Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 760, the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act.

I am pro-choice, but believe late-term abortions are wrong. Abortion is a very personal decision and a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy subject to the restrictions of Roe v. Wade must be protected. In my judgment, however, the use of this particular procedure cannot be justified.

I have personally spoken with doctors, both pro-choice and pro-life, who made it very clear to me that the ``partial-birth'' procedure is never medically necessary.

The debate on partial-birth abortion has been difficult for me. I voted against the ban back in 1996 believing this procedure was rare and used mostly in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, to prevent severe consequences to her health, or when severe fetal genetic deformities exist.

After voting, I learned this procedure was not as uncommon as it was made out to be; rather than a few hundred partial-birth abortions each year, there have been thousands. Now, choice advocates acknowledge this procedure is often used for elective abortions of healthy fetuses.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I have voted for the ban since 1997 and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 4, which would amend the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws banning the desecration of the flag.

I find it abhorrent anyone would burn our flag. And if I saw someone desecrating the flag, I would do what I could to stop them at risk of injury or incarceration. For me, it would be a badge of honor.

But I think this Constitutional Amendment is an overreaction to a nonexistent problem. Keep in mind the Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791.

This is the same Constitution that eventually outlawed slavery, gave blacks and women the right to vote and guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Amending the Constitution is a very serious matter. I do not think we should allow a few obnoxious attention-seekers to push us into a corner, especially since no one is burning the flag now, without an amendment. I agree with Colin Powell who, when he served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote it was a mistake to amend the Constitution, ``that great shield of democracy, to hammer a few miscreants.''

When I think of the flag, I think about the courageous men and women who have died defending it and the families they left behind. What they were defending was the Constitution of the United States and the rights it guarantees as embodied by the flag.

I love the flag for all it represents, but I love the Constitution even more. The Constitution is not just a symbol; it is the very principles on which our nation was founded.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate interesting, because we are debating a bill we all, or most all, are going to be supporting, so it is kind of like this is a good bill, we are going to vote for it, but we want it better or want it differently.

It is a good bill. It is a good bill for my State; 75,359 people have benefited. We are going to help 37,450 more, for a total of 112,809. In terms of dollars spent, we have provided $259,231,629. We are going to add $142 million, for $401 million. This is an effort to reach out.

My colleague from Buffalo, New York, has helped push this, along with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and others. We listened to our Democratic colleagues who said we need to move forward with the bill. It seems to me they should be taking credit for some of what we are doing.

Now, I support this legislation because I think it is important to our workers who are out of work; but I also support our tax cut, because I think that is ultimately how we are going to benefit these folks who need a job.

We are going to increase the child tax credit to $1,000, and then phase it out for the wealthy. It only is going for the families that need it. If you have three kids, you get to subtract $3,000 from the bottom line of your taxes. If you are married, you are not going to be paying a penalty anymore.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against this. We are going to reduce the marginal rates to help working families. We are going to treat dividends like capital gains, and also reduce the capital gains rate.

We are going to get this economy moving again, frankly, with or without the support of our Democratic colleagues. We are going to provide the unemployment compensation we need, we are going to provide the tax cuts that we need, and we are going to get this economy moving again.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand the good heart of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and where he is coming from. But, Mr. Chairman, this is money that is needed now.

The President has stated, ``Seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.'' This year, the President made an unprecedented commitment to fight HIV/AIDS on a global scale, and we must not thwart that momentum by cutting this year's authorization by a third.

The President has stated that his HIV/AIDS initiative is intended to prevent 7 million new infections, treat 2 million HIV-infected people, and care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans. There is no reason I can think of to limit the immediate flow of money. There are children in Africa going to school without teachers and then going to a home without parents, and we have to deal with that.

Mr. Chairman, I commend President Bush for taking such a bold step in committing these funds and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for moving it through this Chamber. I think we need to maintain the full $3 billion authorization as it is.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Appropriations chairman, ranking member and all who worked on the Wartime Supplemental conference report. They did a tremendous job.

As a returned Peace Corps volunteer who strongly supported the President's effort to get Saddam Hussein's Iraq to cooperate with the UN inspectors and dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, I am proud, so proud, of our men and women who serve our great Nation. Our job in Congress, when we send our men and women into battle, is to make sure it is never a fair fight. We need to make sure those who risk their lives in service to this country have every advantage. We have done our job and we are doing our job.

As another returned Peace Corps volunteer, Jim Walsh, said, we are supporting our troops who brought freedom to a troubled land and we are helping to rebuild that land and nation and the good people who live there.

This is a good sign of a great Nation. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and all of Connecticut congratulate the University of Connecticut Lady Huskies for winning the 2003 NCAA Women's Basketball Championship.

Last year, I stood on this same floor to congratulate the 2002 championship squad, which I felt was the greatest team in the history of women's college basketball. That 39-0 team never trailed in the second half all season. During the NCAA tournament, they won their six games by an average margin of 27 points.

Going into this season, the Lady Huskies had lost four All-American players to graduation. Without their senior leadership, many questioned whether the team would be able to win a third national championship in just 4 years.

But UConn women's basketball has always been a program rich in tradition and a desire to excel. Quite simply, they would not be denied.

Led by junior Diana Taurasi, the national women's player of the year, a pair of freshmen sensations, Barbara Turner and Ann Strother, and the unyielding dedication of teammates Maria Conlon, Jessica Moore, Ashley Battle, Nicole Wolff, Morgan and Ashley Valley, Wilnett Crockett and Stacey Marron, the UConn Lady Huskies again finished the season as the finest team in the land.

I also want to commend the hard work of Geno Auriemma, the NCAA Coach of the Year, who along with his coaching staff put together another unbelievable team. With the championship victory, Coach Auriemma won his 501st game and fourth national championship.

Mr. Speaker, this team's speed, precision shooting, and hustle have all contributed to its success. But what strikes me the most about the Lady Huskies is their ability to rise to any occasion.

In the semifinal game, UConn was down 50-41 with 12 minutes left against the University of Texas Longhorns. All game long Texas had stunned the Lady Huskies with its strong rebounding and intense defense. But the Lady Huskies settled down and received a spark off the bench from Wilnett Crockett. In two of the greatest final minutes of women's Final Four history, the Lady Huskies found a way to win. They hit key shots and shut down the Longhorns on their way to a hard-fought 71-69 victory and a ticket to the national championship game.

By the time the Lady Huskies met the Lady Vols of Tennessee in the title game, they could taste victory. Against the most successful women's basketball program in NCAA history, UConn never trailed throughout the game. The result was a 73-68 victory!

I want to congratulate these young women for being such extraordinary role models for Americans of all ages.

These UConn Lady Huskies continue to be the team by which all others are measured.

They were really a joy to watch, and I congratulate them on their tremendous achievement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert- Markey Amendment to reduce our consumption of oil by increasing fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks.

The United States cannot continue on a course of increased oil consumption with little to no regard for the implications it has on our environment, economy and national security.

There is no better time to focus on reducing our reliance on foreign oil than right now.

Increased fuel efficiency standards and tax incentives for conservation and renewable energy sources should be at the heart of our national energy policy in a post-September 11 world.

This amendment requires the Department of Transportation to issue rules to ensure the total amount of oil that cars and SUVs consume in 2010 will be 5 percent less than the

total amount they would otherwise consume if the average fuel economy standards were to remain at 2004 levels.

These savings could be achieved by increasing fuel economy standards to 30 miles per gallon.

Under this amendment, the Administrator of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration will have maximum flexibility in how the standards are set.

The standard could be increased for cars or SUVs or only the heaviest trucks.

This is a common sense amendment which represents a modest step forward in our nation's efforts to become more energy efficient.

The Boehlert/Markey Amendment will help protect the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save drivers money at the pump.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with those who say ``we cannot conserve our way out of this energy problem.''

However, until we raise CAFE standards, we cannot honestly tell the American people this is a balanced energy plan.

It is absolutely imperative we are more efficient and make better use of God's precious resources.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey- Johnson Amendment to protect the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

The coastal plain of ANWR is the last major part of the North Slope that has not been developed. Protecting and preserving our splendid natural resources is a patriotic and moral obligation.

In my judgment, it would be far better to develop prudent and lasting alternate fuel energies than to risk irreparable damage to the wilderness of one of North America's most beautiful frontiers. Efforts to drill in ANWR are ill-conceived and will ultimately do little to help achieve a long-term, sustainable, and comprehensive national energy policy.

Mr. Chairman, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a quick fix, not a sustainable solution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Markey-Johnson amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in my 28 years experience being in politics, I do know that speaking at 2 in the morning is not wise, and I usually avoid doing that. It took me awhile to figure that out, because I always made enemies when I spoke late at night.

As I was listening to the dialogue of my colleagues discussing the rule, I heard a lot of passion, I heard a lot of anger. The difference is we actually have to pass a budget and you do not.

The best example to me is you are talking about your budget, the Blue Dog budget, that did not even get close to a majority of votes and did not even get all the votes on your side of the aisle. We can only afford to lose 11 votes on our side of the aisle, because we know that there is not one, Mr. Speaker, on that side of the aisle that will help us pass a budget. And that is the challenge.

When we passed our budget out of the Committee on the Budget, which I was proud of, and balanced the budget in 7 years, the amendments to that budget in that committee debate added up to $983 billion over the next 10 years.

We never had a debate with President Clinton where he said we spent too much. The only way we could get out of town was we had to spend more. That is a fact.

The problem is, even tonight, my colleagues, seriously, think about this: You say we are cutting. Only in Washington when you spend 9 percent more, or $14.6 billion more, would people call it a cut. That is what we add in Medicaid. Only in Washington when you spend $17.8 billion more, or 7.2 percent, would people call it a cut. Only in Washington when you spend $5.4 billion more in transportation, or an 8.4 percent increase, would people call it a cut. Only in Washington when you spend $6.2 billion more for veterans, a 10.7 percent increase, would people call it a cut.

So, Mr. Speaker, I know that you all do not like this budget, but I also know if you were in the majority, you would not be able to pass a budget, sadly. On this side of the aisle we have come together, we have done our best, and I am proud of it. And we scored our tax package. We have a tax package that we would, if we could, pass a $627 billion tax cut. We put it under reconciliation at $550. So there is $77 billion that is not going to be under reconciliation.

This is a good budget. It is a budget we know we can pass, and we are going to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I have heard my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), object to the inclusion of $64 million for the Corporation for National Service in a wartime supplemental appropriations bill.

I take the opposite view. I think including this funding in this bill is entirely appropriate precisely because we are at war against terrorism, and national service is a vital part of winning that war. National service is the right prescription during these times because the best antidotes to terror and hate in society are acts of kindness and service. For instance, just last week, the U.S.A. Freedom Corps launched a new resource for people seeking to support our troops, their families, and their communities called ``On The Home Front.''

The point of the program is that while hundreds of thousands of men and women from all over America are serving in the Armed Forces and away from home, those on the home front can make a difference too. Partnering with the Department of Defense, the U.S.A. Freedoms Corps is offering resources to Americans who want to express their support for members of the military and helping their families in a meaningful way.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the most productive and cost-effective investments our government can make. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their community and their country which will provide value for the rest of their lives.

National service benefits both the recipient and the giver. Volunteers not only address an immediate need; they lead and teach through example, and through that example, they learn the value of serving and helping others. We need to harness the energy and commitment of those anxious to contribute to their country. We should not only defeat this amendment, but we should finally pass the Citizen Service Act.

Let me just say, as a former Peace Corps volunteer, we were paid a minimum wage so we could live, and we were given a small stipend. I have failed to understand, as long as I have been a part of this party, why we would object to people earning a degree, an opportunity to go to school, instead of just being given a grant. I do not understand why we would not be eager and thrilled to have more people participate in national service.

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

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, which will not be much because we have already put on the record that Floyd Spence was a tremendous Member of Congress and an outstanding public servant; and we are just eager to move forward on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for introducing this legislation. I want to say to the gentleman that I am certain that Floyd Spence would be very proud of the job he is now doing for the people of his district, which is the district Floyd Spence represented before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 981) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, Pennsylvania, as the ``James R. Merry Post Office.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 981 was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). It designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, Pennsylvania, as the James R. Merry Post Office. The entire House delegation from the State of Pennsylvania has signed on as cosponsors to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, former State representative Jim Merry was a devoted public servant who worked in the State legislature for the people of Pennsylvania for 16 years. He was known to be well liked by Representatives on both sides of the aisle, and he capitalized on his good relations with colleagues to pass many meaningful pieces of legislation for his district.

Beyond his political career, Jim Merry was remarkably involved in his hometown of Linesville, where he owned for 25 years a successful automotive shop, the Linesville Western Auto Store. In addition, he served as a borough councilman and was active in the local chapters of the American Legion, Rotary Club, and other service organizations.

Sadly, Representative Merry passed away on February 1, 2001. Since James R. Merry was a lifelong resident of the town of Linesville, it would be extremely appropriate if this House would act to rename this post office building in his hometown after one of Linesville's most venerated citizens.

I urge Members to support adoption of H.R. 981. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for introducing this important measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 153) recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

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

House Resolution 153, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), recognizes the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and their Armed Forces abroad due to the armed conflict in Iraq and the threat of terrorism here at home.

Mr. Speaker, our great Nation is at battle overseas with the vicious regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The mission Operation Iraqi Freedom aims to dislodge Hussein and his top advisers from power, eliminate weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi military's arsenal, and free the Iraqi people from Hussein's awful dictatorship. This conflict can lead to a wonderful improvement in the lives of all Iraqi people. The risks of this conflict, however, are terribly significant to all American citizens.

In Iraq, the threats to our remarkable servicemen and women are many. The Iraqi soldiers' resistance may include the deployment of chemical and biological weapons, not to mention the lethality of Iraq's military's conventional weapons. Here at home, the Federal Government has launched Operation Liberty Shield to increase domestic security due to the danger of terrorist attacks within our borders.

This combination of threats to Americans across the globe make passage of this resolution essential and meaningful. Since the birth of our Nation, Americans of all backgrounds, faiths and creeds have especially recognized the value earned from prayer, reflection, sacrifice and humility during times of national crisis.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 153. I thank my colleague from Missouri for introducing this extremely relevant and valuable measure.

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

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

I would like to read this resolution, and I think it is pretty clear what it says:

Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.

Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001;

Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States are currently engaged in a campaign to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq;

Whereas, on June 1, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses called for a day of fasting and prayer as an expression of solidarity with the people of Boston who were under siege by the enemy;

Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the ``Liberties of America are imminently endangered'' and the need ``to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God'', called for a day of ``Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer'';

Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;

Whereas, on March 30, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, at the behest of the Senate, and himself recognizing the need of the Nation to humble itself before God in repentance for its national sins, proclaimed a day of fasting, prayer and humiliation;

Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before Providence;

Whereas humility, fasting, and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;

Whereas, through prayer, fasting, and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and

Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--

(1) designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States; and

(2) calling on all people of the United States--

(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting;

(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and

(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I think the resolution speaks for itself. It is a resolution that I think all of us can support with humility and grace and a love for our great Nation.

I would just remind the Members of this Chamber that the medallion that is directly facing the Speaker is the medallion of Moses. We have been guided by his laws for many years.

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

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his very thoughtful words and comments, and just to remind Members again that the most operative words in this resolution are what we resolve, that we designate a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States and call on all people of the United States to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting, to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities, and to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

I believe that resolve is so in line with the spirit of what our Founding Fathers did in years before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), who was the presenter of this resolution. I thank him for that.

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

I have no other speakers, and I want to thank, before returning the balance of my time, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) again for introducing this important resolution and also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his thoughtful comments and support.

I urge all Members to support the adoption of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think if we were honest with each other, we would say we do not like any of our budgets, because we would like them to be balanced today, but that, regretfully, is not possible. But in comparing the budgets, I prefer the budget that we are presenting.

I prefer it because in our budget we are protecting America, we are increasing our defense budget, we are increasing our homeland security budget. In our budget, most importantly, and you do not see it to the extent you need to in our colleagues' budgets, we are strengthening the economy and creating new jobs. In our budget, we are providing fiscal responsibility.

One of the things I found most curious in the debate in the committee last week was that when we added up all the dollars that were spent in amendments offered by our Democratic colleagues, they amounted to over $1 trillion. Now, they would say to you what they did is they eliminated our tax cuts, and, in some cases, increased taxes to pay for their $1 trillion of new spending over the next 10 years.

When we came to Washington, a number of us said we wanted to get our country's financial house in order and balance the Federal budget and not grow this government. But what we see in the other budget is a growing of the government.

Mr. Chairman, what is disappointing to me is that when we have seen their amendments, both last week and this week, we have not seen any effort to reduce spending but increase it. And when we see what we do, what we are having to defend, I am embarrassed that it seems so difficult to defend. We have to defend a 1 percent cut in discretionary spending over this year's budget for just 1 year. Then we allow the budget to go up in the second year, we allow it to go up in the third year, we allow it to go up in the fourth year. The logic, though, is if you can make cuts in 1 year, they have benefit in terms of reducing spending for 10 years. I am proud of that.

But when our colleagues talk about the savings we are making, they add up all 10 years and then imply that it happens all in 1 year, or they say we are going to cut 1 percent every year, and we are not allowing the budgets to grow.

We want to slow the growth in the budgets next year, and then we are going to allow them to grow in the second year, allow them to grow in the third year, allow them to grow in the fourth year, allow them to grow in the fifth year, allow them to grow in the sixth year, allow them to grow in the seventh year, allow them to grow in the eighth year, allow them to grow in the ninth year, and allow them to grow in the tenth year.

But we are having to defend a 1-cent-per-dollar cut next year in some programs, but we are not cutting defense, homeland security, Medicare or Social Security, and we have also agreed that veterans' spending is going to go up.

So, for me, I am having a difficult time, because I would have liked our budget to have reduced spending more. But this is what we can agree to.

Now, when we talk about the 1 percent reduction, what we are looking at is waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. You mean to tell me there is not 1 cent on a dollar of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in our government? You could not look at anyone with a straight face and tell them that.

I happen to have served on the Committee on Government Reform, for 16 years. I love that committee. We look at waste, fraud and abuse, and we attempt and are successful in many ways in getting reform. But it is taking too long. We need the authorizers to do a better job of looking at waste, fraud and abuse now, and we need the appropriators to do so as well.

Mr. Chairman, on my desk are hundreds of GAO reports. These are just for a few months. Financial Management Service:, Significant Weaknesses In Computer Control Continue. You could save millions of dollars there.

Weak Controls Result In Improper and Wasteful Purchases at FAA. You can save money there.

Medicaid Financial Management: Better Oversight Of State Claims For Federal Reimbursement Needed.

I love this one. Medicare Home Health Care. Payments To Home Health Agencies Are Considerably Higher Than Costs.

U.S. Postal Service: Deteriorating Financial Outlook Increases Need For Transformation. We have got to do those things.

Now, DOD has to be looked at as well, and that is one way we can help pay for all the needs that we have in DOD. Overpayments Continue, And Management And Accounting Issues Remain. Defense Inventory: Control Weaknesses Leave Restricted And Hazardous Excess Property Vulnerable To Improper Use, Loss And Theft.

These are just a few of the hundreds on my desk. This is just GAO. What

about the Inspector General's reports? We could fill up this whole table. This is literally the tip of the iceberg.

So, I am proud of our budget, because it is better than the budget we are seeing, but, Lord knows, it could be even better.

I encourage my colleagues to vote out our budget resolution. Let us get our country's financial house in order, and let us have the needed tax cuts that will generate the economic activity that will grow this economy. We want to protect America, strengthen the economy, and have fiscal responsibility. Our budget does that.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the CBC/ CPC substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute because our reading is it raises taxes and increases spending, does not provide enough for defense, and fails to reach balance sooner. Having said that, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) wanted me to say that he knows the amount of time and effort that was put into this budget and also knows that there are important issues that will be brought out in this debate that this Chamber needs to hear.

So with that, I will just compliment my colleagues on working on this budget, say it is not a budget that we can support, but we look forward to listening to the debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, while we obviously have some disagreements with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the budgets and what our budget does, I understand my colleague has a number of speakers. We obviously do not have a number. I would be happy to transfer 10 minutes of our time to be controlled by the gentleman so he has an additional 10 minutes to control.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say that we appreciate the work that went into the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus substitute. We understand that they, more than most Members in this House of Representatives, know that there are people suffering tonight. So we do not dispute that fact.

But we believe that the best way to help people who are suffering is first to protect America at home and abroad with a strong national defense and a strong Department of Homeland Security, to strengthen the economy, and create jobs, and to be fiscally responsible. We really believe that is the best way to help people who are suffering.

Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague and I would both agree that we would like to have a budget that is balanced today. We might come to a different conclusion as to why we have gotten to this point. The economy has slowed; I believe that September 11, a day that I will remember in infamy, had something to do with it; and we believe that the best way to get us out of this kind of lull in our economy is to provide an economic engine, which we believe are tax cuts.

So we are providing an increase in defense spending, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare and veterans. We are asking for a 1 percent reduction, a penny on the dollar, this year, in discretionary and mandatory programs. We think this 1 cent on the dollar for 1 year is something that we can do as mature and responsible Members of the Congress. Lord knows our political colleagues in the statehouses and in local communities are having to make much more difficult decisions.

I would conclude by saying that when I hear references of who is getting the taxes, we acknowledge this: That the people who pay taxes get the tax cuts. That is true. Five percent of the American people pay 50 percent of the taxes, and 50 percent of the American people pay 96.5 percent of the taxes, and they get the tax cut. But we also know when they get this tax cut, they use it to invest in America and create jobs for all Americans.

I know we have another budget to consider, so I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate the dialogue that has taken place on the floor tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not support this budget substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, this substitute. We have come forward with a budget that provides significant increases in defense, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits. We ask for a 1 percent cut in discretionary spending for 1 year, one cent on the dollar. When our States and local communities are having to make 5 and 10 percent cuts to their budget, we are asking 1 percent; and then we allow our budget to go up each and every year after that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who, I would just point out, without embarrassing my colleague, is an American hero, and someone who can speak very clearly about what our men and women are going through.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I know it is getting late. It is 10 p.m., but words like ``immoral'' and not providing money to our troops is just over the edge. Our troops are going to get all the money they need to do whatever they have to do to protect themselves and achieve their objective. There is no one here doubts that issue. Not one Member. To suggest otherwise, I think particularly tonight, is inappropriate. I do not think that we need to go there.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Reclaiming my time, I understand there is an objection to the tax cuts. I understand that debate is going to be one in which we will disagree. We happen to believe that tax cuts generate economic activity. We have an honest disagreement on that issue.

I am just saying in this debate tonight when our men and women are fighting to even suggest for a moment that our troops are not going to get all of the resources they need is simply going over the edge. I would just suggest that we both know that we need to provide our men and women with everything they need, and our job is to make sure it is never a fair fight, that we always have the advantage, and we have done that.

I think the gentleman would acknowledge that this side of the aisle has continually put more money into the defense budget. That is what we continue to do today. I just would make this point. Our men and women are going to get whatever they need, and we are going to have a supplemental that impacts this budget, not next year's budget. They will get whatever they need to do their job and win this war.

We have disagreements. Our disagreements are we are putting more money in defense and homeland security. We believe a meaningful tax cut, one that is noticeable and large, will strengthen the economy and create jobs; and we believe that a 1 percent cut on nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending, 1 percent for 1 year will make sense. What my colleague from South Carolina did not point out is during the late 1990s, we slowed the growth in spending for 2, almost 3, years, and then allowed it to go up again. We believe that is why our budget balanced. We are going to have disagreements on that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

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

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

It is getting late. I know we are going to have a 2-hour dialogue of strong support for our men and women in battle. I would like to conclude by making a number of points, but not using all my time.

First, there is really no one I respect more on either side of the aisle than the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I appreciate the graciousness in which he does his business and the conviction with which he expresses it and the work that he and his staff and his members do.

My comments are meant to just explain differences and not to describe character; but when we were debating this bill last week, we looked at amendments to the budget that only increase spending. We did not see any Democratic amendment that cuts spending. Admittedly, they reduce the tax cuts and therefore added more taxes than we would have. That is true. But there was $1 trillion of more spending, and I would submit that during the 20 years that my colleague talks about serving in this Congress, the only time he ever saw Congress balance the budget was under a Republican Congress. He never saw it happen under a Democratic Congress. He never saw a debt paid back under a Democratic Congress. So I understand that we have clearly been very proud of the fact that we on the Republican side of the aisle, working with Democrats, balanced the budget and started to pay down debt and now we have gone in a different direction.

It does not surprise me, though. The economy has slowed down. We had a horrific attack on September 11, 2001, that I think most people know had an impact on the budget. Ten percent of our gross domestic product came to a standstill with the airline industry and tourism. So we all understand that. We just have a difference in how we generate economic activity because both sides recognize that we ultimately balance the budget by growing this economy and getting more revenue. That is what we know happened. And the difference is a 1 percent reduction in mandatory and discretionary nondefense, nonhomeland security, non- Social Security, non-Medicare that we think is something that grown men and women can do. And when my colleagues on that side of the aisle ascribe a cut in a particular part of the budget, what they had to do was they had to assume that we were going to cut more than 1 percent and where we were going to make that cut was in the particular area they wanted.

The disadvantage we have is that we decided to allow the appropriators to make that decision, unlike what we did in the Committee on the Budget I was on a few years ago in 1996 and 1997 where we specified those cuts, we said the appropriators can make those decisions, and I am absolutely certain that in most instances described on the other side of the aisle, those cuts would not be made there. That is what I believe because we are talking about a 1

percent cut in 1 year and then we allow the budget to grow the next year and the next year and the next year and the next year. Nine years we allow it to grow, but our logic is make the reductions this year because then we see benefit in all the years that follow.

Maybe it is hard here, but when I was in the Statehouse and on the Committee on Appropriations for 13 years, we sometimes had to reduce the budget by 5 percent or more; and what we did is we sat down with the department heads and said, This is what we have got to do, where would you like the cuts to be? We met with our version of GAO and said, Where do you think it should be? Our version of the Inspector Generals, and we put it all together, and we came down with where we thought the cuts should be. A 1 percent reduction 1 year is what we are asking for.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would just say we do want to protect America. We do want to increase the defense budget and homeland security, and we do. We do want to strengthen the economy and create jobs. We do it by a tax cut. On the other side of the aisle, you do it by spending increases and a much smaller tax cut, and we ultimately want to balance the budget and now your budget will balance 2 years sooner under a static model. We believe under a dynamic model when we restrain spending and we have tax cuts, we will see it balance sooner.

We saw that happen in 1990. We did not get credit in 1990 when we had our 7-year plan to balance the budget. The CBO would not give us credit, but we balanced it in 3 years, 4 years sooner than we thought.

You may not agree with what I have said, but that is the reality as we see it, and that is the differences we have, and they are honest disagreements; but the one thing we do not have a disagreement on, and that is what I was trying to explain to my colleague. Our men and women are going to get whatever they need to win whatever war they are fighting and to make sure it is never a fair battle. On that Republicans and Democrats are totally and completely united. Totally and completely.

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