[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7940-7952]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 95, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 
                    THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) 
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for the fiscal year 2004, and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013, with the Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to a 
conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.


                Motion To Instruct Offered By Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

[[Page 7941]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Spratt moves that within the scope of the conference 
     (1) the managers on the part of the House at the conference 
     on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate 
     amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 95 be 
     instructed to eliminate the reconciliation instruction to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and Means 
     contained in section 201(b) of the House resolution; that (2) 
     such managers be instructed to recede to the Senate on 
     section 319 (entitled ``Reserve Fund to Strengthen Social 
     Security'') of the Senate amendment; and that (3) such 
     managers be instructed to adjust the revenue levels by the 
     amounts needed to offset the cost of the instructions set 
     forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), without resulting in any 
     increase in the deficit or reduction in surplus for any 
     fiscal year covered by the resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, but for one vote, the budget resolution that we now seem 
to send to conference would have gone down. Fortunately, there is still 
a way out for this budget with its massive deficits and its misguided 
priorities: we can rewrite it in conference. If we cut through all the 
words, all the legislative language and the motion that was just read, 
that is what the motion to instruct calls for.
  Now, we do not cover the waterfront and take out every change that we 
find objectionable and make every change that we feel needs to be made, 
but we do send the conferees a strong message, and that is to get rid 
of the worst of the entitlement reconciliation directives in this 
budget resolution.
  First of all, Medicare. Originally, our Republican colleagues on the 
Committee on the Budget sought to cut Medicare by $262 billion and 
Medicaid by $110 billion. That was to offset the cost of their 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We tried to knock out these 
cuts in markup, but failed. The chairman, however, did change his mark 
twice. After these modifications were made, however, the Committee on 
Ways and Means is still directed to cut $62 billion out of entitlement 
programs in its jurisdiction. This sort of saving can only come from 
two sources under the Committee on Ways and Means jurisdiction: 
Medicare or programs for the poor, the earned income tax credit, 
temporary assistance to needy families, or supplemental security 
income. It will have to come out of these programs, $62 billion; and 
these could be critical cuts in critically important programs.
  The chairman's amendment, the manager's amendment also shaved the 
reconciliation directions just slightly to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce from $110 billion to $107 billion.

                              {time}  1415

  But of this amount, $94 billion must still come from Medicaid, or 
SCHIP, the children's health insurance program. Contrast that, Mr. 
Speaker, to what we do in our budget resolution, or would have done had 
it passed. Given the struggle that all the States are having with 
Medicaid, we sought to increase the Federal share and lighten the 
States' burden by adding $10 billion at the Federal level to the cost 
of Medicaid this year.
  If the rule had allowed during consideration of the budget, we would 
have offered amendments when the budget was on the floor to strike all 
of these cuts. Since everyone knows that they would have emasculated 
Medicare and Medicaid, I think they would have passed; but we were not 
allowed to make such an amendment.
  Next, veterans. Originally, the Republicans on the Committee on the 
Budget set out to cut $30 billion from the budget for the veterans. 
They say that veterans benefits actually increase in their budget, and 
they may in nominal dollars. But this is the fact of the matter: Their 
budget resolution, as brought to the floor, provided $15 billion less 
for veterans health care than the President requested, and it still 
provides less for veterans disability benefits.
  Next, education. The Republican resolution not only cuts 
appropriations for education below the President's already-low level, 
it saves none of the 47 programs that the President wiped out or would 
kill. It goes a step further: It whacks $9.4 billion out of mandatory 
spending. What does the Committee on Education and the Workforce have 
in its jurisdiction? Student loans and school lunches. Do we really 
want to cut student loans and school lunches to pay for a dividend tax 
exclusion?
  Next, railroad retirees. Looking everywhere for programs they could 
cut to offset a big tax cut of another $1.35 trillion, our colleagues 
on the Committee on the Budget even called on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure to come up with some reconciliation 
savings, namely, $3.7 billion out of its mandatory or entitlement 
programs.
  The only source that can produce such a cut under the jurisdiction of 
that committee is railroad retirement, a vested benefit on which 
700,000 retirees depend. Surely we are not going to cut $3.7 billion 
out of that.
  Finally, in the same vein, is agriculture. The budget, as it now 
stands, requires the Committee on Agriculture to cut $18.6 billion of 
direct spending over the next 10 years, but as in all of the other 
cases, it fails to mention which programs and fails to say how much.
  Where does the Committee on Agriculture go? It can turn to the 
conservation reserve program, $18.6 billion, roughly what it costs to 
run that program for 10 years; or the Committee on Agriculture could 
turn to food stamps and take 12 percent out of food stamps for the next 
10 years to produce $18.6 billion. But do we want to take 34 million 
acres of environmentally sensitive land out of reserves? Do we want to 
cut food stamps when unemployment is 6 percent nationwide, in double 
digits in places like my district?
  These are a few of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we should tell the 
conferees and tell them emphatically to recede to the Senate and drop 
these reconciliation directives. They should not be in here. First of 
all, these cuts are not in the President's budget, they are not in the 
Senate's budget, and except for the House budget, they are not on 
anybody's agenda.
  Second, they are wrapped up in ambiguity, written in language so 
evasive that no one can know where the cuts may fall. They were clouded 
further by colloquies here on the House floor when we had the budget on 
the floor, in which the chairman of the committee, the Committee on the 
Budget, assured chairman after chairman of committees of jurisdiction 
that, no, they would not have to do what the black letter provisions of 
this resolution plainly say they must do, and that is cut Medicare, cut 
Medicaid and cut veterans benefits.
  All, in effect, that this motion does is say to the conferees, 
conform the budget resolution to legislative history as recorded right 
here on the House floor the night we had the budget up.
  Finally, these cuts, Mr. Speaker, would be questionable at any time, 
but cutting veterans when we are at war and Medicaid when the States 
are struggling just to sustain it and student loans for no good reason 
it is just wrong, callous and wrong.
  In the end, I will be frank to say that I do not think most of these 
cuts will ever come to pass, not this year, anyway. But another huge 
tax cut may be passed. Its impact on the deficit may be obscured by 
pretending that these spending cuts will be enacted later as offsets. 
Most of these cuts may not be enacted later for the same political 
reasons, but as deficits swell, as they surely will if these tax cuts 
proposed are passed, the cuts will come in time, and this budget 
resolution is our forewarning of where they will have to fall.
  We can ask fairly, what would happen to the budget's bottom line if 
these spending cuts we are calling for deletion are not enacted? The 
answer is that these proposed spending cuts are made necessary by the 
proposed tax cuts. If we forgo the tax cuts, we can

[[Page 7942]]

forgo the deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, student 
loans, agriculture, and railroad retirees.
  As for the bottom line, if we just leave spending and revenues at 
current service levels, the Congressional Budget Office tells us the 
budget will be in balance by the year 2008. That is 4 years sooner and 
a couple of trillion less debt than this resolution promises. So if 
Members are for a budget that balances priorities as well as the bottom 
line, they should vote for this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We are on the floor discussing the 
fact that the Federal Government does not have even one penny of waste. 
Do Members believe that? It is hard to believe that somebody would come 
to the floor of the House, or that an entire party would come to the 
floor of the House today and suggest that the United States Government 
does not have any waste.
  I will admit, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) very 
eloquently stated, that there is no way, as we go to the conference 
between the House and Senate over the budget, that possibly the House-
passed numbers of savings might be difficult to attain, and certainly 
might be difficult to reach a negotiation between the House and Senate.
  But they come to the floor today and basically say that we are going 
to eliminate the instructions in order to get waste and abuse in this 
government, and that none of the instructions, not one of the years 
over the next 10 years can we even find a penny.
  Is it going to be hard to find the $300 billion? Okay, let us suggest 
it is. We made an attempt on our side in good faith to try and look at 
our programs called entitlements, which are nothing more than automatic 
spending, which has now basically engulfed the budget to the tune of 
about 60 percent of all our expenditures are automatic. We have nothing 
to say about them. We get sent to Washington to make judgments and 
choices, and those choices were made before us, a long time before us, 
in many instances.
  As we do research on those programs, as we look and examine the 
programs, where we find challenges, where we find waste, where we find 
abuse, where we find problems, we even hire an agency called the 
General Accounting Office to do reports for us, and when we find those, 
we are not to challenge ourselves to reform those programs. We are not 
to challenge ourselves to find savings in those programs. We are not to 
challenge ourselves to look in every nook and cranny of the budget, or 
every nook and cranny of the Federal Government in order, at a time of 
challenge for our country, to find savings, so we can save taxpayers a 
little bit of money.
  I do not know about the Members, but I just had to send in my taxes. 
That is not a fun experience for me, and I am sure it is not for any of 
my colleagues. I guarantee, Members, it is not for my friends back home 
in Iowa as they go visit the tax people.
  So looking for a little bit of savings, looking for a little bit of 
waste and fraud and abuse, I thought would be a pretty worthy endeavor. 
We even put into our budget a couple of different items that we found 
kind of interesting.
  We said that the Inspector General for the Department of Education 
has found that nearly 23 percent of the recipients whose loans were 
discharged due to disability claims were gainfully employed. Now, think 
about this a second. What the Democrats are coming here today and 
saying is, we cannot find any waste. But the Inspector General who 
works for the Department of Education has found 23 percent of the 
claims for disability benefits for education were actually employed, 23 
percent.
  Can we do anything about that? No, we cannot do anything about that. 
Heaven forbid we challenge the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
to go looking for that, so let us eliminate that instruction. Not the 
amount in the budget, not even a penny, we cannot even find a penny of 
waste in the Education Department is what the Democrats are saying.
  Based on the data provided by the Office of Management and Budget, 
the Committee on the Budget estimates more than $8 billion in erroneous 
earned income tax payments are made every year, $8 billion of checks 
that go out to recipients in the United States, $8 billion.
  Can we do anything about that? No, no, we cannot do anything about 
that. We do not want to challenge that. That is going to be real heavy 
lifting; we cannot do anything about that.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimates there are erroneous 
payments for food stamps that account for almost 9 percent, 9 percent. 
With almost one out of every 10 people who get food stamps, something 
was erroneous about those accounts and those benefits. Can we challenge 
the Committee on Agriculture to go look at that? No, we cannot do that. 
Heaven forbid we will come down to the floor and scream that it is 
going to farmers, when we know full well that it is not.
  We put in here that mismanagement of almost more than $3 billion in 
trust funds controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs led the Congress 
to take extraordinary measures to regain control of the funds because 
$3 billion were being mismanaged.
  Can we find that? No, do not look there. There is no waste over 
there. Do not look over there. We cannot find any waste over there, not 
this year, not next year, not for the next 10 years, no waste.
  There is no waste in Washington, that is what the Democrats are 
coming to the floor today to tell us. We cannot do any of that, too 
heavy. That is too heavy lifting.
  Inspector General, Personnel Management, has documented numerous 
instances of the government continuing to make electronic payments for 
retirement benefits for the Civil Service Retirement system after the 
person died, meaning that people who work for our Federal Government, 
we give them a pension, and after they die, we care so much about the 
work they did for the United States Government we keep paying them.
  But can we ask anybody to go look for that? No, we cannot do that. 
The motion to instruct says no, we are not going to do that. There is 
no waste in Washington. That is what the Democrats say, no waste in 
Washington. Eliminate that instruction. That is too hard. In fact, if 
it really gets hard, we will come down here and tell people that we are 
throwing seniors out of nursing homes, or that we are eliminating 
Medicare benefits, or that we are going to do a disservice to veterans.
  In fact, we do such a service to veterans that last year 5,500 
veterans received benefits from the Veterans Administration after they 
died. But can we go to the Veterans Administration? No, we cannot touch 
them. We do not want to do anything in that department. That is too 
heavy, that is too hard. Let us just keep paying them, because it is 
easier to send out the press release today saying, I supported the 
veterans, or I supported Medicare, or I supported Medicaid, or I 
supported farmers.
  I do not think Members are supporting veterans when they pay them 
when they die. That does not make much sense. Pay them when they are 
alive, pay them for their service; there is not anybody who disagrees 
with that. We all agree with that. But to say there is not at least 
even a penny of savings over the next 10 years, I would like Members to 
go home and explain that to Members' constituents in a town meeting. I 
want Members to explain that they do not believe there is any waste in 
Washington, no waste at all in Washington.
  What we are asking our committees to do is to go look for it and go 
find it. Is that going to be hard to do? Sure. Some of these are very 
politically sensitive areas, very politically sensitive, which is why 
today, for political intrigue and fodder, the Democrats rushed to the 
floor saying, we are supporting all of these constituent groups, and we 
are supporting them so much we will support them when there is

[[Page 7943]]

mismanagement, when there is waste, when there is fraud within the 
system. We are not willing to challenge our committees to go and get 
that job done.
  The second thing they say is that, what we are going to do about this 
is we are going to trim back the tax cut. The tax relief in the House-
passed budget estimates it will create about 1.4 million jobs. How many 
jobs do Members want to create? Obviously, not 1.4 million. About half 
that? It is 1.4 million jobs. Why is it that they want to eliminate the 
opportunities under this growth package?

                              {time}  1430

  And what is more important, going to your second point here about the 
Social Security trust fund, is that the best way to create money in the 
Social Security trust fund is to create workers. That is who pays the 
bills, who pays the Social Security money in the first place, the 
people who are working. The more people you create, the more jobs you 
create, the more people you have working, the more money that goes into 
the trust fund. And so by eliminating jobs by suggesting that you do 
not want to create these jobs at a time when our economy is struggling 
does the biggest disservice to the Social Security trust fund.
  So I would rather you come here today and basically say that the 
General Accounting Office, which does all of these reports on the 
defense, food stamps, here is one on debt collection, here is one on 
the Defense Department again, public housing, here is a good one on the 
post office, Federal loans, defense again, foreign assistance, we have 
got travel cards in the Defense Department and across the country or 
across the government that are being abused. You do not want to do 
anything about that. You do not want to do anything about waste, fraud 
and abuse. That is what we are asking for. And so you come down here 
today, and you want to basically tie the hands of the conferees and say 
you do not want to instruct any of the committees to do this job.
  Well, we reject that. We are not going to get, we know, all of the 
waste, fraud and abuse in the first budget, maybe not in the second 
budget. We may not get much at all, but you have got to start 
somewhere. And to suggest there is not even a penny, to basically say 
eliminate it all, eliminate any attempt to go find wasteful Washington 
spending, to me I think is a disservice. And so even though this is a 
nonbinding motion to instruct conferees and certainly the minority has 
an opportunity to come down here and make this motion, it really shows 
your cards.
  It shows that you do not really have a concern about some of these 
programs and their usefulness, finding the waste and the fraud and 
abuse within our Federal Government. That is what it shows to me, and I 
think it shows that to the American people. There is not a person in 
America that does not believe there is waste in Washington. There is 
not a person, certainly not a person I have ever run into. I hope if 
there is somebody, you would let me know because I have not met one yet 
who does not think there is some waste in Washington.
  But your motion to instruct conferees says no there is no waste in 
Washington. We do not have to do our work. Let us just keep this 
automatic spending going right on automatically down the line. Let us 
not worry about it at all. Let us not create those jobs. Let us back 
down the tax relief. Let us not create taxpayers so we can replenish 
the Social Security trust fund. Let us not do that, and let us continue 
on business as usual in Washington.
  Well, we do not want to do that. We want to make sure that the 
conferees, I hope to be one of them, of course, continues to work for 
waste, fraud and abuse; and that is why we are going to continue that 
job even in the face of the Democrats coming here today suggesting that 
there is no waste in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I believe the 
gentleman has quite a bit of time remaining on his side for debate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned as any Member of this 
Congress about squeezing out waste, fraud and abuse. But we sincerely 
doubt that you can squeeze, ferret out $265 billion in waste, fraud and 
abuse. If you can, I would say to my colleague, where has the 
Republican majority been for the last 8 years during which you have 
controlled the House. Instead of having oversight, we have had 
overlook, if there is that much waste being accumulated in the Federal 
operation at this time.
  Here are the cuts that are entailed by this resolution as it goes to 
conference: Agriculture, $18 billion. Waste, fraud and abuse, where is 
it? Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, 107; most of that 
is Medicaid. Medicare, $62 billion. The total amount, $265 billion.
  If you required these reconciliation savings to be accomplished and 
laid on the table before you passed your budget resolution, before you 
passed your tax cuts, they would have more credibility. But they lack 
credibility with me because if you are going to go ahead and have the 
tax cuts premised on adopting all of these $265 billion in savings just 
a few months afterwards, I do not think they will ever come to pass.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is not anybody in here who is not 
against waste, fraud and abuse. Ronald Reagan ran in 1980, and he said 
he was going to save a lot of money by eliminating waste, fraud and 
abuse. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate. Ronald Reagan was 
President of the United States. Not once, not ever did Ronald Reagan 
have a veto of any appropriation bill overridden, not once that asked 
to spend more money.
  He was in charge of the executive department. George Bush was in 
charge of the executive department for the 4 years following, for 12 
years in a row. And, Mr. Nussle, you know what happened to waste, fraud 
and abuse? You quadrupled the national debt, I say to my friend who is 
trying to ignore me. You quadrupled the national debt from $985 billion 
to $4 trillion. Why did Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush not eliminate waste, 
fraud and abuse?
  And then what happened? Bill Clinton came to town, elected President 
of the United States, and what happened in those 8 years? For 8 years 
in a row the deficit came down, for 4 years; and then the surplus 
started going up until 2001. We had 4 years of surpluses for the first 
time in 80 years. And then what happened? President Bush came to 
office. Mr. Nussle became the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
and we have reescalated the debt.
  This budget proposes the largest debt in the history of this country. 
This budget is an April fool, a cruel hoax and joke on the American 
public. And what does the chairman of the Committee on the Budget do? 
He brings these little blue books. They are important books. The 
question I wanted to ask you, Mr. Nussle, and just an answer, is I am 
sure your committee staff has added up how would the savings if every 
piece of waste in those blue books was effected would it provide us. 
How much, Mr. Nussle?
  Would it provide the 18 billion you want to take away from farmers 
who are attacked by drought? Would it take away the money that you are 
going to reduce school lunches by? Student loans by? Would it provide 
for the Medicaid that you want the Committee on Energy and Commerce to 
cut? Would it provide for the Medicare that your own committee has 
jurisdiction over?
  Now, Mr. Nussle, it is April Fool's Day but do not take us for fools, 
because with all due respect, you offered a budget last year. Now you 
complained it did not pass, but in years past we have deemed adopted 
the House-passed budget and passed bills.
  Again, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget ignores me. It is 
a shame because, my friends, 11 of the appropriations bills did not 
pass this

[[Page 7944]]

House last year. Why? Because they could not get them within the 
budget. The budget that Mr. Nussle offered is not a real document. It 
is an April fool's joke. It will never be adopted. Never. And, Mr. 
Nussle, I believe you know it. I believe you know that the document 
that you have provided is unsustainable politically because the 
American public will reject it out of hand because they do not believe 
that that railroad retirement and people who work hard for their 
retirement should be cut. They do not believe that Social Security 
should be cut. They do not believe that Medicaid should be cut. They do 
not believe that Medicare should be cut.
  The motion to instruct will make it a real budget and turn an April 
fool's joke into a real document for America.
  Mr. Speaker, it is indeed fitting that on this, April Fool's Day, 
we're voting on this motion to instruct on the House GOP's phony and 
foolhardy budget.
  Why?
  Because the fact of the matter is: This GOP budget is a dishonest 
document designed solely to fool the American people.
  To fool them into believing that this Republican Party really does 
care about balancing the budget, controlling deficits and reducing 
debt.
  To fool them into believing that our nation--which is now prosecuting 
a war of unknown duration and undetermined costs--really can afford the 
President's $1.4 trillion tax plan.
  And, to fool them into believing that the Members who sit on the 
Republican side of the aisle really have the courage of their 
convictions.
  Let me ask you: will you really vote to cut Medicaid funding and the 
Children's Health Insurance Program by $94 billion?
  Will you really vote to cut school lunches for poor children and 
student loans by $9.4 billion?
  Will you really vote to cut railroad retirees' pensions and 
Agriculture programs such as Food Stamps and Farm Support Payments?
  And, with our brave armed forces now on the field of battle risking 
their lives to defend freedom and combat tyranny, will you really vote 
to cut veterans' benefits by $14.6 billion?
  Some of you actually might.
  But we all know that most of you have absolutely no intention of 
walking the plank and voting for legislation that would implement these 
draconian funding cuts.
  Thus, today, we're engaged in nothing more than a cynical charade.
  You get to pretend that you're for balanced budgets and enormous tax 
cuts, too.
  That's not leadership. That's a conscious evasion of the 
responsibility to level with the American people--to tell them that we 
cannot afford everything--and a deliberate decision to pass the costs 
of this reckless tax plan onto the next generation.
  I urge all of my colleagues--including those on the Republican side 
of the aisle who are still nursing sore arms after the vote on the 
budget resolution two weeks ago--to vote for the Spratt motion to 
instruct.
  That motion--which instructs conferees to reject these proposed and 
clearly unpassable and untenable funding cuts--is an honest one and 
based in reality.
  Everyone of us knows that this GOP budget is not.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was watching this debate, and I was very intrigued by 
the Democrat's motion to instruct. And as I look at this motion to 
instruct and I want to yield to the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to answer, if he sees this as what I see this. This looks like 
to me that the Democrats are suggesting that we have attacked an 
economic growth package that sets out a number of about $514 billion. 
Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is 
correct. If you take the tax number in the bill in the resolution at 
726 and what the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) motion to 
instruct conferees backs out, which is $212 billion of what they say, 
you know, there is no waste in Washington, yes, you would arrive at a 
tax number of about $514 billion.
  Mr. DeLAY. So from what the chairman is saying, Mr. Speaker, is that 
the Democrats of this House are suggesting that the tax number be $514 
billion. I might be able to take that, Mr. Chairman. I am a little 
concerned that in the motion to instruct to continue spending, and I 
know that the minority loves to spend and they want to continue to 
spend; and we tried to as we pointed out in the House budget, that it 
was important not only to get the economy going again but also to show 
some fiscal restraint in the way the Federal Government spends money 
around here, and we wanted to go after waste, fraud and abuse and 
efficiencies and reforms, not cutting programs, but trying to squeeze 
out, out of this bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. the kind of savings we 
could find, anywhere we could find them, so that we could show some 
spending restraint and at the same time have an economic growth 
package.
  So if the minority is suggesting that we go to conference and we go 
to conference with a number that seems to me to be a floor on the tax 
bill of $514 billion, having faced in conference that the House has a 
number of 726 and the Senate has a number of 350 billion, I might take 
that. I might take that right now. I think we could do some really good 
stimulative effect with $514 billion. We could go in there and make 
sure that the accelerated experiencing for small business people to be 
able to go out and buy equipment and start people making equipment 
would be there. We might be able to do something on capital gains. We 
all know through history that lowering capital gains rates always 
stimulates the economy and provides for long-term growth. And frankly, 
at 514 billion we could probably fool around a little bit with the 
double taxation dividends and even get something like that in there.
  So I just might vote for this. I am going to look at it a little 
closer, but I just might vote for this motion to instruct because I for 
the first time am noticing that the Democrats are suggesting that we 
have a $514 billion tax relief package, and I think we could do a lot 
with that.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand what you 
are saying because I certainly want to defend the budget that I helped 
pass. While this technically is a nonbinding motion, I want to 
understand what we are suggesting here.
  The Democrats are coming here and basically suggesting that even 
though we do not want to reduce the tax number, that they would be 
willing to go to $514 billion. I do not like that number. I would 
rather stay at 726. I met very briefly with the chairman of the Senate 
budget committee today, and I told him that is what I am still 
interested in doing. But if we can get some agreement here, if the 
Democrats are willing to come to the floor today and support a number 
in the tax bill of $514 billion, at least that would be a more positive 
signal than what came out of the Senate.
  So I still believe there is waste in Washington. I hate the first 
instruction in here that says that over the next 10 years we cannot 
even find a penny of waste, is what the Democrats said, not a penny. 
Nowhere is there waste in Washington. I hate that instruction. Of all 
of the instructions, that is the one that probably turns my stomach 
more than any of them. But if the majority leader is interested in 
this, I certainly would be willing to consider agreeing to the motion 
and urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to agree to a 
number of about $514 billion.
  Certainly at a time when Americans across the country are looking to 
get back to work and we are looking to try and create jobs, a tax 
number of $514 billion is certainly, probably a good day's work. So I 
appreciate the gentleman analyzing the amendment and coming to that 
very interesting conclusion.
  You know what will be interesting now, to see whether or not the 
Democrats even support their own motion.

                              {time}  1445

  I have a suspicion that the Democrats do not even support $514 
billion.

[[Page 7945]]


  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, obviously we are going to 
have to give them the opportunity to express themselves, but the 
chairman knows that I want to restrain spending, too, and I want to 
find that waste, fraud and abuse myself. Just because we have a motion 
to instruct that says we want to do that does not mean the chairman has 
to negotiate that way on that particular portion.
  But to have the Democrats support a $514 billion tax cut, I think 
that strengthens us in conference because all throughout the debate, 
all I heard is, they did not want any of it, they wanted to spend it 
all. In fact, in their proposal, they wanted to raise taxes in order to 
bring down the deficit, which I think is a flawed way to go, because we 
have seen in the past that when we raise taxes and keep spending, the 
deficits keep going.
  The point is, now we have a revelation here where the Democrats want 
$514 billion. We could do that and we can still fight, or the chairman 
could fight in the conference committee for those spending restraints 
that we all want and come out of conference with a $514 billion tax 
number and still have the spending.
  I think the Democrats may have something, and I am going to think 
real hard about this.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to make a few 
things clear before I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  First of all, as to the tax cut level sought by the resolution that 
is now going to conference, this resolution has two different 
provisions with respect to tax cuts.
  First, they say, reconcile the passage by a date certain of the 
President's request for $726 billion of additional tax cuts. Second, in 
their revenue assumptions and elsewhere, they assume that we will pass 
and permanently enact the tax cuts that were enacted by the House in 
June of 2001. When we add those two together, the total amount of tax 
reduction called for by this resolution is $1.35 trillion, not $726 
billion. That should be made clear.
  Secondly, we have proposed tax cuts. We would like to have some tax 
cuts to go to the pockets and hands of people who are likely to spend 
it and give this economy a boost. On January 6, we proposed just such a 
rebate, along with some business tax cuts, accelerated appreciation, 
immediate expensing in order to give this economy a kick.
  Thirdly, let me say with respect to these spending levels, 
Agriculture, Education, Energy and Commerce, which is Medicaid, 
Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Ways and Means, which is Medicare, as 
with respect to all of those, Mr. Speaker, we simply seek to restore 
the level of spending in these programs to the level sought by the 
President for the veterans and for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me the time, and Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Democratic 
motion to instruct conferees so that we can fix the budget so narrowly 
passed by the House of Representatives, a Federal budget that is 
supposed to reflect our values and our priorities, but this House 
budget resolution does not do that and so we need to change it.
  The Republican budget resolution embraces the administration's 
irresponsible tax cut package at the expense of our Nation's health 
care needs. This is part of our national security, our health care 
security, and despite the protests of many Members of this Chamber, the 
majority resolution still requires Medicare and Medicaid to be cut, 
Medicaid to be cut by $93 billion, and the appropriating committees are 
charged to either cut Medicare by almost $200 billion or to shortchange 
an already weak prescription drug coverage benefit. Terrible choices.
  These cuts endanger health care for almost 90 million Americans, 
among them the most vulnerable members of our society. This is 
unconscionable. This does not reflect American values.
  As we move toward conference, we need to eliminate these terrible 
cuts, and among them, these health care cuts include cuts to our 
veterans, even as we are sending our young men and women off to war, 
and they will one day come back to be our Nation's veterans. We are 
cutting health care benefits to today's veterans, wheelchair bound, 
frail, elderly. Promises made should be promises kept.
  We need to reflect America's values in our budget, in our budget 
resolution, and we need to support the Democratic motion to instruct 
conferees so that we can do that.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time on this 
motion to instruct conferees on a $514 billion tax cut.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, once again, I yield myself 30 seconds just 
to make it clear.
  We do not propose and would not have our motion construed to say that 
we are adopting a $514 billion tax cut or any level of tax reduction. 
We are saying that the tax cut ought to be adjusted accordingly after 
restoring these entitlement cuts that we have proposed in the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  We are watching quite a performance on the other side this afternoon. 
First, we had the Budget chairman trying to explain away the vicious 
cuts they have made to programs as vital as veterans services. Imagine 
that, passing a budget that cuts veterans services, right in the middle 
of the Iraq war. It was unconscionable and unthinkable. Small wonder he 
tried to talk all around what they have done without ever really owning 
up to what is the issue before us.
  Then the majority leader comes to the floor. He tries to totally 
redefine the motion that is advanced and before us. It looked a little 
to me like they are waving the white flag, that they do not have the 
votes to beat this motion because who, in the light of day, can vote 
for the cuts to veterans services, to Medicare, to Medicaid and to our 
Nation's farmers in the agricultural account.
  There was no other budget advanced, not the administration's, not the 
Republican-controlled Senate's, that had this measure of cuts. It was a 
phenomenon of the House Committee on the Budget, led by the chairman 
and endorsed by majority leadership.
  I view always as one of the darker moments of my time in the House 
the vote to support our troops taken at 2:30 in the morning followed 
by, 15 minutes later, the passage of the budget which cut the funding 
of veterans services. Frankly, it was a high water of hypocrisy in a 
Chamber that sees a good bit of hypocrisy.
  We have got to reject these cuts, and this is what this motion before 
us does today. Reject the cuts to veterans services. Reject the cuts to 
agriculture. Reject the cuts to education. Reject the cuts to Medicare. 
That is the issue before us, and I will be very pleased if we can have 
a strong bipartisan vote overturning the really ill-advised direction 
the House budget would take us down.
  Let us have a bipartisan vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time on the 
Democrat motion to cut taxes by $514 billion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). For the benefit of the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Iowa reserves the balance of his time, 
which is 12\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from South Carolina has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, once again, I yield 30 seconds to myself to 
say that in no way can this resolution be construed to support a tax 
cut of $514 billion. If the gentleman wishes to put that construction 
upon it, I am here to say, as the author of it, it does not apply. We 
do not support such a tax cut. We have supported tax cuts to boost the 
economy, but not the tax

[[Page 7946]]

cuts that this budget resolution proposes because it would drive a 
deficit deeper and deeper into debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we talk 
about people saying they are against cutting waste, fraud and abuse. We 
are all for doing everything we can to cut waste, fraud and abuse, and 
I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side that possibly we 
should look at waste, fraud and abuse and use those dollars for tax 
cuts that we find.
  Again, I want to reiterate, the maker of this motion is not talking 
about tax cuts. What he is talking about is restoring funds to some of 
those programs that are vital to the United States.
  Here we are 2 years after Members from both sides of the aisle 
pledged to leave no child behind, and yet the House majority has 
approved budget cuts of over $9 billion from Leave No Child Behind. The 
budget passed by this House proposes cuts in so many vital education 
programs I do not even know where to begin.
  After-school programs: After-school programs have been one of those 
programs that have done more to help keep children getting into our 
juvenile system than anything else. It has cut higher education 
funding. It cuts teacher quality training. It cuts rural education. 
This budget cuts money from everywhere in education.
  When we passed Leave No Child Behind, we demanded more from teachers 
and students, but this budget would cut billions that would help 
teachers and students prepare to meet the new tougher standards imposed 
by the Federal Government. If we are going to demand more from our 
education system, we need to provide schools with adequate resources to 
meet those demands. We fool ourselves and cheat our students when we 
impose higher standards without providing the money necessary to 
achieve those standards.
  Our schools are in dire straits right now. I do not know about the 
rest of my colleagues, but I know Oregon schools are. I visited a lot 
of schools throughout my district and the State, and there are schools 
that are literally falling down. Teachers are using closets as extra 
classroom space. Kids are sitting on heaters for lack of room.
  At a time when State budget crises are forcing schools to lay off 
staff, increase class sizes and cut days off the school year, the 
Federal Government is once again failing to live up to its commitment 
and fund the laws that we have passed.
  I do not understand why Congress would spend a year reforming our 
education system only to turn around and fail to provide States with 
the money needed for those reforms. We need to fund the No Child Left 
Behind Act. We need to fund the Individuals With Disabilities Act. 
Twenty-eight years ago, we promised we would fund 40 percent of that 
program; we do not even fund half of that. To my State, it would mean 
$120 million more a year. That is a lot of money to our State.
  We need to fund student financial aid. Instead, this budget cuts 
school lunches, student loan programs, after-school programs, increases 
class size and diverts public funds to private schools. This is not 
what we need to improve the education of our students.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to 
instruct and in favor of increasing education funding and living up to 
its commitment and living up to its promises.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the time on the Democrat motion to 
cut taxes by $514 billion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say the 
gentleman is willfully misconstruing this resolution, and if he will 
simply read his black letter language, he will find out not only do we 
restore $214 billion of programs like Medicare and Medicaid to be at 
the level the President requested, we also provide for the Breaux 
amendment to be adopted and incorporated so that $396 billion can be 
taken out of the tax cuts and assigned to the solvency of Social 
Security. That is Section 319 of the Senate budget resolution which we 
are asking the House to accede to.
  Add those two together, it is about $700 billion. That is about the 
size of the tax cut. This is not an endorsement of that tax cut in any 
way, shape or form.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and would just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, this chart, which 
shows in stark terms what the budget deficit looked like over the 
years, until 1993, when this green box right here shows the Democratic 
plan to a surplus, and in 1 year we are back to worse than where we 
were. I would point out that this chart was done before the 
supplemental war budget, which has no way to pay for itself, so the red 
ink would go even $70 billion further down than this chart.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the tax cuts that caused this drop, we are 
having to do spending cuts; spending cuts like cuts in school lunches, 
Pell Grants, student loans, health care, and veterans benefits. That is 
right, over $14 billion in veterans benefit cuts will be restored if 
the motion to instruct is adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, what are some of those cuts? Fraud, waste and abuse? No, 
they are cuts in disability compensation, pensions, GI bill benefits, 
housing subsidies, and burial funds. This is an unconscionable attack 
against our military personnel at a time when they are deployed in 
Iraq.
  And Mr. Speaker, some say that we could get this through eliminating 
waste, but the President of the United States does not need funding 
cuts to stop paying benefits to people that are ineligible for 
benefits. This budget will cut benefits for eligible veterans.
  Now, what do some of the veterans groups say? Letters to the Speaker 
from the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled 
American Veterans say that ``we recognize that our country has serious 
budget problems, but cutting already underfunded veterans programs to 
offset the cost of tax cuts is indefensible and callous.''
  The Disabled American Veterans wrote, ``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? You will be reducing benefits and services for 
disabled veterans at a time when thousands of our servicemen are in 
harm's way fighting terrorists around the world, and thousands more of 
our sons and daughters are preparing for war against Iraq.''
  And what do the Paralyzed Veterans of America say? They say, in a 
letter to the Speaker, ``The House Committee on the Budget proposal 
also calls for cutting $15 billion over 10 years, $463 million in 
fiscal year 2004 alone, in VA mandatory spending under the guise of 
eliminating `fraud waste and abuse.' We do not consider payments to 
war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest disabled veterans, and 
GI benefits for soldiers returning from Afghanistan to be fraud, waste, 
and abuse. Fifty percent of the spending in VA entitlement goes to 
monthly payments to those veterans and their survivors. The House 
Committee on the Budget plan, if approved, would force cuts in each of 
these programs.''
  Mr. Speaker, listen to our veterans, support our troops, and pass the 
motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letters I just referred to.
                                                   March 17, 2003.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Representative Pelosi: As so many of 
     our nation's finest men and women are poised for possible war 
     in the Persian Gulf region, fighting a global war on terror 
     and defending our ideals at home and abroad, Congress is 
     considering budget cuts that would deny sick and disabled 
     veterans much-needed medical care and other earned benefits.

[[Page 7947]]

       The House budget resolution proposes reducing both 
     mandatory and discretionary spending for veterans programs 
     and services by $15 billion over the next 10 years. 
     Especially appalling is a proposed 1 percent cut in mandatory 
     spending, including veterans disability compensation and 
     pensions, which is the main source of income for many 
     veterans.
       We point out that the monthly compensation for 3.3 million 
     veterans and survivors increased just 1.4% this year. That is 
     the smallest cost-of-living adjustment in three years. Now, 
     with soaring energy costs driving up prices for other goods 
     and services, it is callous and indefensible to propose 
     slashing these benefits.
       We recognize that our country has serious budget problems, 
     but cutting already under funded veterans' programs to offset 
     the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous.
       Congress must rethink drastic cuts in benefits and services 
     for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our 
     service members in harm's way fighting terrorism around the 
     world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and 
     daughters to fight a war against Iraq.
     Ronald F. Conley,
       National Commander, The American Legion.
     Ray C. Sisk,
       Commander in Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars.
     Edward R. Heath, Sr.,
       National Commander, Disabled American Veterans.
                                  ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                                   March 17, 2003.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I write today on behalf of the 2.3 
     million disabled veterans, including the more than 1.2 
     million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), to 
     communicate our deep-seated outrage regarding the fiscal year 
     2004 budget adopted by the House Budget Committee, which 
     would cut veterans programs by more than $15 billion during 
     the next 10 years.
       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? You will be reducing benefits and services 
     for disabled veterans at a time when thousands of our 
     servicemembers are in harm's way fighting terrorists around 
     the world and thousands more of our sons and daughters are 
     preparing for war against Iraq.
       The budget adopted by the Committee, on a nearly party-line 
     vote, would reduce funding for veterans health care by $844 
     million below the President's recommendation for next year. 
     It also proposes to cut $463 million from benefit programs, 
     such as disability compensation, pension, vocational 
     rehabilitation, education and survivors' benefits, next year 
     and $15 billion over the next 10 years. The budget proposal 
     is in distinct contract to the recommendations made by the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs to increase discretionary 
     programs, such as veterans health care, by $3 billion to help 
     ensure that our nation's sick and disabled veterans can be 
     cared for properly.
       Mr. Speaker, you are personally aware of the crisis in 
     veterans health care and the urgent need to adequately fund 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. 
     If you, in your leadership role in the House, allow this 
     budget proposal to pass the House without exempting VA 
     programs from the massive cuts, it could mean the loss of 
     19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million outpatient 
     visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital bed 
     days. But that is not all of the devastation that will be 
     caused by the proposed cuts. You will be reaching into the 
     pockets of our nation's service-connected veterans, including 
     combat disabled veterans, and robbing them and their 
     survivors of a portion of their compensation. Ninety percent 
     of VA's mandatory spending is from cash payments to service-
     connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans, and 
     their survivors.
       As hundreds of thousands of America's brave young men and 
     women await the uncertainties brought on by war, including 
     the potential of biological and chemical attacks at the hand 
     of a fanatical tyrant, they should not have to also be 
     concerned about the discouraging possibilities of a 
     Department of Veterans Affairs that cannot provide either the 
     necessary services or benefits they have earned and might 
     need. Nor should World War II veterans, the ``Greatest 
     Generation,'' now in their twilight years, who are directly 
     responsible for the freedom and prosperity of our nation, be 
     forced out of a system designed specifically to provide for 
     their needs.
       All eyes will be on the critical action of the House this 
     week as you vote on the budget. With America's sons and 
     daughters prepared to do battle with the enemies of our 
     country, and our veterans locked in battles over the crisis 
     in VA health care and drastic cuts to our programs, the 
     American public will want to know whether our government will 
     honor its commitment to our veterans and to their children--
     our future veteans--serving in harm's way.
       There is no question that the vote on the proposed budget 
     is an important vote, one that will set the tone for the 
     remainder of this Congress, and likely the next Congress.
       Mr. Speaker, 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. If this budget 
     resolution retains provisions to cut veteran's programs, I 
     will use all the resources at my disposal to take our case to 
     the American people and call upon members of Congress to 
     oppose and vote against the budget resolution. I urge you to 
     reconsider the inequitable and ill-advised course proposed in 
     the Committee's partisan budget proposal. I look to you, in 
     your leadership position, to ensure that this Congress honors 
     our government's commitment to its veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                              Edward R. Heath, Sr,
     National Commander.
                                  ____



                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the members of Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America (PVA) I am writing to express our 
     profound objection to the provisions contained in the FY 2004 
     Budget Resolution as approved by the House Committee on the 
     Budget that would cut veterans health care and benefit 
     programs by nearly $25 billion. The proposal, if implemented, 
     would have a shocking effect on VA health care services and 
     would be an affront to millions of veterans facing reductions 
     in their health care, compensation, pension and education 
     benefits.
       The FY 2004 budget proposed by the Administration is 
     already inadequate to meet the health care needs of veterans. 
     The proposal, approximately $1.3 billion above the FY 2003 
     appropriation, would not even cover inflationary impact and 
     anticipated salary increases for VA health care workers. That 
     budget proposal already relies too much on unrealistic 
     management efficiencies, increased copayments, a new annual 
     enrollment tax on certain veterans using the VA health care 
     system and other ``efficiencies'' such as eliminating 5,000 
     VA nursing home beds. If the House Budget Committee plan is 
     approved, Congress would have to vote to further block health 
     care eligibility for hundreds of thousands currently eligible 
     veterans, and drastically increase waiting times for health 
     care and benefits adjudication. A cut of this size would 
     force the House of Representatives to vote for a budget that 
     would call for a loss of 9,000 VA physicians equating to a 
     loss of nearly 900,000 days of hospital care.
       The House Budget Committee proposal also calls for cutting 
     $15 billion over ten years, $463 million in FY 2004 alone, in 
     VA mandatory spending under the guise of eliminating ``fraud, 
     waste and abuse.'' We do not consider payments to war-
     disabled veterans pensions for the poorest disabled veterans 
     and G.I. Bill benefits for soldiers returning from 
     Afghanistan to be ``fraud, waste and abuse.'' Ninety percent 
     of the spending for VA entitlements goes in monthly payments 
     to these veterans and their survivors. The House Budget 
     Committee plan, if approved, would force cuts in each of 
     these programs.
       Mr. Speaker, budget resolutions set spending priorities. We 
     find it hard to fathom that veterans would not be a priority 
     to the Budget Committee, or the leadership of the House of 
     Representatives. We know that forcing spending cuts on 
     veterans in order to pay for other priorities, such as large 
     tax cuts, would not be the priority of the American people. 
     Hundreds of thousands of this country's men and women in the 
     Armed Forces are poised to invade the country of Iraq in 
     defense of the United States. In defense of them and their 
     best interest, we must strongly object to this Budget 
     Resolution in its entirety if the magnitude of these cuts in 
     veterans benefits and services is sustained in any fashion. 
     The vote on this budget resolution will be closely watched by 
     our members and all veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                               Joseph L. Fox, Sr.,
                                               National President.

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the very distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in part because I have just now read the motion to 
instruct conferees. The ranking member on the Committee on the Budget 
had indicated that perhaps there were some misrepresentations by a 
description of what some of the black letter language was. If the 
gentleman would be willing to respond to some questions that I

[[Page 7948]]

have, it might assist us in understanding, or at least it will assist 
this gentleman from California in understanding.
  When, for example, on page 5 the gentleman indicates that we be 
instructed to eliminate the reconciliation instruction, that means to 
remove the 1 percent across-the-board cut; is that correct?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it means it is to remove, in the case of 
agriculture, a reduction of $18 billion.
  Mr. THOMAS. That is 1 percent across the board.
  Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman would be so kind as to let me finish 
answering his question.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to go 
through each of the committees, that will eat up my entire time.
  The instruction was a 1 percent.
  Mr. SPRATT. We are seeking to restore to the level the President 
requested Medicare, Medicaid, education.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, it does not say restore to. Reading 
the black letters in front of me, it does not say restore to the 
President's request. It says eliminate the reconciliation instruction, 
not restore to the President's request.
  So it is clear, then, it is the removal of the 1 percent no matter 
what they may say they mean based upon that language.
  Then when we drop down further and the gentleman talks about the 
managers receding to the Senate on section 319. It was described, I 
understand, as the Breaux amendment. The Breaux amendment is in two 
sections. One section is to cut by $396 billion, the other is to create 
a reserve fund to strengthen Social Security.
  My assumption is that when the gentleman refers to 319, not tying it 
to the money number that was included in the Breaux amendment, he is 
referring only to the creation of a reserve fund or a lockbox for 
Social Security; is that correct?
  Mr. SPRATT. In the amount of $396 billion, which would be deducted 
from the gentleman's tax cut. We would instead invest it in the 
insolvency of Social Security.
  Mr. THOMAS. Does that language include the $396 billion which was 
included in the Breaux amendment?
  Mr. SPRATT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, section 319 
reads, ``If legislation is reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, 
or if an amendment is offered or conference report is submitted to 
extend the solvency of the Social Security trust funds, the chairman of 
the sitting Committee on the Budget may revise the aggregates, the 
functional totals, the allocations and limits by up to $396 billion in 
budget authority.
  Mr. THOMAS. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to create 
a lockbox to preserve Social Security.
  And then, no matter how much the gentleman may not like the 
explanation, when we read the black letter language, what it says is 
that instead of a $1.3 billion reduction in taxes, there will be a $1.1 
billion reduction in taxes, and it in no way addresses the $726 billion 
amount that was included in the House budget resolution.
  That is not discussed, nor is it altered by this motion to instruct. 
There may be an attempt through language on the floor to convey that 
that is the intent; but as the gentleman requested, if we read the 
black letter language in front of us, the $726 billion budget cut for 
taxes is retained. It is a removal of the 1 percent cut across the 
board, and it is to create a Social Security lockbox. That is what they 
are attempting to do.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the gross 
misstatement the gentleman just made as to the construction of this 
motion.
  If he will read on, the last sentence says, ``and that such managers 
be instructed to address the revenue levels by the amounts needed.'' 
``To adjust the revenue levels by the amounts needed to offset the cost 
of the instructions in paragraphs 1.'' Those are the entitlement 
reclamations. ``The restoration of the entitlement expenditures.'' And 
two, that is the Breaux reserve fund. To adjust the levels of revenues 
in this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this is a most extraordinary debate. Where 
I come from they mean what they say and they say what they mean.
  Let us look at this debate. In the first 10 minutes, the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget talks against the resolution. He is 
surprised by the majority leader, who comes to the floor and says, you 
know, I think we can go for this, even while the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means tries to parse the language.
  It is quite clear they are a little uncertain of what to do. What is 
this all about? It is because cuts to veterans services do not stand 
the light of day. And this is not 2:30 in the morning. This is in the 
afternoon, with America watching and our country at war. So it is time 
we pass this resolution and reject the cuts to veterans services 
contained in the majority budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, no, that 
is not what it says. It says cut taxes $1.1 billion and freeze veterans 
benefits. That is what the other side's motion to instruct says.
  You have to read it. You wrote it; you read it. I do not like it, 
because, quite honestly, I think our budget was better. But if the 
other side is going to instruct us, at least know what you are 
instructing us. You are instructing us to freeze on spending at 2003 
levels, and you are saying cut taxes by at least $1.1 trillion. That is 
what the letter of the law in the instruction says.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). That is correct.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I did not think that the last speaker, a 
colleague who used to be for controlling the growth in spending, would 
be advocating spending so much.
  When we were in the Committee on the Budget voting out this bill, my 
Democratic colleagues came out with a total of $982 billion of new 
spending over the next 10 years. That is far more than the amount of 
the tax cut. It would not have helped reduce the deficit. It was simply 
more government spending.
  Only in Washington when we spend more money do people call it a cut. 
The total budget is going to go up 3 percent. Medicare is going to go 
up 7.9 percent. Veterans spending is going to go up 6.9 percent, but 
they called it a cut. They call a $3.97 billion increase a cut when it 
is actually an increase of 6.9 percent.
  I believe that during the time I was on the Committee on the Budget 
we had some clear delineation. We wanted to cut taxes. Our Democratic 
colleagues did not want a cut in taxes; they wanted to spend more. We 
never had a debate with President Clinton in which he thought we were 
spending too much. It was always that we needed to spend more, and that 
is the dialogue that is happening now. Then some of my conservative 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying they cannot, in 
some areas, have a 1 percent cut in the budget for 1 year and then 
allow it to go back on its trail of new spending.
  I was proud of what the Committee on the Budget did. I would have 
liked for us to stay on that issue. I would have liked for us, for 1 
year, to take a deep breath and show at least some of what local 
communities are doing, where Governor Richardson in New Mexico is 
cutting spending and cutting taxes. He happens to be a Democrat doing 
what Republicans usually do.
  In my judgment, we should control the growth of spending, take a 
breath for a year, cut taxes and grow this economy. But instead, what 
we are seeing once again are my Democratic colleagues saying we are not 
spending

[[Page 7949]]

 enough. We need to spend more and more and more. I think we need to do 
what they are doing on the State and local levels: suck it in a little 
bit, control, and spend 1 percent less on non-defense, non-homeland 
security and get our country's financial house in order. That is what I 
believe we should be doing.
  Whether or not my colleague on the other side of the aisle is 
supporting a $514 billion tax cut or a $700 billion-plus tax cut, the 
bottom line is we need a tax cut to grow this economy. This side of the 
aisle is not going to be like President Hoover. We need to move this 
economy forward. That is absolutely essential.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on this side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 5 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of our caucus.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today must be April Fool's Day, because 
what I hear in this debate is our Republican colleagues renouncing 
their budget and, in essence, accepting ours.
  This motion to recommit is about values. Mr. Speaker, what message is 
the Republican majority sending our brave men and women fighting in 
Iraq even as we speak when it cuts $14.6 billion in veterans benefits 
in the budget resolution; when it cuts the health care and disability 
compensation even as hundreds of thousands of men and women are 
deployed in the Middle East risking their lives for America, even as 
dozens of our wounded troops are airlifted back to hospitals in Germany 
and the United States?
  The Republican value is very clear, as is their message: fight for us 
today, but we cannot make any promises to you about tomorrow. And that 
is exactly what their budget does. In fact, the Disabled American 
Veterans described the House Republican approach in the following terms 
by asking, ``Has the Congress no shame''?

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, Republicans choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our 
Nation's heroes and rob our programs to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthy, and it is a real shame. These young men and women may well 
depend upon the benefits they are seeking to cut.
  This weekend, I was fortunate enough to visit 7,000 troops at Fort 
Dix, New Jersey, 7,000 men and women, 7,000 sons and daughters, 7,000 
mothers and fathers about to be deployed to Iraq. They were unanimous 
in their dedication and selflessness, and they are ready to perform and 
perform proudly. But soldiers do not pick the battle or the place or 
the time. They just respond to the call. We should respond to the call 
by rallying behind them and those that served before them, our 
veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is that opportunity. Try telling 
them that they are part of waste, fraud and abuse. The other side had 8 
years of Republican control to root out that waste, fraud and abuse, 
and Republicans did nothing. Do not do it on the backs of veterans 
today. Vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for not only 
yielding time, but for offering this most important motion to instruct 
conferees on the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution.
  What message is the Republican Majority sending our brave men and 
women fighting in Iraq even as we speak, when it cuts 14.6 billion 
dollars in Veterans' Benefits in the Budget Resolution?
  Cuts to health care and disability compensation, even as hundreds of 
thousands of men and women are deployed in the Middle East, risking 
their lives for freedom and democracy?
  Cuts to health care and disability compensation, even as dozens of 
our wounded troops are airlifted back to hospitals in Germany and the 
United States?
  The Republican Budget's message is clear: Fight for us today, but we 
can't make any promises for tomorrow.
  And that's exactly what their budget does--in fact, the Disabled 
American Veterans described the House Republican approach in the 
following terms:
  ``Has the 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 . . . to pay for tax cuts for 
the wealthy?''
  It is a real shame. Our men and women in uniform are fighting in Iraq 
or are about to be shipped out to the Middle East, and Republicans are 
suggesting cutting benefits many of these young men and women may 
depend on upon their return.
  This weekend I was fortunate enough to visit 7,000 troops at Fort Dix 
in New Jersey; 7,000 men and women; 7,000 sons and daughters, mothers 
and fathers, about to be deployed to Iraq.
  They were unanimous in their dedication and selflessness--they told 
me that, no matter what their personal views may be on this war, they 
will fight honorably and will make us proud.
  I wish the Republican Leadership had even an iota of their bravery, 
selflessness and dedication. But instead, it turns its back on these 
troops, their families, our communities, and, worst of all, our 
veterans.
  Soldiers don't pick the battle. They don't pick the place. They don't 
pick the time. they just respond to the call, and we should respond to 
the call by rallying behind them, and those that served before them, 
our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe all of us who say we support our troops and 
veterans should be on this floor supporting this motion when the time 
comes. I urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker should have saved that 
debate for the debate on the budget. We are debating a motion to 
instruct conferees.
  I have to admit to the gentleman from South Carolina I did misread 
this. I thought he was eliminating all the cuts, 1 percent across the 
board. Indeed, what he is doing is freezing. I am willing to accept 
that. I will take a freeze over the cut. It is still spending 
restraint, and I will do that.
  Secondly, in the provision, the gentleman is right. I thought it was 
$212 billion out of the $726 billion tax relief, but as I read it and 
analyze it, it is $212 billion from $1.4 trillion that is in the 
budget. So we lower the tax number down to $1.2 trillion, more than 
enough to accommodate the President's economic growth package. I am 
going to support this motion to instruct, and I ask the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) in the interest of bipartisanship, I am 
willing to work with the gentleman on this motion to instruct and ask 
the gentleman if he is going to call a voice vote on the motion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I intend to ask for a recorded vote.
  Mr. DeLAY. Then it is obvious this is nothing but a political 
operation. If the gentleman calls for a recorded vote on this, it is 
all politics on the other side. The problem is, they so poorly wrote 
this that now the Democrats are going to support freezing the budget to 
2003 levels of all these committees, and give us enough of a tax number 
to accommodate the President's package.
  I am all for it, and I am going to vote with the gentleman.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I thank him for his tremendous leadership once again in 
putting forth a proposal that reflects the values of our country. Even 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, has to admit 
the gentleman is right on his motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct the 
budget resolution conferees to reject some of the most harmful cuts in 
the Republican budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal budget should be a statement of our shared 
national values. We should allocate our resources to those proposals 
and initiatives that are important to our country. The budget passed by 
the Republicans in the House certainly does not

[[Page 7950]]

meet that standard. I am not even sure they understand what they passed 
in the House.
  But what we do know is that when the President sent his budget to 
Congress, we thought we had seen the worst of it. The Bush budget 
shortchanges veterans, seniors, children and the environment to pay for 
his tax cut. But the worst was yet to come. The House Republicans did 
the President's budget one better, or one worse as the case may be, and 
made even deeper cuts in education and issues relating to seniors. The 
difference is significant.
  President Bush's budget is not balanced. He pays for his tax cut by 
adding more than $2 trillion to the deficit. It is reckless and 
irresponsible.
  House Republicans have shown us that the only way they can pay for 
the President's reckless and irresponsible tax cut and balance the 
budget by 2012 is to slash veterans benefits, slash student loans, 
slash the school lunch program, and slash Medicaid. Slashing those 
priorities in order to give every millionaire in this country a $90,000 
tax cut, that does not reflect our values.
  Americans value our veterans. We value education. We value access to 
quality health care. Passing a budget that cuts those priorities to pay 
for a huge tax cut that will not benefit most Americans is simply 
wrong.
  The Democratic motion instructs conferees to do the right thing. A 
vote for the Democratic motion is to reject the cuts to veterans 
benefits, education and health care currently in the bill passed by the 
Republicans. The announcement by the distinguished majority leader that 
he would accept the Spratt motion to instruct is an admission that the 
Republican budget is wrong.
  We must not shortchange the veterans who have so courageously 
defended our country and the thousands of future veterans who are 
risking their lives in Iraq as we speak. A vote for the Spratt 
amendment supports our veterans. It is ironic that on the same night 
that this House properly passed a resolution to honor the troops, the 
Republican majority passed this budget that dishonors the troops by 
making deep cuts in veterans benefits.
  The conferees should accept the other body's language that provides 
$14.6 billion more than the House Republican bill for veterans 
disability and education benefits. We must not shortchange students who 
rely on student loans and other education programs that expand 
opportunities and promote excellence.
  A vote for the Spratt motion to instruct expands opportunity and 
promotes excellence. It rejects $9 billion in cuts to student loans and 
the school lunch program. We must do the right thing for millions of 
seniors, children and disabled Americans who rely on Medicare for their 
health care coverage.
  We should accept the other body's language that rejects $94 billion 
in cuts in Medicaid. These cuts threaten access to nursing home care, 
hospital services and prescription drugs for some of our most 
vulnerable citizens. A vote for the Spratt motion to instruct would 
remove that threat from the budget.
  It is simply wrong to pass a budget that fails veterans, fails 
students, fails seniors, fails children and fails the disabled. The 
American people deserve better. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Democratic motion to instruct.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority leader, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has a great speech writer, but 
the speech writer failed to read the budget. Great speech, but the 
speech writer did not read the budget.
  School lunches are not mentioned in the budget. It is not in there. 
Education, not even mentioned. There are no cuts in education. There 
are no cuts to seniors. We cannot find farmers in here. Hospitals, we 
will not find the word ``hospital'' in the budget. No, that is not what 
a budget is about. The gentlewoman knows that. Student loans, that is 
not mentioned in the budget. Cuts to the school lunch program, she 
claims. School lunch program is not in here.
  See, the interesting thing about it is that Democrats come running to 
the floor claiming there is no waste in Washington. So very hastily 
they draw up a motion to instruct conferees. And what does that motion 
say? It says there is no waste in Washington. The Democrats cannot find 
one penny of waste in Washington. So instead of finding waste and 
instead of adopting the Republican-passed budget, what should we do?
  Well, it says right here in black and white, let us reduce those 
instructions so what we end up with is a freeze in spending. So they 
are freezing school lunches and veterans benefits, freezing hospitals, 
freezing student loans, freezing all these things that they are talking 
about. They come running to the floor breathlessly to discuss this and 
send their press releases and play political games about a motion to 
instruct.
  That is not what this is about. But that is what the other side of 
the aisle is saying. What do they do with the so-called ``savings'' of 
just freezing spending? They want to reduce the tax cut. We happen to 
support a $1.3 trillion tax cut. By reducing this, what the Democrats 
come running here to the floor today to support is a $1.1 trillion tax 
cut.
  Well, we have considered it. It is not what we passed. We would 
rather find waste in Washington. We do not want to just freeze 
spending. We would rather go through each and every program and find 
the savings, find the waste and the abuse, so the money and the 
programs go to the intended purpose. But instead, what the Democrats 
want to do is freeze spending. All right, I guess we can consider doing 
that when we get to conference.
  So I would encourage my Republican colleagues to vote for the Spratt 
motion to instruct conferees that freezes spending. That is at least a 
good start. I think we could do better, but I think this is at least a 
good start to freeze spending. Of course, freezing spending at the 2003 
level is a cut, is a cut from the increase that was anticipated, the 
anticipated increase that the other side of the aisle sometimes comes 
to the floor and claims that we provide cuts in.
  So 2003 levels in a 2004 budget is what the other side of the aisle 
is supporting.
  The second thing they say is, reduce the tax cut by that amount. We 
have done the math. We have read the black and white letters of the 
motion to instruct conferees, and the math is very simple. We come up 
with $1.1 trillion worth of tax relief. That is far and above where the 
Senate was. That is not where the House wanted to be, but we think it 
is at least worthy of taking into consideration in the conference.
  So I believe even though we can find more waste in Washington than 
what the Democrats are suggesting, and we can have more tax reform and 
more simplification and more reduction in taxes to create jobs, even 
though I believe those things, I believe we should support this motion 
to instruct conferees. It is nonbinding, it is political, but I think 
they have been hoisted by their own petard.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, this restores spending to the present levels 
for Medicaid, Medicare, school lunches. In addition, this does not 
endorse any particular level of tax cut. It simply says it adjusts the 
revenues accordingly after restoring these amounts to the budgets.
  It is a good motion. Members should vote for it if they want to vote 
for Medicaid, Medicare, student loans and other programs which are so 
vitally important to our country.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Spratt/Pomeroy motion to instruct conferees on the budget resolution. 
This motion rejects the House's mandatory spending cuts to education, 
health care, and veterans' programs by calling on the conferees, on a 
deficit-neutral basis, to restore these cuts. These cuts are included 
in the Republican budget--which I voted against--but not in the Senate 
resolution, or the President's budget.

[[Page 7951]]

  As our county is engaged in a war with Iraq that will require 
additional spending, we must not overlook our domestic priorities.
  This motion calls on the conferees to reject the budget cuts to 
Medicaid and Medicare; cuts to key education programs like school 
lunches and student loans; cuts in veterans' benefits; cuts to railroad 
retirees' pensions; cuts in aid for working families and the disabled; 
and cuts to the food stamp program.
  It is astonishing that in this time of conflict, we could cut 
benefits to our nation's veterans. The House-passed resolution cuts 
direct spending for veterans' benefits by a total of $14.6 billion over 
ten years. Veterans all across the Nation will be hurt if these cuts 
are not restored. Our Nation's veterans have risked their lives for our 
country and they served on the front lines. We cannot deny them basic 
benefits like housing, medical care, and other services that civilians 
receive.
  I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to restore these cuts. 
Specifically, my amendment would have stricken the reconciliation 
instructions to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in section 
201(b)(2)(M) and increased mandatory budget authority and outlays for 
Function 700. Unfortunately, the committee rejected my amendment.
  The House resolution's cuts are supposed to be unspecified reductions 
in veterans' benefits that eliminate so-called ``waste, fraud, and 
abuse.'' We are robbing from our veterans' programs--health care and 
disability compensation--to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
  According to Amvets, a veterans organization, more than 200,000 
veterans seeking health care in January waited more than six months. VA 
officials say they are working on improving the wait time. The national 
goal for a doctor's visit is a 30-day wait. Waits at Texas hospitals 
and clinics abound.
  Hospitalized veterans also are vying for too few doctors and nurses. 
And the VA system has started drastically rationing its health care, 
deciding some veterans get care while others don't.
  It is still unclear how budget cuts will affect post-war health 
benefits for troops returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
  A 1998 law compels the VA to provide free medical care to those newly 
returned from a combat zone, whether or not they have a military 
service-related disability, for up to two years. After that, only those 
with medical problems related to military service qualify for lifelong 
medical benefits.
  We wonder how a system that cannot afford to treat the veterans it 
already serves will be able to handle new ones, especially if some of 
those new patients may be exposed to chemical or biological weapons in 
this war. It is unconscionable that we will not provide additional 
benefits to those who have suffered from Agent Orange while serving in 
the Vietnam Conflict, and we do not know all the ills that possibly 
face our troops now deployed in Iraq.
  More than 6.5 million veterans are enrolled in the VA health system, 
but the VA is budgeted to provide care for only 4.8 million patients in 
2004.
  Will support for our troops evaporate once war ends? We must fund 
critical programs for veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Spratt/Pomeroy motion.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Resolution approved last 
month by this body contains cuts to domestic programs that millions of 
Americans depend on, day in and day out.
  The victims of these funding cuts include Medicaid, children's health 
care, student loan, and veterans programs. To slash programs that 
provide health care to our seniors and children, educate our students 
and honor the commitments made to the veterans who have bravely 
protected our freedom flies in the face of the American values that we 
hold so dearly.
  Mr. Speaker, the President didn't request cuts for these programs. 
Furthermore, the Senate's budget did not contain these cuts. Yet, this 
chamber cut these programs in order to fund a tax cut.
  Ask any group of senior citizens if they'd trade Medicare funding for 
a tax cut on their dividends, and I guarantee you they'd choose 
Medicare. Ask any high school senior what's more important to him, a 
tax cut or a student loan program that will make his education more 
affordable. The answer is clear.
  Ask any of our troops who are fighting so valiantly to bring freedom 
to Iraq whether they'd rather have a tax cut or adequately funded 
veterans programs. I bet you they'd want this country to honor their 
military service and restore the $14.6 billion this budget cuts from 
veterans programs over the next 10 years.
  We cannot afford this tax cut on economic grounds alone. But to pay 
for it by taking away from our seniors, students, veterans and farmers 
is particularly shameful. I urge my colleagues to support this motion 
and instruct the budget conferees to restore funding for these crucial 
domestic programs.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of the gentleman from South Carolina's motion to instruct conferees on 
the budget resolution. This common sense, non-binding motion will 
restore some sanity to this budget.
  Put simply, Mr. Spratt's resolution rejects cuts to education, health 
care, and veterans' programs by urging the House and Senate conferees, 
on a deficit-neutral basis, to restore these cuts. The House budget is 
so extreme that these cuts are not included in the Senate-passed budget 
or even the Bush distraction's budget blueprint.
  It is sadly ironic that at the same time we send our young people 
abroad to fight a war, the majority is advancing a budget that will 
force those same young people to pay the bill for their recklessness. 
By showering the most privileged among us with hundreds of billions of 
dollars in tax breaks and running up more than a trillion dollars in 
debt, this budget poses a serious threat to the long-term economic 
well-being of the nation.
  Month after month, more American families are suffering from the 
failure of this Administration's irresponsible economic strategy. With 
the economy hemorrhaging jobs for every sector, an increasing number of 
Americans are losing faith that they will ever find a job. With this 
budget, the majority has turned their backs on the problems of American 
families. Instead of offering new ideas and fresh solutions, the 
Administration continues to push a tired ideology that has turned our 
once-robust economy into a job-destroying machine.
  I believe we are obligated to help our States, counties and cities 
meet the ever-increasing burdens of skyrocketing programs. I believe we 
are obligated to reject the drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. I 
believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to education funding, 
including school lunches and student loans. I believe we are obligated 
to reject the majority's cuts to the critical programs that benefit our 
veterans. I believe we are obligated to reject the cuts to assistance 
programs for the working poor--especially important during this 
economic downturn.
  Most important though, this budget will hang more than a trillion 
dollars of debt around the necks of our children and grandchildren. 
They will be paying for this mistake for decades to come. The 
President's own chief economist, in his academic writings, agrees that 
the chronic deficits perpetuated by this budget will raise interest 
rates, and cut off economic growth for the future.
  I will continue to fight for a budget that contains a fiscally 
responsible stimulus plan that cuts taxes today, while meeting our 
obligation to prepare for the future. this is not a time to shrink from 
our responsibilities to one another. We need to meet the test of this 
demanding movement in our history.
  I thank Ranking Member Spratt, for offering this reasonable motion to 
instruct and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to instruct conferees on the budget 
resolution will be followed by two 5-minute votes on motions to suspend 
the rules that were debated earlier today.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 399, 
nays 22, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 95]

                               YEAS--399

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano

[[Page 7952]]


     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--22

     Burgess
     Cannon
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hart
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Miller (FL)
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Royce
     Shadegg
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Toomey
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Combest
     Crowley
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     Mica
     Oberstar
     Simmons
     Souder
     Walden (OR)


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members 
are advised that approximately 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1551

  Messrs. KOLBE, SHADEGG, CANNON, PAUL, MILLER of Florida, DEAL of 
Georgia, NORWOOD, CULBERSON, ROYCE, KINGSTON, TAYLOR of North Carolina, 
FRANKS of Arizona, WELDON of Florida, HEFLEY, and BURGESS, and Ms. HART 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PENCE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
Chair appoints the following conferees:
  For consideration of the House concurrent resolution and the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Nussle, 
Shays, and Spratt.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________