Economic Development and Technology Workforce Enhancement Act of 2002

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by thanking our staff from the Committee on the Budget. They have worked enormously hard to bring us to this point in time where we are able to come to the floor to talk about the budget. Usually we reserve this to the end of the debate, but I just want to thank them because we are at a very unique time in our history. It requires some difficult choices. It requires us to analyze the situation very carefully. We have good people that work for us in both the majority and minority. I want to thank them for the work that they do. They have been asked to do a job, they do it, they do it well, and we find ourselves on the floor ready to debate the bill on time and ready to debate the budget within the procedure that we laid out at the beginning of the year.

Similarly, we ask young men and women overseas to do a job today. They are doing it in fine fashion. They represent us well. They represent our hopes and our dreams. They represent our freedom. They represent America. We are proud of our troops. We are proud of the job that they do, and we are proud that they do the job without blinking an eye, without any hesitation.

I believe they would ask the same of us here today, that while there are certainly trials and tribulations that confound us around the world today, that we do our work, that we are not distracted by a tyrant in Baghdad, and we are not distracted by terrorism around the world. It would be very easy to be distracted by that. It would be very easy to suggest, let's maybe wait for another day. But I think what America demands is that we continue the work of freedom, we continue the work of democracy. That is what they are fighting for, and that is what we need to do as well.

Mr. Chairman, we are at war. I did not have to practice that part of the speech because we were at war even before last night. We are at war against

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

None of us, at least most of us, do not want deficits. In fact, I said in my very first opening statement at the committee this year that I do not like deficits, I do not want deficits, and I will not pretend to this body, to my colleagues, to the President, to the Senate, or to my constituents at home that deficits do not matter. However, we are faced with that; and all of the yelling and screaming and all of the finger-pointing in the world and all of the things that might go on here today will not change that fact, and in fact no one today is bringing forth a budget that balances today or even this year or even next year.

In fact, none of the budgets before us balance, and there is a reason. Because this did not just happen overnight. While there are some who will come here today and blame and finger-point and suggest that the surpluses disappeared because of tax cuts, I would suggest that there are many reasons, many reasons why we face deficits here today.

It is true that just 2 years ago we faced surpluses and we decided to do something about that. We made a very deliberate decision that when Washington has more resources than it needs to meet those challenges in peace time at that time, that it is appropriate to say let us get the economy going again. Remember where we were, the economy was sluggish. President Bush came into office facing a recession. So we decided we were going to reduce taxes and certainly the tax reduction did reduce the surplus. That is represented by this blue amount.

But spending and the economy took most of the surplus and spending on what? An emergency. September 11, 2001, the emergency facing New York, the emergency facing the Pentagon, the emergency facing the airlines, the emergency facing homeland security. In an appropriate bipartisan response, every one of us came to the floor and said it is time to increase spending for those very appropriate purposes. And in addition to that in a bipartisan way, we came to the floor and said we need to cut taxes even further in order to stimulate the economy because the preattack recession got worse. So cheerfully, as a body, we decided it was time to spend a little bit more, stimulate the economy; and as a result, the tax cut took part of it, the spending took part of it, but the economic changes, the economy, the gut punch that each one of us faced whether it was home savings, whether it was increased prices around the kitchen table we had to deal with, whether it was just balancing our own budget around our kitchen table with our family, each one of us was affected by what happened in September of 2001, and certainly it affected our budget.

So we can finger-point, and we can talk about the past, and we can talk about Reagan and Clinton and Bush and, I do not know, maybe somebody even mentioned Roosevelt here today. The fact of the matter is that we are in deficit and we have to do something about it. But we do not start behind the eight ball. We build upon some huge amounts of spending.

Let me show what we have been doing the last 10 years around here. Cheerfully, and again oftentimes in a bipartisan way, look at the spending, each year increasing. In 1993 when President Clinton took office, we had a $1.4 trillion budget. What are we proposing today? $2.1 trillion, a 50 percent increase just since 1993, 4.5 percent each year. So when people go home and they start talking about how kids are going to be thrown out in the street and education is going to be cut and health care is going to be ruined, please remember that before we even talk about this year's budget, we have been increasing spending steadily during that period of time, and I will tell my colleagues when it really took off. When it really took off was when we got to balance in 1998.

Let me show what I mean by that. If we take the spending that we control every year, called discretionary spending or the spending from the appropriation bills, discretionary spending was holding its own, holding its own as we tried to get to balance since we became the majority, and then at 1998 all of a sudden look at it take off. In 1998 we had about $511 billion spent on discretionary spending, and just this last year in the bill that we just finished a month ago, we were at $768 billion, or an average of 7.7 percent each year since we reached balance. So when people talk about how, oh, boy, this cut is going to be tough or there might be ways that this could hurt folks or, boy, there is not a lot of waste, fraud abuse or excess, please remember that we build upon a huge base of spending in discretionary.

Let us look at some of the individual programs. I have heard a lot of talk lately about how Medicare is being devastated by this budget, budgets that were proposed, budgets that we will vote on here today, and budgets that we will consider. Since 1995 when the Republicans took the majority of Congress, we have increased spending for Medicare 56 percent. Was that appropriate? Yes. No one is suggesting it was not, but when people talk about how Medicare is being devastated, it is not because of the spending that Medicare is in trouble. It is because the way the program operates. I can tell you in Iowa people are very happy with Medicare; so to suggest that all we need to do is add more money into Medicare and everything will be fine does not recognize that Iowa does not get a fair shake from Medicare. Many other States, Wisconsin and others, do not get a fair shake from Medicare. So to suggest that all we need to do is pile more money on to Medicare, do not touch the program, just add more benefits and everything will be fine is sticking our heads in the sand. It will not work. But again we build upon some huge increases.

I have heard Governors suggest that Medicaid is in trouble and how the Federal Government has not done its fair share with regard to Medicaid. Look at the Medicaid budget since we became the majority in 1995. It was $89 billion of our budget. Today it has increased 77 percent since we became the majority. We have supported the health care for the poor and the disabled in this country to the point now where again we will continue in this budget to increase Medicaid.

Let us look at education because oftentimes education is used in a partisan way to suggest we do not care about children. Education spending under the Republican majority has doubled. It has doubled. Special education has tripled as a result of the Republican majority again as we move into this budget. This is what we build upon. There are accomplishments that we should be proud of. But when people whine and complain and suggest we are not spending enough, can we ask the question, what did we get for this? Which is why last year we said we need some accountability within our system and not just pour more money into it.

I have a number of very important constituents in my district who are veterans who before last night did their part to defend America and give us the ability to stand here today in peace and freedom in this country and debate issues of importance. And what have we done for them? Again, we build upon some important accomplishments. Spending has grown 40 percent since we reached balanced budget, an average of 6.9 percent each year. This budget will continue that trend with a 7 percent increase for veterans healthcare spending.

So let us look at what the budget is going to do. First of all, I want to put it into context. There is no question that we have three important issues as we come to the table today to discuss the budget, and some of these are even bipartisan, believe it or not. Number one is protecting America. There is not a person who is going to come to the floor today who does not feel that that is the most important thing that we do, and I compliment all of the budgets with regard to that issue. When it comes to homeland security, when it comes to national defense, certainly there will always be those who say we

can do more. In fact, there has even been a few who have suggested that there is a lot of waste within the Pentagon, and I would concur with that. But at this time in our history where our men and women are in the battlefields of Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we need to make sure that we support them; and each one of the budgets that comes here today does just that. It also supports homeland security.

The second most important issue that we have is making sure the economy gets growing again, making sure folks have a job. Because while we are going to talk a lot today about the Federal budget, we all know that the most important budget to each and every one of us is the one that I debate with my wife around my kitchen table and that my colleagues may debate with their families around their kitchen table and our constituents debate with their families around their kitchen table when they are trying to figure out how to pay the phone bill and the light bill and the college tuition and buy the clothes for their kids and the washer that breaks down or whatever it might be. That is the budget that matters; and if one does not have a job and if the economy is not growing in their household, it does not matter what we are debating.

Get a fancy chart. It does not matter what the fancy chart says if one's checkbook does not balance. So unless our budget puts as a top priority getting the economy to grow and create jobs, we have failed, in my estimation, and that is why the most important second issue that we put forth today is getting the economy to grow. It used to be a slogan. I remember hearing it a few years back: ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Maybe that was not an appropriate way to say it, but the point of the matter was important. Make sure the economy is taken care of.

The third issue, and it is an important one as we look forward into the future because again I think there is bipartisan support for this as well, and that is fiscal responsibility. We have all given spellbinding speeches about how the government cannot spend more than it takes in. But do my colleagues know what? There are some times when that has to happen, and by and large we agree when those times are. When there is a war, I do not think anybody begrudges anybody to borrow some money to do that. We have got to take care of business, and we will spend anything it takes to make sure we win and our folks have the right equipment and the right training. The second time we do it is when our country is under attack. Homeland security, again, each and every one of us came down here and cast a vote in support of homeland security spending even though it caused deficits. And there is another time we would do it, and that is when we have a recession or an economic downturn, and both parties during their histories have had to make that challenge. So while we are faced with those challenges, we still want to keep our eye on that fiscal responsibility.

So how do we do it in this budget? We ask a simple thing. We say out of the billions of dollars that we spend around here, do the Members think we could find a penny on the dollar? Most people back home in Iowa tell me I bet we could find a nickel on the dollar. In fact, we have heard amazing stories of people who are deceased getting checks from the Veterans Administration. We have even heard of Social Security recipients who are overseas that we send a check to. We have heard about food stamps that have been stolen. We have heard about all sorts of crazy things involving credit cards at the Pentagon where people have been using it for their own personal expenses.

Tell me there is not a penny on the dollar. Tell me that the earned income tax credit has not been abused. Tell me that Medicare, according to the General Accounting Office, has not had overpayments and erroneous payments. Tell me that at the end of the year bureaucrats do not run in to their boss and say, You know what? We have got extra money in our budget. We had better use it or we are going to lose it. And what we do in this budget is we say each and every committee can find that, and is it not now the time to find it when every State and every family and every business is doing the exact same thing? The Federal Government cannot do that too?

So fiscal responsibility is an important part of it. But we are still going to hear people come to the floor today and talk about deep and devastating, ``excruciating'' was a word I have heard recently, deep and excruciating cuts. Let me show the Members what our budget does. First of all, total budget, here is our budget. This is where we actually are, and look what happens under the budget. It goes up every single year in total spending. So the total budget is not cut.

Let us look at another area. Let us look at non-Social Security mandatory spending. What is that? That is Medicare and all the other, what we call, entitlements or automatic spending. Does that get cut? Every year it has been going up. Every year under the budget it continues to go up.

All right. Well that is not cut.

Let us look at Medicare maybe, see if Medicare is cut. Under our budget, every year it goes up. In our budget it continues. In fact, we say let us modernize it and put in, for the fourth year in a row, a Republican version of a prescription drug package. We are the only body that has passed one, and we will do it again this year, to make sure we modernize the program and make sure that reimbursements and other modernizations for the Medicare program help ensure its seriousness as a health care delivery program for years into the future. So Medicare is not cut.

Well, all right, let us look at total discretionary spending, which includes defense and homeland security. No, that is not cut. Every year it has gone up. In fact, look what happens here. Huge increases. It looks like it slows down here.

Why does it slow down? Because this is where the budget asks for some relief. It says this first year, outside of defense and homeland security and veterans, we just want to look for a little bit of waste, just a little bit of waste.

If there is a Member of Congress that goes home to tell their constituents that there is not any waste in Washington, I want you to ask them if they have read the volumes of General Accounting Office reports that indicate billions of dollars of waste, or the inspector generals that work for the departments that have identified billions of dollars of waste, or if they have talked to the Congressional Budget Office or held hearings on this in committees, because until they do that, do not tell people that there is not wasteful Washington spending. We know there is. For the first time in quite a while, we go after it.

Are we looking to cut some spending there? Yes. But do not believe that we are going to throw people out on the street. You do not have to do that in order to find the waste within the program. Everybody has heard about the $500 hammers and the toilet seats in the Pentagon and all those kinds of crazy programs that we hear about all the time. That is what we are asking people to go find, a penny on the dollar. That is not that much to ask, when we are at the same time running the kinds of deficits we find ourselves in.

So protecting America, that is first; getting the economy to grow, that is an important second thing to do; third, let us do it in a fiscally responsible way. I believe if we build on those three functions, without raising taxes, without huge spending increases, I think we can get this under control, support our troops in the Gulf right now and around the world defending our freedom, and do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, and gets us back to balance in a very reasonable time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, we built our budget upon three principles, the first of which is protecting America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) to discuss that issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, in Washington sometimes people define cuts not as less money than the year before, but as decreases in anticipated increases. The gentleman who just spoke has issued yet a new one, that is, if we used to have a draft of a budget that possibly found some savings, now we can come and claim that as a cut. We are not cutting Medicare; we are increasing it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) to continue the discussion on national defense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I have to scratch my head and wonder out loud how, when we increase the veterans budget in our budget 6.1 percent, the other side of the aisle can call that a cut, yet that is what Member after Member comes to the floor and says.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to discuss the second important plank of our budget, and that is economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the points on the veterans' issues. First of all, we increase discretionary spending 6.1 percent on veterans, we increase the mandatory spending 7 percent, and they call that a cut. They ask us to honor veterans. In fact, in this country we honor veterans so much that we paid 5,500 of them benefits after they were dead. That is how much we honor veterans. That is why we need to look at every program for waste and abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a member of the committee.

(Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the committee.

(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, that sounds pretty close. It is about as balanced as any of the budgets.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I have been looking through my budget, and I cannot find one of the facts that the gentleman just stated. Not one of the cuts he just stated is in my budget document. I have looked through there. I cannot find them. I do not know where the gentleman is coming up with these numbers.

I will say this, though: the person I would like to introduce next to speak basically wrote title II, which is our reconciliation construction regarding waste, fraud, and abuse, asking the committees to go out and look for those instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, ways that we can find deficiencies within this budget, and that is the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to close the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague calls this a wartime budget, but everyone should understand there is nothing in this budget to pay for the war in Iraq that is now underway. There is not even anything in this budget to pay for the war against global terrorism which is being waged in places like Afghanistan.

The administration deliberately omitted any provision for those costs in this budget for various reasons. They claim that they could not estimate accurately what those costs are likely to be, but we all know that there will be what we call in this House a supplemental appropriation coming,

and it will run into billions of dollars, maybe 50- to $100 billion for the war in Iraq itself, and after that the postwar occupation will cost, the CBO says, between $1.8 billion a month and $3.8 billion a month.

We have a huge, huge cost item that is not included here. I say that because everyone should understand that there is no surplus left in this budget. My friends, proposing a tax cut now that is as large as the last tax cut we undertook in 2001 will only drive the bottom line of the budget deeper and deeper by the proposals they have made here.

Two years ago, we had the happy circumstance of a budget that was $5.6 trillion in surplus, or so we were told by our forecasters at the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration. Two years later, we open this budget season on a somber note, not just being at war, that is a grave situation, but that $5.6 trillion surplus, according to the Office of Management and Budget, is gone.

First of all, they said we overstated the surplus by at least $3.2 billion. The real surplus was not $5.6. We are now told it is about $2.4 trillion over the time period 2002 through 2011. Of that $2.4 trillion, OMB tells us $2.5 trillion has already been committed, mostly to tax cuts undertaken in 2001, and, to some extent, to defense spending increases and other spending increases. But, in any event, the surplus is gone.

We are actually in deficit as we stand here, and everybody is on notice that every dollar of additional tax reduction that you decree in this budget resolution will go straight to the bottom line. It will go straight into the deficit and add to the deficit, dollar for dollar. Knowing this, there is no way around it. What our Republican colleagues propose is they propose another $1.35 trillion in tax reductions, tax cuts, which will go straight to the bottom line and add to the deficit.

Here is the situation: This is the first table in CBO's analysis of a couple of weeks ago of the President's budget, which was sent to us about a month ago. Strikingly, if you add from 2002, the first fiscal year that the Bush administration was in office, through 2013, which is the last year in our 10-year budget time frame, the total amount of deficits that the Bush administration's fiscal policies will yield is $5.158 trillion. That is what they propose to add to this national debt under the Bush administration.

Now, my Republican colleagues, and I will give them part credit, saw this number, and I think they could not stomach it themselves, $5.158 billion under the Bush administration's fiscal policies. They undertook to provide some offsets. They did not give up the tax cut. No, they went with the full tax cut, or slightly less, but they undertook to come up with some offsets.

The first thing they proposed to do was to tell the Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over Medicare, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, cut $372 billion out of those two programs.

They have now relented and backed off their own proposal. They reduced the instruction to the Committee on Ways and Means from $262 billion to about $62 billion, and they have reduced the instruction to the Committee on Energy and Commerce from $110 billion to $107 billion. But both of those cuts could come out of the two health care entitlements that we have in this country that so many people, maybe from 50- to 60 million to 80- to 90 million people, are dependent on. That is what they propose to do.

This budget says a lot about priorities. What happens with the rest of the budget in order to make room for this tax cut?

In saying it is a wartime budget, they attempt to make room in the rest of the budget, at least partially, to offset this enormous tax cut of $1.350 trillion. What does that mean? That means they cut with abandon, left and right. They cut our young, our children, in terms of education; they cut our seniors in terms of Medicare and Medicaid; and they cut some of the most worthy citizens in our society, the sick and disabled veterans. They put an instruction in this budget, which I cannot believe, and neither can any veterans' organization in America, to cut $15 billion out of veterans' disability compensation and some $12 billion to $13 billion out of veterans' health care facilities. They cut education by $40 billion below what is necessary just to keep it level with inflation. They cut Medicaid, as I said.

All of this is necessary to accommodate their tax cut. It is not necessary because of the budget circumstances we find ourselves in. This is self-inflicted pain. Yes, it will be painful if these cults are made, you had better believe it, but they are not necessary. You do not have to make them.

To prove it we have come up with a budget resolution about a better bottom line. We get to a surplus in the year 2010. It takes them until 2012 to get to a surplus. In the process of getting there, we have a lower deficit every year than they do, we accumulate $851 billion over 10 years less in national debt than they do, and we adequately provide for education. We do not eviscerate Medicare, we do not cut Medicaid, because it is already strained as it is, and we certainly do not cut our veterans in a time of war, or any time, for that matter, by $30 billion in just mindless cuts.

So there is an alternate way. There is a better budget. It is a fiscally more responsible budget, and it meets the obligations we have. Members of this House today have a stark choice, a clear choice, in terms of values, in terms of fiscal responsibility. The right vote is our budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we, too, fully fund homeland security. By the best of our reckoning, we are providing at least $24 billion over and above the increase that the President is providing. It is allocated among lots of different functions: community and regional development, the Justice Department. We have identified and also specified in a sense of the Congress that we have $24 billion there.

In addition, we have put into our budget resolution the stimulus proposal that we made on January 6 of this year. If it were adopted, there would be $10 billion for the States to undertake homeland security projects in places like seaports, which were woefully underprovided for.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to everyone that in doing our budget, we have left a contingency reserve of $54 billion. It could be used for lots of things; but it could be used, among other things, for homeland defense and for national defense generally, if and when a supplemental comes.

I want to make it clear there is very, very little difference between us when it comes to national security, not at a time like this. We are fully providing for homeland security, and then some, in particular.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), that this resolution on the floor calls for $15 billion in cost reduction of the veterans health care system. It also calls for a $15 billion decrease in mandatory programs, which means veterans' disability compensation.

We can argue over what is an increase or decrease, but every veterans organization in this town thinks that they are being hit and hit hard by this budget resolution. There is no doubt about it; it is still about a $28 billion or $29 billion hit after the minor modification the gentleman made to make this resolution presentable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield blocks of time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, before yielding to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), to respond to our distinguished chairman, who wants to know where all these cuts we are alleging come from.

They come from the budget documents. His budget calls on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for example, to reduce spending by $107,359,000,000. The only thing they can take that out of is the Medicaid program.

He calls on the Committee on Government Reform, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and the Civil Service Retirement Plan, to effect cuts in those programs of $38,319,000,000 to achieve savings.

They are there. If you look at function 550 in this budget, which is the health function, if you look at the level of funding, it is $2.4 billion below what is necessary to maintain purchasing power. We say ``current services.'' That has got to come out of some of the organizations like NIH who get their funding from this particular function of the budget. It is there. No question about it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let us just go to the bottom line and look at the differences between the two proposals that will be the chief proposals before the House when we vote tonight on the budget resolutions, the Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal.

As anyone who can see this chart can easily see, under our budget in every year from 2004, next year, through 2013, the Democratic budget has a lower deficit than the Republican budget, and by a significant margin.

What is more, every year our bottom line gets better and better and better, until in the year 2010 we are in unified balance. All accounts included, we have no more deficit by the year 2010. And we do not get there with improbable, unlikely spending cuts of the kind you have heard mentioned on the floor today. We get there with good, solid economics and with complete fairness to things that are important to us. It is a huge difference.

But this tells it all: Over that 10-year period of time, the cumulative difference between us and them, between Republicans and Democrats, between our resolution and their resolution, is $913 billion less public debt. So as we move from a deficit to a surplus, we accumulate $913 billion less debt than do the Republicans in their resolution. That is an enormous difference, particularly for anybody who says that deficits matter.

We insist that deficits do matter. This administration has taken a different attitude. The Director of Management and Budget says we should not start hyperventilating over all these deficits. We think they matter. We think in the long run they affect the growth of our economy, they affect jobs and things that matter to people, they affect the interest we have to pay on our national debt.

This is the difference between us and them. By 2010, we are in balance. It takes them until 2012 to get there. Along the way we accumulate $913 billion less debt. But what is most important is ours is feasible and credible and probable; theirs is infeasible, unlikely, and, to my way of thinking, unbelievable.

The Republican budget presents us with two choices: We will either have devastating cuts, in which event they may get to balance in 2012, or those cuts will not be achieved, in which event the deficit itself will have done devastating damage.

That is the choice before us, and that is why the Democratic balanced budget resolution is far and away the better choice for everybody in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Unfortunately, this Republican budget is likely to force the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to slash the pensions of 34,000 Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their dependents and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of September 11.

Who in this House believes that we should cut the September 11 Victims' Compensation Fund to finance tax cuts for the rich? As a Nation at war, who believes that the men and women of the Coast Guard protecting our shores, ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf should be worrying that Congress might cut their retirement?

This budget shows a callous disregard for the families of the victims of September 11, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country.

The budget resolution directs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion for mandatory programs over the 10 years and to find savings from waste, fraud, and abuse and produce greater efficiency. Those platitudes may make for good rhetoric, but the policies will have devastating effect on the retirees and on the families of the victims of September 11. The Congressional Budget Office says 90 percent of the programs of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's mandatory accounts include the September 11 Victims' Compensation Fund, Coast Guard retirement pay, railroad retirement pensions, and unemployment compensation for railroad workers. Is that where we are supposed to find waste, fraud, and abuse?

The Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the victims who were injured and the families of those who were killed in the September 11 attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this Chamber can possibly ever forget the tragedy of September 11, and I hope the families are beginning to put their lives back together again. How in good conscience can we retreat from the solemn commitment made on this floor to help them rebuild their lives?

I commit to them that I will oppose this Republican budget plan that will cut their funding. Similarly, the 36,000 Coast Guard officers and their enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast Guard retirees, we pledge to them on our side that we will oppose this budget resolution and its cuts in Coast Guard retirement pay.

Coast Guard cutters, as we debate this budget resolution, are on combat patrol with the U.S. Navy, securing the shipping lanes and the safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and our ports. Just this week the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated Operation Liberty Shield, increased security at our ports, protect infrastructure, key assets. The Coast Guard under Operation Liberty Shield is increasing its patrols of waterways, escorts of ferries and cruise ships, sea marshals on board vessels of high interest. We get more out of our investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other agency of the Federal Government. Why should we make them worry about this Republican effort to cut retirement pay?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 95, the FY2004 Budget Resolution. Regrettably, this Republican Budget is likely to force the Transportation Committee to slash the pensions of 34,000 Coast Guard retirees and 645,000 railroad retirees and their dependents, and cut the relief provided to families of the victims of September 11th. Who in this House believes that we should cut the September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund to finance more tax cuts for the rich? With the Nation now at war, who in this House believes that the men and women of the Coast Guard, who are protecting our shores and ensuring the safe passage of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, should be worrying that this Congress may cut their retirement? This Budget displays a callous disregard for the families of the victims of September 11th, the men and women of the Coast Guard, railroad retirees, as well as the infrastructure needs of this country.

Section 201 of the Republican Budget Resolution directs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to cut $3.7 billion from its mandatory programs over the next 10 years. We are told to find these savings from ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' and to produce greater efficiency in our programs. While these platitudes of ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' make for good rhetoric, these policies will have a devastating effect on these retirees and the families of the victims of the September 11th attack.

The Congressional Budget Office says that 90 percent of the Transportation Committee's funding of mandatory programs includes these three:

The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund,

Coast Guard retirement pay; and

Railroad retirement pensions and unemployment compensation for railroad workers.

And this is where we're expected to find ``waste, fraud, and abuse''?

The September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund makes payments to the victims who

were injured and the families of those who were killed in the September 11th terrorist attacks. Mr. Chairman, no one in this chamber will forget the tragedy of September 11th. I can only hope that families of the victims of September 11th have begun to put their lives back together. How can we, in good conscience, retreat from our solemn commitment to help them rebuild their lives? I commit to them now that I will oppose this Republican plan that could cut funding from the families of the victims of September 11th.

Similarly, I commit to the men and women of the Coast Guard, both the 36,000 Coast Guard officers and enlisted personnel and the 34,000 Coast Guard retirees, that I will strongly oppose this Republican Budget Resolution and its likely cuts in Coast Guard retired pay.

As we debate this Budget Resolution, Coast Guard cutters are on combat patrol with the U.S. Navy to help secure shipping lands and the safe passage of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. At home the Coast Guard continues to protect our shores and ports. On Monday, March 17, the Secretary of Homeland Security initiated Operation LIBERTY SHIELD to increase security at our Nation's borders and protect our critical infrastructure and key assets. Under Operation LIBERTY SHIELD, the Coast Guard is increasing patrols of major U.S. ports and waterways, increasing its escorts of ferries and cruise ships, providing armed Sea Marshals onboard every high interest vessel arriving at or departing from U.S. ports, and enforcing security zones in and around critical infrastructure sites in key ports and petroleum facilities close to large coastal communities. In addition to its military and homeland security missions, the Coast Guard continues its search-and-rescue mission--responding to nearly 37,000 calls and saving 3,654 lives in 2002--and many other missions. The Coast Guard has long been stretched thin, but has always been ready--``Semper Paratus''--to answer the call. I have always maintained that the public gets more out of its investment in the Coast Guard than virtually any other government service. The enlisted men and women and officers of the Coast Guard should not have to worry about this Republican effort to cut their retirement pay.

The Republican Budget Resolution also is likely to result in significant cuts to railroad workers' retirement and unemployment compensation programs. Railroad workers, unlike other workers, are not covered by the Social Security system. They have their own retirement program. Last Congress, the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation Committee, with the strong support of rail unions, railroads, and rail retirees and their dependents, introduced H.R. 1140, a bill to revise the railroad retirement program to restore rail worker benefits and decrease railroad payroll taxes. The House overwhelmingly passed this legislation, by a vote of 383-33, and it became law. Today, the Republican Budget Resolution forces the Transportation Committee to consider changing this Act to cut railroad worker retirement benefits and unemployment compensation. I commit to the 248,000 rail workers and the 645,000 rail retirees and their dependents that I will fight any attempt to roll back the benefits so recently restored to you.

Beyond these devastating cuts required by the reconciliation instructions, this Budget Resolution does little to meet our infrastructure investment needs. For the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urged the Budget Committee to provide $50 billion in budget authority for highway, highway safety, and transit programs. In its letter to the Budget Committee, 74 of the 75 Members of the Transportation Committee stated that we must provide this level of funding in FY2004 to maintain our surface transportation systems and have any hope of improving the overall condition of the Nation's highway and transit systems.

Regrettably, this Budget Resolution provides $39 billion for these programs--little more than the status quo for TEA 21 reauthorization. Through the vigorous efforts of the bipartisan leadership of this Committee, the Resolution also provides a reserve fund that would allow for additional allocations if this or other legislation includes increases in Highway Trust Fund receipts. Although this does provide the Transportation Committee with the opportunity to address this issue at a later date, this Resolution does nothing to address our enormous highway and transit infrastructure needs in the fiscal year ahead.

Moreover, the Republican Resolution cuts the amount of highway and transit funding that actually may be obligated in FY2004 below the CBO baseline. Specifically, the Republican Budget Resolution assumes a cut in the transit program of $98 million in FY2004 and $2.5 billion over the next six years. This cut is directly contrary to TEA 21's goal of modal balance. Under TEA 21 we significantly increased transit funding by guaranteeing $36 billion for transit. As a result of this increased investment, transit ridership has added 1.6 billion riders--more than 900,000 new riders each day--over the last five years. This transit renaissance could be threatened by these cuts in transit funding.

At a time when our Nation's infrastructure faces huge unmet safety and security needs, congestion is crippling our cities, and our economy has lost 2.5 million jobs in the past two years, the Republican Budget Resolution cuts these vital programs that could address infrastructure security needs and congestion problems and create family-wage jobs to grow our economy. Instead, it provides more than $1 trillion of new tax cuts.

This Budget Resolution reflects more than misplaced priorities. It is an assault on working men and women from the Coast Guard to the Maintenance of Way railroad employees.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Republican Budget Resolution and urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget. The Committee on the Budget has passed a resolution that strikes the balance between the needs and the desires of this House and of the people of this country to provide for a better quality of life for all of us.

Since September 11, we have realized the threat of terrorism, a threat that is so great and so different than any before us. It knows no boundaries with regard to where it will strike and what time, and it certainly places no value on human life, and today, for that reason, we must step forward and address that threat.

After the vicious attack of September 11, we realized that we had to take immediate action to close the gaps in our homeland defense. We had to unify our efforts from the national to the State, county and local efforts, and this budget resolution takes a long step in getting that job done.

What this resolution does do is fully funds the President's request to defend our Nation against further terrorist attack. What this resolution does do is provide $41 billion in total homeland security funding.

As part of that effort, what the resolution does is provide in the budget $3.5 billion in funding. That is a $3 billion increase to ensure that every first responder is trained and has the equipment necessary to get the job done. More specifically, in the resolution it provides $500 million in grants to first responders so that they will have the equipment necessary should they have to respond to a terroristic threat, and the bill would also provide $500 million for State and local law enforcement with regard to terrorism prevention initiatives as well.

Moving closer to home, in New Jersey, we have just 10 miles from Bergen County a nuclear power plant. This resolution provides us with $619 million in an effort to protect our nuclear power plants across the Nation because we know there are nuclear power plants, if they were ever struck, would have a devastating impact on all citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I would just in closing say that we must move ahead on this resolution. Support this resolution. Protect the quality of life and homeland security for all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2004. Last week, in the early morning hours, I along with my fellow colleagues on the House Budget Committee passed a resolution that strikes a balance among America's competing demands, weigh desires against needs and sets a plan to fund programs that improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Since September 11, our country has realized the threat of a new wave of terrorism. A threat so great that it knows no boundary to whom or where it strikes and places no value on human life. And today, we are still at risk to this new and changing threat. This is a war, the likes of which no nation has ever faced before.

To protect our communities and neighborhoods, we must continue to take the necessary steps to develop a national, State, and local strategy for homeland security. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2004 budget that is before us is committed to making our homeland safe.

Homeland security is an important priority and our budget fully funds President Bush's request to defend our Nation against further terrorist attacks. By providing $41 billion in

total homeland security spending, this budget provides the newly created Department of Homeland Security and related agencies with all the resources necessary to protect our homeland from terrorist attacks.

As part of our continued commitment to America's First Responders, our budget proposes $3.5 billion--a $3 billion increase over fiscal year 2003, to ensure every first responder is properly trained and equipped. Mr. Chairman, this budget provides a significant increase for the nearly 3 million State and local First Responders who regularly put their lives on the line day after day to protect the lives of others and make our country safer.

More specifically, we have provided $500 million in grants to firefighters for health and safety equipment and vehicles as they prepare to respond to possible future terrorist incidents. And we have also included an additional $500 million for State and local law enforcement terrorism prevention initiatives. Finally, there is $181 million for the Citizen Corps initiative to engage individuals in helping communities prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters of all kinds, including terrorist attacks.

Our nuclear power plants if struck would also prove devastating to all citizens. This budget provides $619 million in an effort to protect our nuclear power plants across the country, including Indian Point Nuclear Plant less than 10 miles from Bergen County, NJ.

Mr. Chairman, our budget also provides the Coast Guard with $5.7 billion--an increase of $503 million to ensure that they have the adequate resources necessary to better protect our ports, cargo, and coastal areas. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to securing our homeland, the Coast Guard serves a vital and significant mission. In this post- September 11 world, where only 2 percent of the cargo that enters our ports is actually screened, we have created a budget that fully supports our Coast Guard as a component of the National Strategy for Homeland Security.

Specifically, this budget provides $65 million to deploy six new Maritime Safety and Security Teams to respond to terrorist threats or incidents in domestic ports and waterways and $20 million to hire additional personnel for search and rescue and shore based command centers.

Mr. Chairman, for all of the cargo that enters the Ports of Newark and Elizabeth, in New Jersey, the third largest in the United States and the premier port on the eastern seaboard, I strongly urge my fellow colleagues in the House to support this budget.

As we continue to be engaged in the newest and most difficult war of the 21st century, it has become a day to day responsibility that we are ready on a permanent basis to protect our country. And we owe it to every national, State, and local homeland security employee, as well as ourselves and our families that we give them the support they need to protect America.

After the vicious attacks of September 11, 2001, we realize we had to take immediate action to close the gaps in our defenses on land, sea and in the air. We had to unify our homeland security efforts under one roof and under one chain of command. To meet the ever changing threat, we had to be able to immediately deploy the men and women of the homeland security department wherever and whenever they were needed.

Mr. Chairman, this budget does just that. There is no doubt in my mind that by working together, demonstrating courage and a strong moral character we will prevail in this war against terror.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I have spoken about the fact that this budget protects our country, our national defense, and our homeland security. And nothing is more important this afternoon, as this is a very critical time in the Persian Gulf. Our troops are committed, and we are committed to them.

However, this budget meets another challenge, and that is the challenge of strengthening the American economy and creating new jobs. Promoting growth in this economy and getting people back to work is a top priority of ours, and it is reflected in this budget. That is why it provides for policies that create an economic environment for boosting both long-term and short-term growth. In particular, the budget leaves room for President Bush's jobs and economic growth plan to strengthen the economy by providing an immediate stimulus to help struggling

American workers and by laying the groundwork to promote long-term, sustainable growth in our Nation's economy.

A Member on the other side of the aisle called this growth package irresponsible. We do not think it is irresponsible to bolster household finances or encourage consumer spending. We do not think it is irresponsible to promote investment because it leads to job creation, and we do not think it is irresponsible to help the unemployed get back to work. That is what this budget does.

Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago we passed tax relief that not only put money back in people's pockets, but it slowed an advancing recession that President Bush inherited. The 2001 tax relief plan made that recession the mildest in history, and it created 1.5 million new jobs. Without the leadership this Congress showed on a bipartisan basis and this President showed, the recession and the job loss would have been far worse when America came under attack on September 11, 2001.

Now in this budget we provide for the President's economic growth package which will create new jobs and sustain growth. The plan accelerates the reductions in personal income tax rates, the marriage penalty relief in the 2001 tax cuts. It accelerates the child tax credits from 2001. It increases small business expensing, and it eliminates the unfair double taxation of dividend income.

Experts generally agree that this proposal will boost stock prices dramatically. Some say 7 percent, some say 20 percent. The fact is, we are going to add significantly to the value of our stock market, which helps all of us as Americans, including half of all American families now invested in the market. It helps the economy in general.

Economists also say it is going to lower unemployment rates for the next several years. In fact, the average of private forecasters' estimates show the President's plan will result in more than 1 million new jobs by the end of next year. It goes without saying that America is still dealing with the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks and with the continued uncertainty on the international front, including in Iraq today. Our economy is not performing as it should, and too many Americans are out of work.

This budget resolution is responsive because it helps get the economy going again; and when that happens, revenues grow. It happened in the 1960s under the leadership of President John Kennedy, and it happened in the 1980s with President Reagan's tax relief plan because it was pro-growth.

Here is a chart which indicates the Reagan-era revenues. Look at this, from 1982 until 1989, the dramatic increase in revenues. Again 1960s, 1980s. That is what we are trying to replicate now.

Mr. Chairman, with the growth package, we are also going to be able to be sure we can afford these tax cuts. I have heard Members say we cannot afford them; it is good to have growth tax packages, but we cannot afford it. This is an interesting chart. This is a static analysis, meaning it shows absolutely no impact of the tax relief, which has countered everything we have seen in history.

When we provide that incentive for job creation, it increases revenue. It helps the budget, but this assumes none of that happens. Just to have the tax relief in place, this is the difference. The red on the chart shows what the budget would be like with the tax relief taken out altogether. No tax relief at all. The green shows the impact of all this pro-growth tax policy, again on a static analysis. As Members can see, it is a very small difference. The tax relief is not crowding out additional spending, it is growing the economy so we can get people back to work and grow our revenues.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage Members on the other side of the aisle to listen to one of their former colleagues, currently a Governor in the State of New Mexico. Bill Richardson, who was also a member of the Clinton cabinet, has a plan for his State that restrains spending; and, yes, it reduces tax. Why? Because he knows it is going to help his State's economy and in the end help in terms of revenues. He has said and he offers this as free advice to his fellow Democrats. He said, ``We Democrats need to stop talking about class warfare and distribution of wealth. We need to start talking about economic growth, and reducing taxes puts us on the road to economic growth.'' I think he is right. I always liked Bill Richardson, and now I know why. Well put.

Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible budget because it protects our country and because it grows the economy, gets the economy back on track and creates jobs.