Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does an excellent job in his work and his subcommittee in dealing with this. I am wondering if he could report to us why it is that there is a shortfall of resources for FEMA for this year.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. Speaker, is it not true, however, that the President requested back in February an additional $1 billion for FEMA to be made part of the omnibus appropriations bill, and that that $1 billion request was not used for FEMA, but rather for other accounts within the omnibus appropriations bill?

Mr. Speaker, again, the chairman has, if not the toughest job, one the toughest jobs on Capitol Hill, and I do not take anything away from that.

My concern about what we are doing with regard to an emergency supplemental, as the gentleman correctly said when he started, is that an emergency, by definition, and has been by definition since the early 1990s, is something that is unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated. And when the President makes a request for $1 billion in order to fund FEMA accounts for problems that while they maybe have not yet manifested themselves, we know there will be forest fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, windstorms, et cetera.

And I think the concern I have and others may have, is that when it is requested, it is not funded as it is traditionally and unfortunately the case for FEMA, and that money is used for other accounts, that we find ourselves now having to take time on the floor to go and do what should have been done in February.

That money has now been used for other accounts, and that is the concern that I have as the Committee on the Budget chairman, and I know a number of other people have, with regard to the process that we are taking here today.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me just report to the ranking member that I have supported all of the appropriations bills on the floor this year.

I understand that, but my point is that the Committee on the Budget tries not to meddle other than when it writes the budget itself, which is our prerogative as a committee to write.

And I would just say, I think the gentleman might acknowledge that a war does not have its own account. FEMA has its own account to anticipate natural disasters, to anticipate emergencies; and as the gentleman knows, this is an unfortunate, but yet somewhat traditional exercise that goes on to underfund FEMA, knowing full well that we have a difficult time saying no to natural disasters, so that those resources can be spread among other accounts.

We can all decide how we are going to vote on this, but I would only encourage the very distinguished ranking member, who I know is concerned about this practice, that we prevent this from occurring in the future.

Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time in this debate to adequately acknowledge what this practice of underfunding FEMA means to the victims. So I hope we all keep that in mind here today, because while this bill is important, it is important that we change the practice of underfunding FEMA intentionally, as we did in February to take $1 billion out of what was requested by OMB and to spread it into all these other little goodies, knowing full well that if FEMA needed the money, we would come back here breathlessly to say, oh, yes, we need a little bit of extra money; and that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what was predicted in February, and that is exactly what happened today.

The traditional definition that we have used for emergencies has always been ``unforeseen, unanticipated, and unpredictable.'' Well, how is it that OMB and the President were able to predict that this was going to happen in February; but for some reason now, the last minute on the last day before the recess, before, as my friend from Washington says, offices are ready to close, the lights are ready to be turned off, people are thrown in the street, and that is typically what happens, as people come breathlessly to the floor with an emergency supplemental, knowing full well in February we needed money and waiting until the last minute to try and jam it through.

We are probably going to jam it through again, and it is only, gosh, I hope my mother is not listening, it is only $1 billion. But we have got a deficit, and I want to see all those deficit hawks, all those Democrats in particular that have been down here on the floor railing about the deficit, to come down here today and remind themselves and their friends about how important it is to not add an additional $1 billion to the deficit.

What the gentleman from Pennsylvania says is let us find the money. If you do not like this offset, fix it in conference. That is the power you have. The chairman knows he can increase the bill in conference. You can also fix this amendment and find a true offset in conference. Let us pay for this disaster.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I take this time just to respond to my very distinguished appropriations chairman and subcommittee chairman to report to them that I heard their personal conversations to me about the need to take on mandatory spending and not just fight about discretionary spending. That is why in the budget this year we not only asked for the 1 percent from all of the mandatory spending; the first time that has been done, it was because of the interest of the Committee on Appropriations, in particular, that we took on that task.

No, it did not complete the final version of the budget, because there were not enough people who were gutsy enough to do it. I know the gentleman from Kentucky is. I am, as well.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is a fair comment. But to suggest that the Committee on the Budget has not been doing its work with regard to mandatory spending is what troubled me in the gentleman's comments.

The gentleman is right that the proof will be in the final product, but I would just say that the committee has attempted to at least fix this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim the time and just report that we have had one successful bill that already has moved to the floor that reduced, for waste, fraud, and abuse, $33 billion in a mandatory program called Medicare. It was part of the bill that was voted on and passed by this House.

So, again, to suggest that nothing has been done is not correct.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2799, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 2004. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted on April 10.

H.R. 2799 provides $37.9 billion in new budget authority [BA] and $40.989 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2004--a reduction of $1.287 billion in BA and an increase of $500 million in outlays from fiscal year 2003. Although budget authority in the bill declines by 3.3 percent from the previous year, it is $241 billion above the President's request.

The bill therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

The bill contains $1.125 billion in BA savings--$1.095 in BA and $383 million outlays from changes in mandatory spending, and $30.5 million in rescissions of previously enacted BA. It does not designate any of the appropriations provided by this bill as an emergency.

In conclusion, I commend Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Wolf for their hard work and can appreciate the tough decisions that accompanied the crafting of this bill, especially given the current fiscal climate. It is my hope that Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Wolf will continue to weigh both the state of our economy and the safety of our Nation when they represent the House in conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 2754, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This bill, which provides important flood protection, water transportation, energy, and irrigation services across the country is consistent with the House-passed budget resolution and complies with the Congressional Budget Act.

H.R. 2754 provides $27.080 billion in budget authority and $27.173 billion in outlays--increases over the previous year's funding levels of $1.224 billion and $1.697 in BA and outlays respectively. This bill exceeds the President's request by approximately $279 million. Over the last 4 years, funding for this appropriations bill has increased at an annual rate of 5.9 percent.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased to report that the bill is consistent with the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2004--H. Con. Res. 95. H.R. 2754 also complies with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. Section 302(f), prohibits consideration of bills in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

H.R. 2754 does not contain emergency-designated new BA. The bill does include $80 million in rescissions of previously enacted BA with $4 million in related outlays.

In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2754 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2691, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 2004. I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the bill meets its allocation established under the Section 302(b) suballocation for the Interior subcommittee.

H.R. 2691 provides $19.627 billion in budget authority and $19.400 billion in outlays--increases over the President's requested funding level of $72 million and $132 million respectively. Over the last four years, funding for this appropriations bill has increased at an amount rate of 6.3 percent.

budget compliance

I am pleased to report that the bill is consistent with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. However, I would note that the bill contains a change to one mandatory program that generates $30 million in savings to offset discretionary spending. If this provision were stricken, the bill would exceed its allocation.

In addition, two transfers within the bill violate section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. The bill designates as an emergency two transfers--one for the emergency replacement of property owned by the Department, the other for combating wildfires on Department land--with the intent of exempting the costs from the budget resolution. Such designations are unnecessary because the transfers will not change the total amount of appropriated budget authority. Even had there been a cost associated with these provisions, the language as written exempted them from the now expired

statutory spending caps, not from the budget resolution; hence the budget resolution limits would still have applied. While the subcommittee could have attempted to declare these sections as emergencies under Section 502 of the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution, it also should have included an explanation in its committee report explaining the manner in which these provisions meet the criteria of an emergency.

Because these provisions have no budgetary effect, I am not going to object. However, I would note to this subcommittee and other committees and subcommittees contemplating emergency designations to refer to section 502 of this year's budget resolution. More importantly under the terms of the budget resolution, emergencies should be essential, quickly coming into being, requiring immediate action, unforeseen, and temporary in nature.

H.R. 2691 also rescinds $20 million of rescissions of previously enacted BA. The bill contains an advance appropriation of $36 million for payments under the Elk Hills School lands fund settlement agreement. The advance appropriation is included in the list of anticipated advance appropriations under section 301 of the Budget Resolution.

conservation spending

Finally, there will be much discussion during the debate about the subcommittee's decision not to provide spending on conservation programs at the level established under the Conservation Spending Cap. While there is an overall limit on conservation spending through fiscal year 2006, the underlying law enforcing this limit expired last fall. This means there is no way to limit conservation-related appropriations to the capped levels.

In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2691 which is so important to the economic and environmental health of many of our rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act of 2003. This Act would amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize appropriations to procure security countermeasures to treat, identify, and prevent the public health consequences of bio-terrorism.

Project BioShield has been described by President Bush as ``a key part of our all-out effort to prepare for the threat of bio-terror.'' So I am pleased that the Project BioShield Act of 2003 will be voted on today in this House.

The framework for this bill was initially established in the FY 04 Budget Resolution that was adopted in April. The budget resolution set aside $5.593 billion over ten years to establish a program to accelerate the research, development and acquisition of biomedical threat countermeasures. Recognizing the importance of this legislation, it took the somewhat usual step of establishing firewalls around these funds to ensure they are not used for any other purpose.

I am very pleased that the bill we are considering today is consistent with the budget resolution. It would authorize appropriations of $5.6 billion for fiscal years 2004 through 2013. As some of my colleagues may be aware, the House already passed appropriations for this bill as part of the Appropriations bill for Energy and Water. Accordingly, as provided by the budget resolution, I adjusted the 302(a) allocation to the Appropriations Committee to accommodate the appropriations for this important bill.

I would also like to comment on the funding mechanism for BioShield. At the time the budget resolution was adopted, it was unclear whether this program would be funded through annual appropriations or with a permanent indefinite appropriation. Both the Budget and Appropriations Committees expressed a preference for subjecting the program to periodic review of the annual appropriation process. The Administration preferred a new entitlement that would be automatically funded without further legislative action.

I believe the funding mechanism in this bill strikes the right balance. It would fund Project BioShield through what is effectively a multi-year appropriation that would give the Administration flexibility in the amount that is obligated in each year. It subjects the program to periodic Congressional review through the appropriations process but provides the pharmaceutical companies that develop the countermeasures the assurance of future funding.

In conclusion, speaking for myself, and my colleagues, H.R. 2122 reflects our strongest support for those necessary efforts to protect our people and our way of life.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. As a representative from Iowa with an economy heavily dependent on farming and farm-related businesses, I have a keen interest in this legislation which funds many of our agricultural research, food safety, and export promotion programs. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am also interested in ensuring that this bill complies with the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2004 [H. Con. Res. 95].

The bill provides $17 billion in new discretionary budget authority-- $221 million above the President's request. While H.R. 2673 falls within its budgetary allocation, I would point out that the bill includes $538 million in mandatory savings, which are under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.

Overall, funding for agriculture appropriations has increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent over the last five years. This rate is 4.5 percent below that of discretionary spending as a whole. I commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur for their ability to work to produce a fiscally responsible bill.

The bill complies with sections 302(f) and 311(a) of the Budget Act. The first of these prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. The second, section 311(a), prohibits consideration of legislation exceeding the aggregate levels of budget authority and outlays established in the concurrent resolution on the budget.

In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2673, which makes an important contribution to ensuring that Americans continue to have the most abundant, inexpensive, and safest food supply in the world. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 2660, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This is the second largest appropriations bill, funding many vital social programs.

I am pleased to report that the $138.036 billion in new budget authority and $134.765 in outlays for fiscal year 2004 in the committee-reported bill--as scored by the Congressional Budget Office-- is within the 302(b) allocation adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 17th.

Unfortunately, the spending level in the bill does breach the budgetary allocation ceiling for fiscal year 2003. It does so by shifting $2.2 billion that was advance appropriated for 2004 in last year's appropriations act back into 2003. This creates more room under the 2004 spending cap, but causes a breach of the 2003 cap. As a result, the legislation is in violation of section 302(f), which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. The bill also violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills providing new budget authority that would cause the total level of budget authority and outlays established in a budget resolution to be exceeded. It is my hope that this violation of the budget resolution is the only one that occurs this year.

Since this bill has in the past been one of the more controversial spending measures, I am pleased that the House is moving this legislation sooner, rather than later, in the appropriations season. I hope that the level of appropriations for programs funded by the Labor- H bill will be determined--and finalized--before the Congress moves on to complete the smaller appropriations bills. I think it makes sense to determine the funding level for the many large and important programs this bill funds as early as possible, instead of relegating such discussions until the very end of the appropriations cycle.

On that score, I do have some concern that the specific levels of funding in this bill provided for certain high priority education programs may be artificially low, with funds being redirected to lower priority programs--many of which were recommended for reduction or termination by the President. Spending on IDEA, Title I and Pell Grants has increased rapidly in recent years, reflecting the strong support for these programs in the Congress. In this bill, funding for IDEA State Grants is $1.2 billion under the level authorized in the IDEA reauthorization bill passed by the House this year. The bill's $666 million increase for Title I is not insignificant, but it may be lower than the level sought by the majority of members. Finally, as pointed out in the Statement of Administration Policy, the funding level for Pell Grants appears to be less than the amount necessary to fund the maximum grant level established in this same piece of legislation. I am concerned that these problematic funding levels for key education programs in H.R. 2660 will ultimately result in a push to increase overall spending levels.

Despite these caveats, I believe the bill is a generous one. In fact, if the $138 billion funding level set in H.R. 2660 is enacted, the Labor-H bill will witness a 12.2-percent average annual growth rate between 2000 and 2004. This is much greater than the 7.7-percent growth rate in total discretionary spending during the same period. The budgets of two important agencies funded under the Labor-H bill--the Department of Education and the National Institutes of Health--have been doubled since the Republicans took over the Congress. I think that H.R. 2660 reflects the continued strong support by the Congress for these and other agencies funded by the Labor-H appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2657, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This is the fourth bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 17th. I am happy to report that it is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 10th. Conforming with a long practice--under which each chamber of Congress determines its own needs, appropriations for the other Body are not included in the bill as reported to the House.

H.R. 2657 provides $2.669 billion in new budget authority, which is within the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative. Outlays of $2.875 billion are also within the subcommittee's allocation. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously- enacted appropriations.

Accordingly, the bill as reported, complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority.

I commend Chairmen Kingston and Young for bringing another appropriations bill to the floor that is consistent with the Budget Resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2658, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This piece of legislation is perhaps the most important component of our wartime budget for America. It is the third bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 17. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 10. The budget resolution provided $400.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for the national defense function. This bill funds the bulk of that commitment. The rest is funded in the military construction bill, which the House already passed on June 26, and the energy and water bill.

H.R. 2658 provides $368.662 billion in new discretionary budget authority, which is within the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. This is a 1.2-percent increase from the previous year, but builds on a 5-year average annual growth rate of 7.2 percent for defense appropriations. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, but does include $2.14 billion worth of rescissions from previously enacted appropriations.

Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

This bill represents the House's support for the more than 165,000 U.S. troops performing difficult and dangerous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill contains the largest research and development funding ever, and the largest procurement funding since 1990. H.R. 2658 also funds a range of military pay raises up to 6.25 percent, as previously provided for in the Defense Authorization Bill.

I would add one note of caution: the Pentagon has confirmed in a letter to me that the press reports claiming that DOD cannot account for some of the supplemental funding since September 11, 2001, are essentially correct. Accordingly, it is essential that this body adhere to budget rules, carefully examine budget requests, and diligently conduct oversight to ensure defense resources are used efficiently.

I conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2658.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my deepest congratulations to a community I have had the honor of representing since I took office in January of 1991. Tomorrow Dubuque, Iowa will pass a milestone in its history with the official opening of its National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium.

The Mississippi River has already drawn more than 1 million visitors to the City of Dubuque. This community chose to make its story of the river a cornerstone of urban renewal by investing millions of dollars to revitalize the river front. The June 28 opening represents the community's dedication to growing its tourism industry. For more than 12 years Dubuque has worked to create a world-class center to educate residents and tourists alike about the Mississippi River, its science and cultural history.

This project enjoys rare, unified and vigorous support from local government, the business community, and residents. During difficult economic times in the 1980s, the people of Dubuque came to understand all too well that being subject to a single economic sector's peaks and valleys hinders a city's self-sufficiency. The years of planning for the museum have been a catalyst for change by redirecting the economy toward tourism and making Dubuque a more viable community. Significant changes are happening in the area adjacent to the museum known as the Port of Dubuque. These changes include The Grand Harbor Resort and Waterpark, a new riverwalk, a community amphitheater, and a conference center.

Enthusiasm for this project has been infectious. It has spread to Main Street where activities are beginning to flourish with the opening of new businesses, including several new restaurants. The entire business community in Dubuque and the surrounding area is already seeing a positive economic impact due to this project. Dubuque's spirit of partnership, community pride and determination have helped the city to grow. They have found a way to tie together Iowa's best strengths-- our people and our rich natural resources--to serve as an example to other cities of what can be accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to personally commend Mayor Terry Duggan and other local elected officials for their leadership in Dubuque's revitalization. Additionally, this project would not be possible without the very diligent work of Jerry Enzler and Teri Goodmann. Thanks in large part to Jerry's work, the museum is now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution and last year was named by the U.S. Department of Transportation to be the official interpretive center for the Mississippi's Great River Road. Dubuque has been well served by Mayor Duggan, the city council, Jerry, Teri, and the countless others who have been undaunted in their efforts to obtain financial assistance for the museum from individuals, private industries and government officials.

I am proud to have played a part in making this project a reality and look forward to attending the Grand Opening. I believe Dubuque serves as a great example of what a community can do when it identifies goals and pursues them. At one time the phrase often used in the city was, ``will the last person out please shut off the lights?'' What a difference less than 20 years have made! The city now calls itself, ``Masterpiece on the Mississippi.'' It is truly a masterpiece of natural beauty, historical value, and residents bursting with pride and enthusiasm. Dubuque, your lights are on for the whole world to see and experience.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2559, the Military Construction

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. It is the second bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 17th. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted on April 10. The budget resolution provided $400.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for national defense. This bill funds the military construction and family housing portion of that commitment to our men and women in uniform.

H.R. 2559 provides $9.196 billion in new budget authority and $10.282 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2004. It is therefore identical to its 302(b) allocation to the House Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations. It does not contain emergency-designated new BA. It does include $340.5 million in rescissions of previously enacted BA. Although budget authority in the bill declines by 12.8 percent from the previous year, it is $81 million above the President's request. This mainly because H.R. 2559 contains a procurement appropriation of $120 million that, according to CBO, was part of the administration's request for the Defense appropriation bill rather than this bill.

The bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

H.R. 2559 represents this House's solemn commitment to the quality of life of those who put their lives on the line for freedom. It not only addresses the long-term infrastructure problems at military bases, it sustains barracks, family housing, medical facilities, and child support centers across the country and overseas. It also provides infrastructure funding for National Guard and Reserve troops who now find themselves on the front lines of the war against terrorism. Finally, it incorporates the results of real-world national security policy changes: The redeployment south of U.S. military forces away from the North Korean border to better-protected bases, and the gradual drawdown of troops from some Central European bases.

In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2559.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his partnership and hard work on this bill.

The Democrats are living in 1965. Boy, we have heard a lot about that tonight. We have heard about Bob Dole and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Well, that is great but it is not 1965. Medicare is going bankrupt. Tax cuts did not cause that. Health care costs are out of control. The reimbursement system under Medicare is broken and it is not paying the bills. Hospitals are closing. Doctors are leaving rural areas or not taking Medicare patients at all. Cost shifting is running rampant onto the private pay side, and as a result, problems are running rampant within our health care system.

Benefits have not improved. We do not have drugs. We do not have prevention. We do not have disease management. We have a sick care system, and the Democrats have done nothing about it for the past 30 years since they did pass Medicare in 1965.

Doing nothing tonight is not an option, and that is why in the budget we put $400 billion to improve Medicare,

increasing Medicare by $400 billion, hardly withering on anybody's vine, because doing nothing is not an option. Tonight, H.R. 1 is the choice. It modernizes Medicare, saves it from bankruptcy, controls costs, modernizes benefits, fixes the Iowa and other rural reimbursement problems, keeps these hospitals open and viable so that they can pay the bills as a result of amendments that have been passed in both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Quality health care will be available in rural areas on into the future as a result of what we have done tonight. Inaction is not an option.

But there is one other choice. The Democrats will offer a $1 trillion Medicare drug benefit tonight; one that CBO says costs $1 trillion. Guess what? That not only busts the Republican budget, but it busts the Democratic budget and it busts both of our budgets combined. Do not bankrupt Medicare. Save it by passing H.R. 1.

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

I would like to know where the new Democrat budget hawks are tonight, those new birds who seem to have flown the coop, who have spent the last many months here on the floor talking about the debt tax, something that does not exist but they have sure gotten a lot of ink about it. All sorts of national debt charts have been coming across the floor. In fact, they even one day used the pages, these young high school students, to demonstrate the national debt. But where are they tonight? Where are they when we read the letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says that their so-called substitute would add $1 trillion to the deficit? Where are they? They have flown the coop. We are not hearing about the deficit all of a sudden. In fact, what we heard about is that tax cuts have caused all of the problems.

In fact, one gentleman even had the audacity to stand up and act as though Washington hands money out to people. Tax relief, my friends, is money left in the pockets of people that they earned. We do not hand money out. Money comes from them. And if you are going to waste it on a $1 trillion program, that not only does not fit within the budget that controls tonight but did not even fit within your substitute budget of just 4 months ago.

In fact, if we add the Democrat budget together with the budget that controls today, you bust not only the Republican budget, you bust the Democrat budget, but you bust both budgets combined. That takes a lot of work, to be able to bust both budgets and add $1 trillion to the deficit and have all of these new deficit Democrat hawks whom we cannot find tonight.

It is interesting. Boy, we heard a lot from them all year long, nickeling and diming and worrying about all of that. But when you come to the floor with $1 trillion that says in the same letter that all the employers are going to drop their coverage for retirees, 100 percent are going to drop their coverage, and you have the audacity to present that kind of substitute that busts both budgets, do not come here any more this year and talk about the deficit.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the unfolding of the appropriations process for fiscal year 2004 and the Homeland Security appropriations bill in particular. The actual appropriations process commenced on April 10 when, five days before the statutory deadline, the U.S. Congress agreed to a budget resolution that established an overall limit or allocation on appropriations for fiscal year 2004.

The budget resolution

The budget resolution provided a total allocation for discretionary appropriations of $785.6 billion in fiscal year 2004, including the amounts held in reserve for the Bioshield initiative. This represents a 2.6 percent increase over the current year, which is slightly higher than the rate of inflation. Additionally, the budget resolution allowed an additional $23.2 billion to be appropriated in advance for fiscal year 2005.

The Congress agreed on this number after considerable deliberations involving the Leadership, the Budget and Appropriations Committees, and rank and file Members. We started with CBO's reestimate of the President budget request of $786.6 billion. We added $890 million for biological and chemical threats and another $215 million for the Iraq supplemental. At the same time, it was reduced by $2.2 billion to reflect advance appropriations that were not part of the President's original budget submission.

302(b) allocations

Last week the House Appropriations Committee finally decided how to divide that allocation across its 13 appropriations subcommittees. Under these allocations, total appropriations for defense and military construction will have climbed by 7.1 percent a year between fiscal years 2000 and 2004. Somewhat surprisingly, all other non-defense discretionary spending will have increased over the same period by a robust 8.2 percent.

The Appropriations Committee appropriately exercised its prerogative to allocate funding based on Congressional priorities. The Appropriations Committee comes in under the Administration request's by $3.2 billion for defense and $1.8 billion for Foreign Affairs. At the same time, it would exceed the President's request by $448 million for Labor, HHS and Education, $400 million for VA-HUD, $279 million for Energy & Water, $221 million for Agriculture, and $241 million for Commerce, State & Justice.

Homeland Security appropriations

Today we consider the first of these appropriations bills, H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004. This is a landmark occasion: the first separate appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which consolidates 22 Federal agencies and is expected to reach 180,000 employees.

The spending levels in this important measure are consistent with the limits for fiscal year 2004. The bill provides $29.4 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 2004, an increase of $8.1 billion or 38 percent above last year's level. Much of this increase is for Border and Transportation, Emergency Preparedness, Informational Analysis and the Coast Guard. With total fiscal year 2004 appropriations equal to the allocation for the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the bill complies with the Congressional Budget Act.

The bill does provide an advance appropriation for Bioshield in fiscal year 2005, however, that is not permitted under the terms of the budget resolution.

H.R. 2555 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which are exempt from budget limits. Nor does it rescind any previously appropriated BA.

This bill demonstrates Congress' unflinching commitment to win the war against terrorism.

Consistent with the Budget Resolution, the bill provides resources above the President's request in areas like Border and Transportation Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response, and Science and Technology. This bill will enhance the Nation's ability to secure our borders, protect lives and property, and disrupt terrorist financing.

The bill also provides appropriations for the acquisition of various countermeasures against nuclear, radiological and biological threats. The authorization for these countermeasures has been reported by the Energy and Commerce and Government Reform Committees and will be acted upon by the Homeland Security Committee later this week.

bioshield

I am pleased the Appropriations and authorizing committees were able to meet a critical need in the fiscally responsible manner outlined in the budget resolution. Rather than create another entitlement program, the program was kept fully within the oversight of the Appropriations Committees. In order to give the administration the assurance of adequate funding in the outyears, the bill provides advance appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2013.

My only concern with this approach is that some might be tempted to exploit the fact that much of the advance of appropriations are scored in fiscal year 2005 on the expectation they will spend out over time by reducing that amount in 2005 to achieve spurious savings. I take it in good faith that the Appropriations Committee will leave these funds untouched in fiscal year 2005 so they will be available as the need arises in subsequent years.

closing

As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman Young and all our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best as we strive to meet the needs of the American public within the framework established by the budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004. The authority to make these adjustments is derived from Section 404 of H. Con. Res. 95 (H. Rept. 108-71).

As reported, H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, provides new budget authority of $890,000,000 for medical countermeasures against biological terror attacks. That appropriation would be authorized under a bill (H.R. 2122) that has been reported to the House by the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Government Reform. Section 404 of the budget resolution permits the Chairman of the Budget Committee to increase the allocation to the House committee that provides such budget authority pursuant to a reported authorization bill in an amount not to exceed $890,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and outlays flowing therefrom.

While I am concerned that the reported bill provides an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2005 of $2.528 billion that, if enacted, could be limited next year to achieve budgetary savings for the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, I will exercise my discretion under the budget resolution and increase the fiscal year 2004 allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations since the requirements of Section 404 of the budget resolution have been met. I therefore increase the fiscal year 2004 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations by $890,000,000 in new budget authority and $258,000,000 in outlays, making the allocation to that Committee $785,565,000,000 in budget authority and $861,342,000,000 in outlays.

Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.