of the 
Transportation Committee's funding of mandatory programs includes these 
three:
  The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund,
  Coast Guard retirement pay; and
  Railroad retirement pensions and unemployment compensation for 
railroad workers.
  And this is where we're expected to find ``waste, fraud, and abuse''?
  The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the 
victims who were injured and the families of those who were killed in 
the September 11th terrorist attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this 
chamber will forget the tragedy of September 11th. I can only hope that 
families of the victims of September 11th have begun to put their lives 
back together. How can we, in good conscience, retreat from our solemn 
commitment to help them rebuild their lives? I commit to them now that 
I will oppose this Republican plan that could cut funding from the 
families of the victims of September 11th.
  Similarly, I commit to the men and women of the Coast Guard, both the 
36,000 Coast Guard officers and enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast 
Guard retirees, that I will strongly oppose this Republican Budget 
Resolution and its likely cuts in Coast Guard retired pay.
  As we debate this Budget Resolution, Coast Guard cutters are on 
combat patrol with the U.S. Navy to help secure shipping lanes and the 
safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. 
At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and ports. On 
Monday, March 17, the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated 
Operation LIBERTY SHIELD to increase security at our Nation's borders 
and protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. Under Operation 
LIBERTY SHIELD, the Coast Guard is increasing patrols of major U.S. 
ports and waterways, increasing its escorts of ferries and cruise 
ships, providing armed Sea Marshals onboard every high interest vessel 
arriving at or departing from U.S. ports, and enforcing security zones 
in and around critical infrastructure sites in key ports and petroleum 
facilities close to large coastal communities. In addition to its 
military and homeland security missions, the Coast Guard continues its 
search-and-rescue mission--responding to nearly 37,000 calls and saving 
3,654 lives in 2002--and many other missions. The Coast Guard has long 
been stretched thin, but has always been ready--``Semper Paratus''--to 
answer the call. I have always maintained that the public gets more out 
of its investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other 
government service. The enlisted men and women and officers of the 
Coast Guard should not have to worry about this Republican effort to 
cut their retirement pay.
  The Republican Budget Resolution also is likely to result in 
significant cuts to railroad workers' retirement and unemployment 
compensation programs. Railroad workers, unlike other workers, are not 
covered by the Social Security system. They have their own retirement 
program. Last Congress, the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation 
Committee, with the strong support of rail unions, railroads, and rail 
retirees and their dependents, introduced H.R. 1140, a bill to revise 
the railroad retirement program to restore rail worker benefits and 
decrease railroad payroll taxes. The House overwhelmingly passed this 
legislation, by a vote of 383-33, and it became law. Today, the 
Republican Budget Resolution forces the Transportation Committee to 
consider changing this Act to cut railroad worker

[[Page 6890]]

retirement benefits and unemployment compensation. I commit to the 
248,000 rail workers and the 645,000 rail retirees and their dependents 
that I will fight any attempt to roll back the benefits so recently 
restored to you.
  Beyond these devastating cuts required by the reconciliation 
instructions, this Budget Resolution does little to meet our 
infrastructure investment needs. For the reauthorization of the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urged the Budget Committee 
to provide $50 billion in budget authority for highway, highway safety, 
and transit programs. In its letter to the Budget Committee, 74 of the 
75 Members of the Transportation Committee stated that we must provide 
this level of funding in FY2004 to maintain our surface transportation 
systems and have any hope of improving the overall condition of the 
Nation's highway and transit systems.
  Regrettably, this Budget Resolution provides $39 billion for these 
programs--little more than the status quo for TEA 21 reauthorization. 
Through the vigorous efforts of the bipartisan leadership of this 
Committee, the Resolution also provides a reserve fund that would allow 
for additional allocations if this or other legislation includes 
increases in Highway Trust Fund receipts. Although this does provide 
the Transportation Committee with the opportunity to address this issue 
at a later date, this Resolution does nothing to address our enormous 
highway and transit infrastructure needs in the fiscal year ahead.
  Moreover, the Republican Resolution cuts the amount of highway and 
transit funding that actually may be obligated in FY2004 below the CBO 
baseline. Specifically, the Republican Budget Resolution assumes a cut 
in the transit program of $98 million in FY2004 and $2.5 billion over 
the next six years. This cut is directly contrary to TEA 21's goal of 
modal balance. Under TEA 21 we significantly increased transit funding 
by guaranteeing $36 billion for transit. As a result of this increased 
investment, transit ridership has added 1.6 billion riders--more than 
900,000 new riders each day--over the last five years. This transit 
renaissance could be threatened by these cuts in transit funding.
  At a time when our Nation's infrastructure faces huge unmet safety 
and security needs, congestion is crippling our cities, and our economy 
has lost 2.5 million jobs in the past two years, the Republican Budget 
Resolution cuts these vital programs that could address infrastructure 
security needs and congestion problems and create family-wage jobs to 
grow our economy. Instead, it provides more than $1 trillion of new tax 
cuts.
  This Budget Resolution reflects more than misplaced priorities. It is 
an assault on working men and women from the Coast Guard to the 
Maintenance of Way railroad employees.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Republican Budget Resolution and 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this budget 
resolution. With America at war and with families having to make tough 
decisions around their kitchen tables, should we not in Congress at 
least be expected to make smart decisions to promote economic growth 
and to take a stand against waste and fraud?
  Many across the aisle oppose this budget and attack the tax relief. 
But, Mr. Chairman, less than 5 percent of this budget is about tax 
relief; 95 percent of this budget is about spending, 3 percent more, 
more, than last year. Unfortunately, much of it continues to be waste 
and fraud. The Department of Housing and Urban Development made $2.6 
billion in section 8 overpayments, 7 percent of their entire budget 
just lost. That is enough money to pay the downpayment for 300,000 
people to get into their first homes.
  The Medicare program paid out $13.3 billion in 1 year to people who 
did not even qualify. That is enough money this year to pay one third 
of the cost of a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
  The list goes on. Social Security pays benefits to dead people. 
Twenty-three percent of the people having their student loans 
discharged due to disability actually hold jobs. The National Park 
Service spent $800,000 on an outhouse, and it does not even work. In 
the real world when people lose this much money, they are fired or they 
go to jail. In Washington it is just an excuse to ask for even more 
money next year.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a thousand ways we can save money in 
Washington without cutting any needed services and without raising 
taxes on our hard-working families and our men and women in uniform. 
People should quit trying to fool the American people into thinking 
otherwise. If we fail to endorse this budget and just promote even more 
government spending without reform, we are simply sanctioning fraud. 
What an insult to the American people.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to the Republican budget and in support of the alternative budget being 
offered by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. Chairman, the 10-year $5.6 trillion unified budget surplus 
projected less than 2 years ago is gone, completely gone, thanks in 
large part to the Bush tax cuts mainly benefiting upper-bracket 
taxpayers. Now the Republicans offer a budget with over a $2 trillion 
deficit for the same 10-year period, $4.4 trillion if we exclude the 
Social Security trust fund. That is a fiscal reversal of almost $8 
trillion.
  Unfortunately, in the face of the worst fiscal reversal in this 
Nation's history, the Republicans' response is to propose more of the 
same failed policies. Finding themselves in a hole, their message seems 
to be: just keep digging.
  The Republicans' budget proposes $1.3 trillion in new tax cuts, every 
penny of it funded by increased government debt. The result, Mr. 
Chairman, is that the Republican budget would provide the worst of both 
worlds. We would go over the cliff fiscally, while at the same time 
radically reducing money available for education, the environment, 
transportation, healthcare, and law enforcement.
  At a time when our veterans are waiting 6 months for an appointment 
at VA hospitals, the Republican budget would cut compensation for 
service-connected disabilities and education benefits by $15 billion 
and veterans healthcare funding by another $14 billion over the next 10 
years.
  As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans said in a 
letter to Speaker Hastert, ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor 
left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to 
dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, 
healthcare and disability compensation, to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthy?''
  The Republican budget not only fails to fund No Child Left Behind, 
the bipartisan education program enacted a year ago; it actually would 
require cuts in school lunch programs and in student loans. The 
Republicans mandate billions in cuts from appropriated health programs, 
but do not say where the ax would fall. From major disease research at 
the National Institutes of Health? From community health centers. There 
would be $2.5 billion in cuts required next year alone. From where?
  The Republican budget does not even keep up with inflation in funding 
for homeland security. And what new money is proposed is largely offset 
by cuts in law enforcement programs on which our police and other first 
responders have depended in years past. The Democratic alternative 
provides $10 billion for the States immediately for homeland security, 
as provided in our economic stimulus plan. The Republican budget does 
not contain one dime of this funding.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget has its priorities straight. A 
fast-acting and effective economic stimulus, a serious prescription 
drug plan, protection of veterans benefits, prudent investments in 
education and homeland security, and all of this with $821 billion less 
in deficits and debt than the Republican proposal. The Democratic 
alternative is realistic and responsible, fair and fiscally sound, and 
I urge colleagues to support it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I have been looking through my budget, and I cannot find one of the

[[Page 6891]]

facts that the gentleman just stated. Not one of the cuts he just 
stated is in my budget document. I have looked through there. I cannot 
find them. I do not know where the gentleman is coming up with these 
numbers.
  I will say this, though: the person I would like to introduce next to 
speak basically wrote title II, which is our reconciliation 
construction regarding waste, fraud, and abuse, asking the committees 
to go out and look for those instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, ways 
that we can find deficiencies within this budget, and that is the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would 
like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman, for 
working so hard on this budget. I have had lengthy discussions with him 
about my concerns for protecting Medicare and veterans. The spending 
cuts that were in the original budget that we passed out of the 
Committee on the Budget concerned me deeply. He listened and I am very 
pleased with the results.
  Most Americans agree that Medicare must be reformed. The 38-year-old 
program benefit package is outdated and actually insufficient for most 
seniors' needs. The current program lacks much-needed prescription drug 
coverage, leaving many seniors to choose between food and drugs. I 
know. I represent many of those seniors. The Republican budget begins 
the process of reforming the outdated Medicare system. It includes a 
historic proposal to provide $400 billion over 10 years to update the 
Medicare benefits package and also provide a prescription drug benefit. 
Additionally, I have worked with the committee and the Republican 
leadership to ensure that Medicare is untouched by across-the-board 
cuts. The constituents of the fifth congressional district have also 
expressed a great concern that the veterans healthcare system is 
broken.

                              {time}  1545

  I have constituents in my district who are being forced to wait up to 
16 months for an appointment to see a physician, and in some of the 
counties it is up to 18 months. Last year, in fiscal year 2003, there 
was a 12 percent increase in the VA medical care funding, yet the 
waiting times have not substantially improved. The system must be 
fixed.
  Additionally, this budget provides for an increase in veterans' 
discretionary spending of 6.1 percent over fiscal year 2003, as well as 
a 7.5 percent increase in mandatory outlays. We are working to ensure 
that these resources are adequately and geographically spread so that 
we meet the needs of seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of increasing the spending on 
veterans' health care and protecting those who have always been willing 
to protect us. The budget works for seniors, and I urge support.
  Cutting 1 cent on the dollar for other agencies in fraud, waste and 
abuse is very, very achievable. Let us not say that we cannot find the 
savings. We deserve, for the sake of the taxpayers, to at least try.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, before yielding to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), to respond to our 
distinguished chairman, who wants to know where all these cuts we are 
alleging come from.
  They come from the budget documents. His budget calls on the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for example, to reduce spending by 
$107,359,000,000. The only thing they can take that out of is the 
Medicaid program.
  He calls on the Committee on Government Reform, which has 
jurisdiction over the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and the 
Civil Service Retirement Plan, to effect cuts in those programs of 
$38,319,000,000 to achieve savings.
  They are there. If you look at function 550 in this budget, which is 
the health function, if you look at the level of funding, it is $2.4 
billion below what is necessary to maintain purchasing power. We say 
``current services.'' That has got to come out of some of the 
organizations like NIH who get their funding from this particular 
function of the budget. It is there. No question about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, out of respect to the chairman, I know he 
wants 2 minutes to close, I will just take a minute. I will be very 
brief.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons I think that sometimes we find 
ourselves as a body not taken as seriously as we would like to be taken 
is because of exercises like this. We have heard over and over again 
from colleagues on one side of the aisle and colleagues on this side.
  The Nation is focused on the war we are faced with right now. There 
is obviously going to be an enormous cost associated with that war.
  Second, most people across the country are focused on local and State 
government challenges. Many State governments are facing enormous 
budget shortfalls, it has been estimated some $70 billion in current 
year shortfalls across the country. That number has grown by 50 
percent, Mr. Chairman, in just the last 3 months.
  If we are serious about helping States and serious about helping 
people get back up on their feet, serious about helping this economy 
move in the right direction, let us be honest. We are not paying for 
the war, and my friends on the other side of the aisle pretend that 
they cannot even contemplate a model that can give us scenarios for how 
much this war will cost. That is disingenuous, it is wrong, and it is 
unfair to the American people.
  Two, you do very little for your hospitals, your schools. People 
mention Medicare and Medicaid. For those watching at home, that means 
those hospitals in your States will not get the amounts of money that 
they need to ensure that people are covered and that people are 
treated.
  For those teachers and those of you who have kids in public schools, 
that means that bill we bragged about, the No Child Left Behind Act, we 
will not have the money to fund it. All of the promises about homeland 
security, it takes money to pay for these things.
  The difference between our budget and theirs is simple: We set a 
different set of priorities than they have set.
  I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle at the end of day 
can at least be honest and say to those of us on this side and to the 
American people that your priorities are vastly and radically different 
than ours. We believe States should be helped, we believe that the war 
should be paid for, and we believe we should balance the budget. Your 
priorities are different, and you owe it to the American people to tell 
them the truth.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us just go to the bottom line and look at the 
differences between the two proposals that will be the chief proposals 
before the House when we vote tonight on the budget resolutions, the 
Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal.
  As anyone who can see this chart can easily see, under our budget in 
every year from 2004, next year, through 2013, the Democratic budget 
has a lower deficit than the Republican budget, and by a significant 
margin.
  What is more, every year our bottom line gets better and better and 
better, until in the year 2010 we are in unified balance. All accounts 
included, we have no more deficit by the year 2010. And we do not get 
there with improbable, unlikely spending cuts of the kind you have 
heard mentioned on the floor today. We get there with good, solid 
economics and with complete fairness to things that are important to 
us. It is a huge difference.
  But this tells it all: Over that 10-year period of time, the 
cumulative difference between us and them, between Republicans and 
Democrats, between our resolution and their resolution, is $913 billion 
less public debt. So as we move from a deficit to a surplus, we 
accumulate $913 billion less debt than do

[[Page 6892]]

the Republicans in their resolution. That is an enormous difference, 
particularly for anybody who says that deficits matter.
  We insist that deficits do matter. This administration has taken a 
different attitude. The Director of Management and Budget says we 
should not start hyperventilating over all these deficits. We think 
they matter. We think in the long run they affect the growth of our 
economy, they affect jobs and things that matter to people, they affect 
the interest we have to pay on our national debt.
  This is the difference between us and them. By 2010, we are in 
balance. It takes them until 2012 to get there. Along the way we 
accumulate $913 billion less debt. But what is most important is ours 
is feasible and credible and probable; theirs is infeasible, unlikely, 
and, to my way of thinking, unbelievable.
  The Republican budget presents us with two choices: We will either 
have devastating cuts, in which event they may get to balance in 2012, 
or those cuts will not be achieved, in which event the deficit itself 
will have done devastating damage.
  That is the choice before us, and that is why the Democratic balanced 
budget resolution is far and away the better choice for everybody in 
this House.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my 
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the very 
distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to close 
the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from 
Connecticut is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think if we were honest with each other, we would say 
we do not like any of our budgets, because we would like them to be 
balanced today, but that, regretfully, is not possible. But in 
comparing the budgets, I prefer the budget that we are presenting.
  I prefer it because in our budget we are protecting America, we are 
increasing our defense budget, we are increasing our homeland security 
budget. In our budget, most importantly, and you do not see it to the 
extent you need to in our colleagues' budgets, we are strengthening the 
economy and creating new jobs. In our budget, we are providing fiscal 
responsibility.
  One of the things I found most curious in the debate in the committee 
last week was that when we added up all the dollars that were spent in 
amendments offered by our Democratic colleagues, they amounted to over 
$1 trillion. Now, they would say to you what they did is they 
eliminated our tax cuts, and, in some cases, increased taxes to pay for 
their $1 trillion of new spending over the next 10 years.
  When we came to Washington, a number of us said we wanted to get our 
country's financial house in order and balance the Federal budget and 
not grow this government. But what we see in the other budget is a 
growing of the government.
  Mr. Chairman, what is disappointing to me is that when we have seen 
their amendments, both last week and this week, we have not seen any 
effort to reduce spending but increase it. And when we see what we do, 
what we are having to defend, I am embarrassed that it seems so 
difficult to defend. We have to defend a 1 percent cut in discretionary 
spending over this year's budget for just 1 year. Then we allow the 
budget to go up in the second year, we allow it to go up in the third 
year, we allow it to go up in the fourth year. The logic, though, is if 
you can make cuts in 1 year, they have benefit in terms of reducing 
spending for 10 years. I am proud of that.
  But when our colleagues talk about the savings we are making, they 
add up all 10 years and then imply that it happens all in 1 year, or 
they say we are going to cut 1 percent every year, and we are not 
allowing the budgets to grow.
  We want to slow the growth in the budgets next year, and then we are 
going to allow them to grow in the second year, allow them to grow in 
the third year, allow them to grow in the fourth year, allow them to 
grow in the fifth year, allow them to grow in the sixth year, allow 
them to grow in the seventh year, allow them to grow in the eighth 
year, allow them to grow in the ninth year, and allow them to grow in 
the tenth year.
  But we are having to defend a 1-cent-per-dollar cut next year in some 
programs, but we are not cutting defense, homeland security, Medicare 
or Social Security, and we have also agreed that veterans' spending is 
going to go up.
  So, for me, I am having a difficult time, because I would have liked 
our budget to have reduced spending more. But this is what we can agree 
to.
  Now, when we talk about the 1 percent reduction, what we are looking 
at is waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. You mean to tell me there 
is not 1 cent on a dollar of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in 
our government? You could not look at anyone with a straight face and 
tell them that.
  I happen to have served on the Committee on Government Reform, for 16 
years. I love that committee. We look at waste, fraud and abuse, and we 
attempt and are successful in many ways in getting reform. But it is 
taking too long. We need the authorizers to do a better job of looking 
at waste, fraud and abuse now, and we need the appropriators to do so 
as well.
  Mr. Chairman, on my desk are hundreds of GAO reports. These are just 
for a few months. Financial Management Service:, Significant Weaknesses 
In Computer Control Continue. You could save millions of dollars there.
  Weak Controls Result In Improper and Wasteful Purchases at FAA. You 
can save money there.
  Medicaid Financial Management: Better Oversight Of State Claims For 
Federal Reimbursement Needed.
  I love this one. Medicare Home Health Care. Payments To Home Health 
Agencies Are Considerably Higher Than Costs.
  U.S. Postal Service: Deteriorating Financial Outlook Increases Need 
For Transformation. We have got to do those things.
  Now, DOD has to be looked at as well, and that is one way we can help 
pay for all the needs that we have in DOD. Overpayments Continue, And 
Management And Accounting Issues Remain. Defense Inventory: Control 
Weaknesses Leave Restricted And Hazardous Excess Property Vulnerable To 
Improper Use, Loss And Theft.
  These are just a few of the hundreds on my desk. This is just GAO. 
What about the Inspector General's reports? We could fill up this whole 
table. This is literally the tip of the iceberg.
  So, I am proud of our budget, because it is better than the budget we 
are seeing, but, Lord knows, it could be even better.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote out our budget resolution. Let us 
get our country's financial house in order, and let us have the needed 
tax cuts that will generate the economic activity that will grow this 
economy. We want to protect America, strengthen the economy, and have 
fiscal responsibility. Our budget does that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) each will control 30 
minutes on the subject of economic goals and policies.
  Is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) a designee of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
will control the time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding the time, and I thank the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, the vice chairman, and the Members from both sides for the work 
that they are doing.
  Let us face it. Every one of us can come here and every one of us 
would do

[[Page 6893]]

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The Chair would remind all 
Members that although remarks in debate may level criticism against the 
policies of the President, still, remarks in debate must avoid 
personality and, therefore, may not include personal accusations such 
as lying.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  This is the period of debate where the Joint Economic Committee takes 
over to discuss the Humphrey-Hawkins period of debate, which is 
supposed to be about monetary policy. I see from my colleague, the last 
speaker, we are going to move beyond monetary policy, I guess. So in 
that spirit, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his introduction.
  Now, one of the realities that we must recognize as we debate our 
budget are the realities of today's economy and those facing our 
municipalities, our cities, and our States, and our families today. The 
reality is that when we have this economic slowdown, all of those 
entities that I just mentioned have made tough decisions to cut their 
budgets. I hear about families doing it all the time. The city of Omaha 
has done it, the State of Nebraska has done it. But yet when we are in 
the Federal

[[Page 6894]]

Government, because we do not have a balanced budget amendment, heck, 
we just sit there and say, spend, spend more, give away all the money 
at a time of economic slowdown, at a time when we have to protect 
American citizens.
  So I am proud to stand in support of a budget that recognizes those 
realities today that face American families, that face our 
municipalities, that face our States, and make the same tough decisions 
that they have. I am proud that this budget, the Republican budget, 
controls spending. Yes, I would like to see it control spending even 
more. There is a lot of areas of this budget that I, frankly, do not 
think we are restraining the spending. In fact, I believe that the 
budget for veterans, actually we are increasing veterans spending under 
this proposed Republican budget.
  But what we are asking for in this budget, we are asking agencies to 
save taxpayers' money, just as Americans are sitting down at their 
tables trying to find ways to save money in their family budgets. And 
our economic growth is contingent upon responsible spending in all 
sectors of our economy: business, personal spending, and government.
  Now, this budget protects the fiscal soundness of our government and 
incorporates cost-cutting provisions that will pay dividends well into 
the future. Through responsible tax cuts, we are returning the power 
back to the people.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I was listening to my colleagues say that this was the Joint Economic 
Committee, and we are supposed to talk about monetary policy, and I 
want to return us to monetary policy, because I am kind of reflecting 
back to when I first ran for Congress in 1992. That was the year that 
deficits were approximately $130 billion, $140 billion. All of my 
Republican opponents, colleagues, economists, everybody at that time 
was telling me that there was something sinister about budget deficits, 
and I could not quite understand what their preoccupation was. But I 
did realize over a period of time that it was projected that the budget 
deficit for 1993 and 1994 was going to keep going up, and at that time, 
the maximum budget deficit that anybody was projecting was $260 
billion. It was sacrilegious for anybody to think that we ought to be 
projecting a $260 billion budget deficit.
  So it is kind of amazing to me now that I could see a Republican 
budget for the year 2004 project a $319 billion deficit.
  I was talking to a reporter before I came over here and he said, 
well, are you all talking about war today? I said, no, we are debating 
the budget. He said, oh, you are talking about money for the war? And I 
said, no, there is not a dime of money for the war that we are fighting 
in the budgets that anybody has proposed today, except for the defense 
spending, which would be there even if we were not fighting a war.
  Well, over time I came to understand that when you have those kinds 
of budget deficits every year accumulating, they keep adding into the 
national debt, and when you have a national debt, you have to pay 
interest on that national debt. So to see a Republican budget that in 
the outyears, 2009, 2010, projects that we will be paying $250 plus 
billion in interest only on the national debt, it does not take much 
for me to understand, well, if I had that $250 billion in my budget, I 
could do something with it, like pay for education and health care and 
things that are important to our country's future.

                              {time}  1615

  That is the microbasis that I want to talk about.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not know how much the war is going to cost. The 
war just got started, and it is not over yet. When we know how long it 
will have lasted, then we will know how much it will have cost. Then we 
will be able to budget for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the majority budget 
resolution today. Mr. Chairman, I love being in Congress. It is a place 
of unbounded personalities and unbounded debate and enthusiasm. But 
today is the first day that I have been called a henchman and anti-
Christian all in the same speech, simply because I believe that in this 
struggling economy that we should speed tax relief to working families, 
small businesses, and family farms.
  Or perhaps it is because I believe that once we set aside the 
spending, a historic increase in military spending for defense, once we 
set aside our commitment to our veterans, our commitment to our 
seniors, and even our commitment to seniors' health care in Medicare, 
that what is left behind, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I earn those monikers 
because I believe that we could find one penny out of all of the 
remaining spending in waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I come from a heartland district that serves most of eastern Indiana 
here in Washington, D.C. One of the maxims that we Hoosiers have 
endorsed since a Californian rode to the White House on that message in 
1980 was that government is too big and it spends too much.
  I believe the overwhelming majority of the American people believe 
that today, from the storied days of the Grace Commission to the 
present moment, the Republican vision of government has not been a 
vision of hardship for families or cuts in education. The truth of it 
has been about meeting our public obligations while sharpening our 
pencils and trying to serve the interests of taxpayers in the long 
term.
  Those who doubt that the provisions of the Republican budget that 
call for the finding of one cent out of every dollar, outside defense, 
homeland security, Medicare, and Social Security, cannot happen ought 
to look at some research on government spending. According to the GAO, 
the Federal Government right now cannot account for $17.3 billion that 
it spent in 2001.
  Also, according to the Government Accounting Office, they are 
currently refusing to certify the government's own accounting books 
because, in an almost Enron-like statement, they say the bookkeeping is 
too poor by the Federal Government to do that.
  In fact, the Federal Government made nearly $20 billion in 
overpayments on contracts, according to their own records. In 
department after department we find examples, not always through 
malfeasance and misfeasance, but oftentimes through mistake and error 
and sometimes negligence, we find ample evidence of waste and abuse.
  The Republican budget is about taking a penny out of a dollar out of 
those nonessential programs, because government is too big and does 
spend too much.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note that there is $1.8 billion being cut from 
the Medicaid contributions to the State of Indiana, which I am sure the 
previous speaker supports.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, who knows all too well what it is to fight in a war with real 
bullets, unlike the White House and the current Republican 
administration.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) for giving me this opportunity to address the 
House in probably the saddest day that I have had in my career, to be a 
Member of Congress and to not be able to respond to my constituents, 
and indeed, to so many people in our great Nation, as to how we find 
ourselves in the situation we do today.
  What is even more remarkable is how we can debate putting together a 
budget and say that we have to wait until the war gets started good or 
the war is

[[Page 6895]]

over, and then we will be able to come back and fit it into the budget. 
It is almost like saying that we would like to give prescription drugs 
and hospital assistance, but we do not know how many people are going 
to be sick. We would like to give prisons and cops and security, but we 
really do not know how many people are going to commit crimes, so wait 
until it is all over and then trust us, we will come back.
  Another problem that I have today is that so many of my colleagues 
find it very, very difficult to understand that we come together in our 
hearts, and wanting to make certain that no young person that is in our 
military today will ever have any reason to challenge that this United 
States Congress appreciates them for their dedication, their loyalty, 
and that we are prepared to do anything and everything that we can for 
them to have the security in knowing that we are all Americans together 
and nothing, not Republicans and not Democrats, not liberals and not 
conservatives, is going to breach this bond that we have a 
constitutional and moral right to have.
  I have been involved in a lot of debates as to when American troops 
should be introduced into harm's way. I was not here when they went 
into the Dominican Republic. God knows I was not here when they went 
into Korea. I was not even here when they had a vote on the Tonkin Gulf 
resolution.
  I was here and I heard debate on Kosovo. I was here and heard debate 
on Haiti and the Persian Gulf. We had Democrat and Republican 
Presidents, and we had serious differences of opinion. Most of the 
time, at the conclusion of these debates, we praised each other and 
expressed support that it was intellectually and politically the right 
thing for the Republic and a great Nation like ours to do. Nobody 
accused someone of being unpatriotic because they differed with the 
President, whether he was Republican or Democrat.
  Today I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are not going to challenge each 
other as to who loves our country and who respects our flag the most; 
but we concentrate on the fact that those that are placed in harm's 
way, they do not have the opportunity to debate which war they support 
or which war they are against. They do not have the opportunity to make 
the decisions. When the decision is made, they have to go; and we have 
to be there for them.
  I suspect if the gauge of patriotism was gauged not on how many flags 
we had stuck on your automobiles but, rather, how patriotic we were in 
wanting to help the troops, that we would be here and we would be 
coming here saying how many members of our family have we encouraged to 
join up and to volunteer and to get involved in this thing, not only to 
bring democracy to Iraq but to bring democracy to the region.
  I would suspect that if we were all as patriotic as sometimes I hear 
the words said, that we would reflect this not only in the budget, but 
we would be talking about expanded services for our veterans, for our 
warriors, for those people who would want to expand and join the 
Reserves and join the National Guard.
  I would suspect that if we did not have this attitude that ``we will 
hold your coat, you go ahead and fight,'' but we were really saying, we 
appreciate what you are doing, that we would say, ``and when you come 
home we are not going to treat you just as disabled veterans or sick 
veterans or veterans without homes, we are going to treat you as the 
heroes that you are for what you have done for us.''
  I would find it awkward when my veterans come home from Iraq to tell 
them that what I was really debating on the floor was how much money 
could we really take out; that I would be saying what we were trying to 
do on your behalf would be to have a $1.5 trillion tax cut because we 
want to stimulate the economy; that what we were doing was trying to 
cut back a budget, to cut back health care, to cut back housing.
  I would find it difficult to explain how the thought of terrorism 
would have this Congress so petrified that instead of doing the things 
that we have been sent down here to do, we are cutting back in 
spending, we are cutting back in taxes, and we are cutting back in 
being those things that we are asking people to fight for, that is, a 
country where everyone has an opportunity to decent health care, a 
decent education.
  I am going to be just as critical of this President as I can; but 
more than that, I am going to be just as supportive as this Congress 
allows me to be supporting those programs that allow them to get back 
home healthy and safe and to be able to be discharged and knowing that 
we are going to protect those rights.
  I hope when that flag goes up we recognize one thing, that no one has 
a right to say that someone is less patriotic because they did not 
support every intrusion that a Congress has made or a President has 
decided of our men and women into a foreign country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would just like to point out that veterans spending has increased 
in this majority budget. Discretionary veterans spending goes up by 
$1.6 billion, and mandatory spending goes up by $2.3 billion, about a 
$4 billion increase in veterans spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I just want to say, when the Republicans took over the Congress in 
1995 and became the majority party, they started working on our 
budgets. Probably since then almost every single Democrat has voted 
against every single budget, it is fair to say. It is always because of 
the seniors, it is because of veterans, it is because of the children, 
it is because of the teachers, because of education, because save the 
whales, killing baby seals. It does not matter. If they want to vote 
no, they find good reasons to vote no.
  The reality is that despite all the gloom and doom, here is the 
Medicaid budget under the Republican majority. It has grown by 76 
percent. Here is the transportation budget. Under Republican control, 
it has grown by 76 percent. Here is the veterans benefits. Under 
Republican control, it has grown by 51 percent.
  Why is that important, Mr. Chairman? Because not one Democrat voted 
for it. Here they are coming down to the floor saying, we are the 
champions of this, we are the champions of that, yet they have voted 
against all the budgets that increase the spending.
  Here is Medicare. There is a 56 percent under Republican control, an 
increase. Where are the Democrat votes? They are voting no on every 
single budget ever since our majority has taken over.
  Here comes another budget. We are going to increase some of these 
very important areas for our seniors, for our national security, for 
our homeland security, for our troops overseas. Again, where are the 
Democrats? It is the same parade we have been seeing nearly 10 years 
now: voting no, scaring the people back home, scaring the vulnerable 
members of our society by saying these budgets do horrible things.
  The reality is that the budget takes care of the critical needs of 
our society. It takes care of defense, it takes care of Social 
Security, it takes care of homeland security, it takes care of 
unemployment. Yet the Democrats are focused in on the fact that we are 
asking some very wasteful government bureaucracy to reduce their 
budgets by one cent, one penny on the dollar.
  We do that routinely to Americans back home. As families, as 
taxpayers, we often have to cut our budget. I find it unbelievable, and 
only in this town are people suggesting that bureaucracy cannot find 
one cent on one dollar outside of these very critical areas.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The Committee will rise 
informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________